Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/17/2000 03:02 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 98 - PUB.ASSISTANCE:PROGRAMS/GRANTS/CONTRACTS CHAIRMAN DYSON announced the first order of business as HB 98, "An Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for regional public assistance plans and programs in the state; relating to grants for Alaska tribal family assistance programs; and providing for an effective date." Number 0082 JIM NORDLUND, Director, Central Office, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health & Social Services, came forward to present the bill. He commented that for the last four to five years he has been working on reforming the state's welfare system. He explained one premise of welfare reform - and a main reason for its success - has been that it affords states a great deal of flexibility in designing and operating their programs. In exchange for that flexibility, the federal government capped the amount of money going back to a state in the form of a fixed-block grant. He further explained that, when welfare reform was being discussed from 1994 to 1996, the amount of money that the state and federal governments were spending, particularly for the AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] program, had been skyrocketing. He clarified that AFDC is a cash-assistance program for needy families - the program that was reformed. The program's name was changed in Alaska to ATAP [Alaska Temporary Assistance Program]. The states have been extremely successful in running their programs without dictates from the federal government. As a result, he cited that many who were on public assistance are now working, and that the number of welfare cases has decreased dramatically saving millions of dollars across the nation. MR. NORDLUND stated that the federal welfare reform law allowed for Native organizations and tribes to administer their own welfare programs in the belief that they could administer them in a more culturally relevant way. In Alaska, the 13 Native corporations can run their own programs, which is backed-up in state law in ATAP. MR. NORDLUND explained that in order for a state to be eligible for the fixed-block grant he mentioned earlier, it has to match it through a "maintenance of effort." A maintenance of effort is determined by matching 80 percent of what a state spent for their AFDC program in FY 94. That figure equates to $50 million for the state. However, there is no maintenance of effort requirement for a Native-run program. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Nordlund whether it's correct to say there isn't a requirement for the state to maintain its effort, if it's a Native-run program. MR. NORDLUND replied that's right. There is no supplemental funding in federal law that could be used to match a Native-run program. MR. NORDLUND explained the purpose of HB 98 is to allow the state to match funding that would be coming directly from the federal government and going to the Native organization for their own program. A Native organization submits their plan to the federal government, and if approved, the federal money that used to go to the state would now go directly to the Native organization bypassing the state. He said that is basically half of the money that was used to run the program when the state ran the program. "So what we want to do here through this legislation is to supplement that federal amount with the money that the state is already spending on those clients for those services." Without state funding, Native organizations are left to run their programs with half the money. MR. NORDLUND noted that the federal law says a Native-run program has to be comparable to the state's program, and given the fact that they are operating with only federal money, there is no way the Native organization can really meet that requirement. As a result, the cash-benefit amount would have to be significantly reduced compared to what the state is paying non-Natives, which would not be comparable. It is not likely that the federal government would approve such a plan without state funding. The bill, therefore, would allow the state to fund a Native family assistance program. It's important to note that the funding that would go to a Native-run program is state funding that the state is currently using to serve those Native clients, which is why the department submitted a zero fiscal note. He said, "It's like the same program except it's not run by the state anymore; it's being run by the Native organization." MR. NORDLUND further stated that the TCC [Tanana Chiefs Council, Inc.], which operates in the Interior region, currently runs a Native program with state funds. However, the TCC had to amend their plan to the federal government from what they really wanted in order to be substantially similar to the state's program. The bill would, therefore, allow a Native-run program to depart from the state's program and be somewhat different. MR. NORDLUND concluded that the main reason for the bill is to provide an additional measure of local control, which can be tailored to meet local needs, economies, and cultural circumstances. It would also provide better services for clients and help move them off public assistance and into jobs. Number 0800 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Nordlund what a regional, customized plan would look like. MR. NORDLUND deferred the question to Don Shircel from the TCC, the program administrator. Number 0839 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund whether the supplemental that the state would have to pay to a non-profit [organization] would be equal to the state's share now. MR. NORDLUND replied that's correct. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund whether the federal amount would remain constant. MR. NORDLUND replied, yes, the federal amount has already been determined. It was based on the amount of federal money that the state was spending on those clients in FY 94. The state amount would make up the difference between what a Native-run organization gets from the federal government and what the state spends on serving those same clients. MR. NORDLUND further stated the language in the bill is broad; it refers to being "fair and equitable," which leaves room for negotiation. It is drafted that way because any money that is provided to the Native organizations is money that the department loses. He said, "It's not like we're coming back to the legislature and asking for additional money to make this program work. So we have to make sure that money that goes to Native organizations are basically to service Native clients is essentially being taken away from non-Natives. So we've got to make sure that this is truly fair." Number 0976 REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN asked Mr. Nordlund whether it's correct to say that the state would still have to pay its share if it administered the program. In other words, the Native organizations aren't taking any money away. MR. NORDLUND replied that's correct. Number 1000 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Nordlund whether his division would lose staff since the money going to a regional arm would come out of its budget. MR. NORDLUND replied, yes, the division would probably lose some staff. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Nordlund whether he can afford to lose staff. There are still a large amount of clients in the Anchorage area who would depend upon the division for help. MR. NORDLUND replied no, he is not entirely comfortable with losing staff. He explained that there are four components to the cash that the division would be giving up. They are as follows: 1) Cash-benefits; 2) Child care [services]; 3) Welfare-to-work services; and 4) Administration. MR. NORDLUND further stated the division would have to live with these losses and how they transfer that into the amount of staff is a complicated question. In Anchorage the division administers a temporary assistance program, as well as determines eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, and adult public assistance. In many cases, it's the same worker who determines eligibility for all of these programs. Number 1149 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated he can see the logic and reason for rural Alaska because of their unique circumstances; but he is having difficulty seeing the logic for urban Alaska because of efforts to bring things together with the one-stop-job-centers to help reduce administrative costs. He asked Mr. Nordlund whether the department would be opposed to including language that would exclude major urban areas. MR. NORDLUND replied the department would object to that. He pointed out that the Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) is not interested in this program for many of the same reasons that Representative Kemplen suggested. In the future, however, if the circumstances change, CITC should have the option to participate. They should not be excluded. Number 1271 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund if the time life for the granting process is an annual grant. MR. NORDLUND replied the TCC is under a two-year grant. The department generally likes a two-year grant cycle, but they can be flexible. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund, since a time life is not specified in the bill, would it be left to the department. MR. NORDLUND replied right. He stated that even a two-year grant cycle might need to be amended, if there is a big change in the department's funding source. Number 1320 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Nordlund whether the statute would have to be rewritten, if future legislatures find that it isn't working in terms of funding. MR. NORDLUND replied future legislatures would probably look at the department's Native assistance budget component, which contains the amount of money the department plans to transfer to the Native-run organizations. Number 1374 CHAIRMAN DYSON stated in many cases a family in-need will apply for temporary assistance, and CSED [Child Support Enforcement Division, Department of Revenue] may go after money from the noncustodial parent. He asked Mr. Nordlund what would happen to those monies recovered from CSED. MR. NORDLUND replied the bill is deficient in terms of how child support collections are handled. He explained, in order for a person to receive temporary assistance, any child support collections made on behalf of a family need to be collected to help pay the state back. In other words, if a person receives $500 a month in welfare and receives $250 a month in child support, that $250 would go back to the state. If a person receives $500 a month in welfare and receives more than $500 a month in child support, that person would retain the amount over $500. It is called "an assignment." The bill, however, says that an assignment would go to the state for a Native-run program, when it really is the entity that should be paid back. There is a proposed amendment that says an assignment that used to go to the state could go to the Native organization to help pay back expenses. Number 1544 CHAIRMAN DYSON asked how is it decided how the money that CSED collects is prorated among the various organizations that are funding this. MR. NORDLUND deferred the question to John Mallonee from the Child Support Enforcement Division. The committee took a brief at-ease from 3:30 p.m. to 3:31 p.m. MR. NORDLUND proposed that for the child support collections that are made, the state will recapture its share through an equivalent reduction in the grant amount to the Native organization. The Native organization could pay the state back by writing a check to the state for the amount of the child support collections, but in order to avoid that complicated procedure, it is simply easier for the state to simply offset the grant amount by the equivalent amount of the child support collections made on the state's behalf. Number 1651 CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Nordlund what determines the amount of state money that will go to, in this case, the TCC. MR. NORDLUND explained the process by which the state estimates how much a program needs for this particular program is driven by where the caseload is expected to go. That is not always known either. CHAIRMAN DYSON confirmed it is based upon the number of families or individuals that have applied and been certified as qualified recipients to receive the Native organization's equivalent of the ATAP. MR. NORDLUND agreed it is driven by the estimate of the caseload. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Nordlund if the caseload goes up, does the state contribution go up. Number 1708 MR. NORDLUND explained that currently in the deal the state has with TCC now, it would go up. That is still to be examined. It may be made a block grant instead of making a set amount that would go up or down based upon the size of the caseload. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if it goes up would the legislature see it in the supplemental budget. MR. NORDLUND replied no, the Native organization would be getting a relatively greater share of the amount of money in the budget requested from the legislature. The size of the pie would be the same; the size of TCC's piece of the pie would get larger and the rest of the state's piece would get smaller. He explained the way the funding works with both federal and state money being fixed: the federal amount is predetermined based upon the fixed block grant amount; the state amount is at 80 percent of the FY 94 maintenance of effort level. That is the pie. Based upon regional shifts in the caseload, the benefits follow the client around in that set pie. A piece of that pie is designated for a specific program. The question gets to a complicated part. If TCC's program continues to grow, will the funding follow that increasing pie size or will it be decided to give TCC a set amount of state money regardless of what happens to TCC's caseload. Number 1803 MR. NORDLUND mentioned the state has to live with the amount of money that is provided through the state and federal sources. To suggest that to TCC isn't unreasonable. As a practical matter, there could be excess funds from the rest of the state and TCC could need more money. The best approach for that hasn't been decided. From the legislature's standpoint, regardless of how much money is or isn't given to TCC, the department has to live with a fixed budget. The dilemma is how much money should be provided to Native clients in the Native programs at the expense of the non-Natives. That is one of the tough choices. CHAIRMAN DYSON said he didn't understand about the money being fixed. The state has to give 80 percent of the 1994 level, but there is nothing that says the state couldn't give 300 percent of that. Number 1858 MR. NORDLUND explained the minimum under federal law is 80 percent for Alaska. He admitted the department wouldn't mind if the legislature wanted to give 100 percent. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked why are only the Tanana Chiefs being mentioned. MR. NORDLUND replied he has been a bit unfair to other Native organizations that are interested, but the Tanana Chiefs are mentioned because they actually have a program that is essentially the same as ATAP operating right now. The Tanana Chiefs want this bill to pass so they can depart from ATAP a little bit. Tlingit-Haida Regional Corporation in Southeast Alaska is very interested as is The Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP) that operates in the Bethel area. The AVCP is not as far along in planning as Tlingit-Haida. Mr. Nordlund explained those are the only three organizations out of the 13 Native organizations that seem intent on doing this. Some minor interest from other organizations has been heard; Cook Inlet Tribal Council is not interested. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what prevents the state from getting "cross threaded" with what the federal government is supplying and what the state is supplying. MR. NORDLUND noted that was a concern when the federal welfare law was going through. One of the measures put in the federal law to keep the programs from being "cross threaded" or from being wildly different, was the comparability language. The federal law is trying to recognize that the locally run, more culturally relevant program can be different from the state's program and still be basically the same welfare design. It can be different, but it needs to be comparable. For example, TCC wanted to make the benefit payment to the families 5 percent less than the state's benefit, but that can't be done now because TCC has to offer the benefit that is required under state law, which is a specific amount of money. With that 5 percent, TCC wanted to run drug and alcohol treatment programs for the clients who need that assistance. A 50 percent reduction in payment would not be comparable but a 5 percent reduction with a good reason would be comparable. Number 2044 MR. NORDLUND noted the department is privy to the plan that the Native organization sends to the federal government. With state money involved, there is more leverage making sure the plan fits with the comparability requirement in the law. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the concept for moving the program to the local area is because local is better; it is more responsive if handled in the various areas. He asked if there would be any loss of efficiency having another agency. He hoped it won't withdraw more funds from the eligible clients. MR. NORDLUND agreed the reason for support of HB 98 is because it is a more locally controlled program. In answer to the second part of the question, he would not be entirely truthful if he sat here and told the committee the effect of this bill will lead to more administrative efficiency. It doesn't. No promises are being made about administrative efficiency; what is being said is there is going to be a better program with local control. Number 2135 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if that means that no matter that a little more may be taken off locally, there will be "more bang for the buck." MR. NORDLUND said that is what is hoped for. The state doesn't pretend to know the situation on the rivers in Interior Alaska like TCC does. The state doesn't know the staff in the villages, or the circumstances in the village, or the most effective ways of helping people go to work there. The state believes that TCC can do that job better than the state. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the native organization is running the program, will the non-Natives in the village be able to get some of the temporary assistance through TCC's program or would they have to go through the state program in a larger town. Number 2193 MR. NORDLUND answered that this legislation requires if the Native organization is going to take over the program, it has to take over the whole region. The state doesn't want to get into a situation where the state is doing one village and the Native organization is doing another. That would lead to more administrative inefficiencies than the state wants to bear. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if TCC would be the primary ATAP provider in Fairbanks. MR. NORDLUND answered the situation as it is with TCC right now, and it would continue that TCC has agreed to take over all the Native clients in the region, including Fairbanks. So TCC is running in Fairbanks and the state's program running in Fairbanks. The fact that two agencies are in that urban setting is one of the primary reasons for the comparability language. It avoids a situation of two families living next to each other having wildly different benefits. One of the other things this bill provides is for the state to allow the Native organizations to serve non-Natives as well. Number 2275 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if a Native family in Fairbanks didn't like the TCC's comparability part, and they wanted to do the state's program, would there be a barrier there. MR. NORDLUND answered there would be. A dual eligibility is not allowed. Some families may not like that and could contest it. The way the law is now, TCC is a contractor for the ATAP program and has to run ATAP. If this bill passes, it can run a different program. If a client didn't like the program that was run by TCC, he/she would be told he/she is a Native and under the law has to be served by TCC's program. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed concern and asked questions about providing a culturally relevant program and ending up in court on racial discrimination issues. MR. NORDLUND said he couldn't answer that question, but there is a possibility of that. He pointed out that TCC is not an organization that is immune to political pressure itself. If the program is getting out of alignment from what its shareholders want, then TCC would probably need to make some adjustments to it. TAPE 00-16, SIDE B Number 2356 KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward to answer questions. She explained she has looked into this question. Yes, on one hand one can look at it as a racial classification. Federal case law and federal legislation support a different way of analyzing it as well, which would be to look at it as a quasi-political affiliation that is designed by federal law. It would be the federal TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] legislation and that describes the rights based on the federal trust relationship between the federal government and Alaska Natives. She believes that the legal analysis that would be undertaken here would make an analysis based on a quasi-political affiliation distinction and not a racial distinction. Number 2300 DON SHIRCEL, Director, Family Services, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., came forward and read the following testimony: I have been the Director of Tanana Chiefs Conference Family Services for the past sixteen years. I hold a master of Science degree in Behavioral Disabilities and administer about $8.5 million of the annual $60 million TCC budget of federal health and social services programs. As a social service professional and program planner, I strongly support HB 98. In a state of our unique size, it makes a lot of sense to regionally design and administer temporary assistance programming. House Bill 98 is consistent with the same rationale from which state and federal welfare reform emerged. Programs closest to the people are more responsive, relevant, effective and efficient than large centrally administered "one size fits all" programs planned and administered outside the community. Last month we completed our first year of operation of a regional Native family assistance pilot program that Jim talked about. While it is still too early to fully access the overall success of the project, some of the preliminary statistics indicate that we're headed in the right direction. In January of 1999 when the state fully transitioned the program to TCC there were 440 cases. Last month a year later, our January caseload was 328. Like the state's temporary assistance program, our monthly caseload is at the lowest level its been for the past three years, and that is under the administration by the regional Native nonprofit [organization]. Villages in the interior feel we're headed in the right direction. Our preliminary statistics also indicate that more families receiving temporary assistance, particularly those who live in the rural communities of the Interior, are working for the checks they receive. Village leaders feel really good about that. The state's temporary assistance plan finances one-stop centers with a wide range of services to help people to get off of welfare. But the state plan finances centers only in a handful of Alaska's urban centers. Over the course of the first six months of programming under the Tanana Chiefs' pilot program we developed a community-based service delivery infrastructure that includes 37 existing community-based offices and assigned staff located in one stop centers in each of the rural villages in the Interior. We created them through shared funding with new and prior existing federal funds. These shared staff and facilities are funded through the combined resources of multiple federal programs to minimize administrative cost and maximize the level of collaboration with other support services needed by families seeking to enter the job market. The small community-based service centers serve as a locally accessible, culturally appropriate, single point of entry for families needing assistance and also as the single points of contact for a broad range of regional service providers and employers seeking to get information about their services and employment opportunities to potential clients. The small size of each of these village one-stop service centers allows for personal attention, individualized planning, and services tailored to the needs of each family as well as the accurate, timely, and ongoing monitoring of each client's progress. The TCC Regional Native Family Assistance Program incorporates a service delivery infrastructure in which people are working with people, not paper. They know each other, and they regularly interact as members of the same community and work together toward a common goal to move people on to work and to be more self-sufficient in providing for the needs of their families. Alaska's rural communities through the regional Native nonprofit corporations have been designing programs to better fit the needs of their families. Many have been developing local and regional infrastructures now that rival the state's capacity to provide comparable level of local service delivery, especially in rural remote areas. Villages in the TCC service area feel good about our partnership with the state on this pilot project, but they feel that they could do more and get still a bigger bang out of the buck, the same buck, if they were able to incorporate other regional variations with the temporary assistance programs administered by the regional nonprofits. House Bill 98 would allow Native family assistance programs the degree of flexibility needed to do more with the same program dollar. For instance, under HB 98, the TCC Native family assistance program could incorporate the following standards which have already been planned, developed, discussed and approved through village consensus, but are not permissible under the current state statute. Here they are: what the tribes really wanted to do, what the villages really wanted to do in their plan before we had to revise it, under current statute was, they wanted to have all applicants required ... to undergo alcohol and substance abuse evaluations and follow the recommendations of the evaluation or lose a percentage of their benefit. For those who would comply with the evaluation recommendation within six months, their benefits would be restored and the percentage that was withheld would be returned back to them once they successfully completed treatment. They also wanted to have all parents that were receiving benefits would be required to attend their children's parent/teacher conferences and include their children in regular health screening and immunization programs made available in their community. Failure to do so would result in a small reduction in their benefit for that month. An incentive to get a bigger bang out of that dollar aside from just welfare assistance. Maybe we can do something to help the health and well-being of these children as well. Under the original plan not allowed under current state statute, in two parent households in which domestic violence is a problem, the perpetrator would be required to leave the home and receive counseling, by court order if necessary. He/She could receive a portion of the household benefit only if [he/she] continued counseling outside of the home. Other provisions under the plan that we're not able to incorporate right now would be basically requiring more households required to work at an earlier date. Under the current state statute, households are not required to work until 24 months after entering the program. Villages in the Interior continue to support the recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission especially those related to local control, decreasing dependency, encourage self-sufficiency and developing jobs and local economies. Our experience to date we feel indicates that we're headed in the right direction. We hope you do too. We hope you'll support our efforts by moving this enabling bill out of committee. Thank you. Number 2018 REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN asked if the "one size fits all" wasn't really working in rural Alaska as far as the state running the program. MR. SHIRCEL indicated that was the feel of the village leadership. He believes in the planning process a lot of the discussion centered around those services that were only available in urban areas. Those one-stops, the same dollar the state was using, if combined with some of the other resources that some of the regional infrastructures have been able to develop over time, could create those. The Tanana Chiefs have been able to successfully finance and come out in the black after the first year of start up programming. The TCC were able to fill all the needs of families who needed assistance, get people to start to work for their checks and put together an infrastructure that is decreasing the caseload. Number 1967 REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN said HB 98 would better suit different tribal organizations to reprioritize. In his part of the country, it is not looked on favorably that somebody out of high school, 21 years old, willing and able to work, is receiving assistance. That is one of the biggest complaints he hears from the elders; that is not tribally right, it's a disgrace. That is one of the reason the Natives are losing some respect. MR. SHIRCEL said one of the programs he received the most phone calls from village elders and leaders was the federal low-income, home-energy assistance program. Nothing galls tribal leadership in the villages more than to see a federal, "one size fits all" regulation that says "if you meet a particular income level you are eligible, and we cannot deny you services." Nothing galls those village leaders more than to see some guy pulling up with two cords of wood and delivering them to an 18-year old, low-income individual who meets those federal standards. It doesn't fit; the villages should be able to have flexibility that makes sense. Those community standards are healthy. Number 1895 CHAIRMAN DYSON referred to page 2, line 21 which talks about providing for varying economic conditions; to page 3, line 16 which says nothing about the varying economic conditions; to page 7, line 28 which says nothing about the economic conditions being uniform. He wondered if that is a problem. He asked if it should be consistent so the program can be tailored to the varying economic conditions. MR. SHIRCEL replied he would yield that question to their legal counsel to answer. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Shircel if he wanted to be able to vary the program according to the varying economic conditions. Number 1837 MR. SHIRCEL answered that economy is only one part of the regional variations that this bill really addresses. In looking at a state the size of Alaska and the way things are done in Southeast or the bootstrap philosophies of Alaska's Interior communities, those variances include but are not limited to some of the economic conditions. He is not sure that he is prepared to address Representative Dyson's specific question. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there is a non-Native person in a village, and the tougher measures are in place, and that person doesn't want to be under tribal assistance laws, he/she wants the state to do it, but the Native organization has been designated to work in that area, is it the intention that he/she still has to apply through this regional organization, or is the state going to rescue him/her. He wondered if there would be an inequity and has that possibility been thought through. Number 1770 MR. SHIRCEL said personally, when he is somewhere, he yields to the standards in the community, and that is a reasonable expectation of people in that community to have. In looking at how business is done today, many of the fee agents who take the applications, are taking applications for both the state and Native organizations. Most of the fee agents are Alaska Natives in those villages. Non-Native people are getting their services through the state system through the assistance of those individuals. All the current staff in those one-stop centers in the villages do receive training through the state's fee agent system. He said when they look at their caseload, over half of their caseload is in Fairbanks of those Native families TCC currently serves under the current agreement with the state. Spread out over 38 of other villages, there are the majority of those villages have three or less families receiving public assistance. There is a real attitude in the communities of doing what it takes to provide for the family. He is asking the committee to support healthy attitudes of self sufficiency. Number 1623 SCOTT CALDER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He agreed with Mr. Shircel's testimony. He wasn't sure that Representative Coghill's questions on the barrier issue were answered, and he shares those same concerns. It is unclear to him what type of consistent policy would be in place to deal with both a rural and an urban setting and the possible circumstance of Native and non-Native people either having to deal with only one entity or having to deal with two or more entities being served by this program approach. He thinks the program sounds good. MR. CALDER expressed his concerned about the state possibly enforcing some kind of cash economy approach to regional cultures that could be inappropriate. Perhaps the intent of this legislation is to prevent that from happening by having a more relevant program in place. He pointed out some concerns he had on several points of the legislation and asked the committee for their consideration. Number 1202 TERRI LAUTERBACH, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward to answer questions. She said her concerns were issued in a memo that was distributed to the committee. Number 1155 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read: Page 1, line 4, following "programs;": Insert "relating to assignment of child support by Alaska Native family assistance recipients;" Page 2, following line 12: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 25.27.045 is amended to read: Sec. 25.27.045. Determination of support obligation. The agency may appear in an action seeking an award of support on behalf of a child owed a duty of support, or to enforce a spousal support order if a spousal support obligation has been established and if a support obligation, established with respect to a child of that spouse, is also being administered, and may also appear in an action seeking modification of a support order, decree, or judgment already entered. Action under this section may be undertaken upon application of an obligee, or at the agency's own discretion if the obligor is liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 25.27.120(a) or (b). * Sec. 3. AS 25.27.062(l) is amended to read: (l) Unless modified or terminated by the agency or the court, an order to withhold income under this chapter remains in effect, except as provided in (k) of this section, until the support order is satisfied. The agency or court may not terminate or modify an income withholding order solely on the ground that the obligor has paid all arrearages. Upon satisfaction of a support order, if the order is (1) being enforced by the agency, the agency shall, within 15 working days, notify all persons served by the agency with the income withholding order that withholding is no longer required; if the agency receives money from an obligor under an income withholding order after the underlying support order has been satisfied and the agency was enforcing the support order at the time it became satisfied, the agency shall immediately return the overpayment to the obligor; if the agency fails to return an overpayment as required under this paragraph, the state is liable to the obligor for the amount of the overpayment, plus interest at the rate imposed under AS 43.05.225, and a person or an Alaska Native family assistance program to whom the agency erroneously disbursed the overpayment is liable to the state for the amount disbursed, plus interest at the rate imposed under AS 43.05.225; (2) not being enforced by the agency, the obligor shall file a motion in court requesting termination of the withholding order and serve the motion on the obligee; the court shall enter an order terminating the withholding order if the court determines that the support order has been satisfied; the obligor may deliver a copy of the termination order to persons who were served with the income withholding order; when a termination order is entered, the obligee shall, upon request of the obligor, notify the obligor of all persons who have been served with the income withholding order by the obligee. * Sec. 4. AS 25.27.065(b) is amended to read: (b) When the right to receive child support has been assigned to a governmental entity or an Alaska Native family assistance program, an agreement under (a) of this section that has not been adopted as an administrative order of the agency is not effective during a period when the obligee is receiving assistance under AS 47.27 or from an Alaska Native family assistance program. * Sec. 5. AS 25.27.080(b) is amended to read: (b) The agency on behalf of the custodian, [OR] the state, or an Alaska Native family assistance program shall take all necessary action permitted by law to enforce child support orders so entered, including petitioning the court for orders to aid in the enforcement of child support. * Sec. 6. AS 25.27.120(a) is amended to read: (a) An obligor is liable to the state in the amount of assistance granted under AS 47.07 and AS 47.27, or to an Alaska Native family assistance program that receives a state grant under AS 47.27.071 in the amount of the family assistance provided by the program, to a child to whom the obligor owes a duty of support except that, if a support order has been entered, the liability of the obligor for assistance granted under AS 47.27 or provided by an Alaska Native family assistance program that is receiving a state grant under AS 47.27.071 may not exceed the amount of support provided for in the support order, and, if a medical order of support has been entered, the liability of the obligor for assistance granted under AS 47.07 may not exceed the amount of support provided for in the medical order of support. * Sec. 7. AS 25.27.120(c) is amended to read: (c) Within 30 days after the agency knows the identity and address of an obligor who resides in the state and who is liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program under this section, the agency shall send written notification by certified mail to the obligor and the obligee of the obligor's accruing liability and that the obligor shall make child support payments to the agency. The notice required under this subsection must be in clear, concise, and easily readable language. The notice may accompany other communications by the agency. * Sec. 8. AS 25.27.120(d) is amended to read: (d) If the agency fails to comply with (c) of this section, interest does not accrue on the liability to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program unless a support order or medical support order, as applicable, has been entered. * Sec. 9. AS 25.27.130(a) is amended to read: (a) If the obligor is liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 25.27.120(a) or (b), the state is subrogated to the rights of the obligee to (1) bring an action in the superior court seeking an order of support; (2) proceed under AS 25.27.160 - 25.27.270 to establish a duty of support; or (3) enforce by execution, in accordance with AS 25.27.230 - 25.27.270, or otherwise, a support order entered in favor of the obligee. * Sec. 10. AS 25.27.130(c) is amended to read: (c) The recovery of any amount for which the obligor is liable that exceeds the total assistance granted under AS 47.07 and AS 47.27 or under an Alaska Native family assistance program shall be paid to the obligee. * Sec. 11. AS 25.27.130(d) is amended to read: (d) Except as provided in (f) of this section, if the obligee is not receiving assistance under AS 47.07 or AS 47.27 or under an Alaska Native family assistance program at the time the state recovers money in an action under this section, the recovery of any amount for which the obligor is liable shall be distributed to the obligee for support payments, including medical support payments, that have become due and unpaid since the termination of assistance under AS 47.07, [OR] AS 47.27, or an Alaska Native family assistance program under a support order in favor of the obligee. * Sec. 12. AS 25.27.130(e) is amended to read: (e) After payment to the obligee under (d) of this section, the state may retain or pay to the Alaska Native family assistance program to which support has been assigned an amount not to exceed the total unreimbursed assistance paid on behalf of the obligee under AS 47.07, [OR] AS 47.27, or an Alaska Native family assistance program. * Sec. 13. AS 25.27.140(a) is amended to read: (a) If a [NO] support order has not been entered, the agency may establish paternity and a duty of support using [UTILIZING] the procedures prescribed in AS 25.27.160 - 25.27.220 and may enforce a duty of support using [UTILIZING] the procedure prescribed in AS 25.27.230 - 25.27.270. Action under this subsection may be undertaken upon application of an obligee, or at the agency's own discretion if the obligor is liable to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 25.27.120(a) or (b). * Sec. 14. AS 25.27.165(a) is amended to read: (a) Upon application from a mother, custodian, putative father, or legal custodian of a child, or from a state or an Alaska Native family assistance program, the agency may institute administrative proceedings to determine the paternity of a child born out of wedlock. * Sec. 15. AS 25.27.165(i) is amended to read: (i) The agency may recover any costs it pays for genetic tests required by this section from the putative father unless the testing establishes that the individual is not the father, except that costs may not be recovered from a person who is a recipient of assistance under AS 47.27 (Alaska temporary assistance program) or an Alaska Native family assistance program. * Sec. 16. AS 25.27.170(e) is amended to read: (e) The hearing officer shall consider the following in making a determination under (d) of this section: (1) the needs of the alleged obligee, disregarding the income or assets of the custodian of the alleged obligee; (2) the amount of the alleged obligor's liability to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 25.27.120 if any; (3) the intent of the legislature that children be supported as much as possible by their natural parents; (4) the ability of the alleged obligor to pay. * Sec. 17. AS 25.27.180(b) is amended to read: (b) Liability to the state or an Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 25.27.120 is limited to the amount for which the obligor is found to be responsible under (a) of this section. * Sec. 18. AS 25.27.255(a) is amended to read: (a) The agency shall pay to the obligee all money recovered by the agency from the obligor under an income withholding order except for court costs and money assigned to the agency under AS 25.27.120 - 25.27.130 or to an Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 47.27.040. However, if there is more than one income withholding order under this chapter against an obligor, the agency shall allocate amounts available for withholding in a manner that gives priority to current support up to the limits imposed under 15 U.S.C. 1673(b) (sec. 303(b), Consumer Credit Protection Act). Notwithstanding the priority given to current support, the agency shall establish procedures for allocation of support among obligees so that in no case will the allocation result in a withholding order for one obligee not being implemented." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 3, following line 22: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 22. AS 47.27.040 is amended by adding new subse ction s to read: (d) A participant in an Alaska Native family assistance program that is receiving a state grant under AS 47.27.071 shall assign to the Alaska Native family assistance program, unless the program has elected to require assignment to the state under AS 47.27.071(f), all rights to ongoing child support that accrues after the effective date of the assignment for the support of the individuals in the family for whom assistance is provided, but not to exceed the total amount of assistance paid by the Alaska Native family assistance program to the family. The assignment takes effect when information required under (f) of this section is provided to the child support enforcement agency of the Department of Revenue, following the determination of eligibility. Except with respect to any unpaid support that accrued under the assignment, the assignment terminates when the family ceases to participate in the Alaska Native family assistance program. All assignments to an Alaska Native family assistance program of unpaid child support obligations transfer to the state upon the termination of an Alaska Native family assistance program. (e) An Alaska Native family assistance program participant shall cooperate with the child support enforcement agency of the Department of Revenue in the manner described in (b) of this section in establishing paternity or establishing, modifying, or enforcing a child support order requiring the payment of support by the noncustodial parent for a dependent child for whom assistance is received. The child support enforcement agency shall inform the Alaska Native family assistance program if it determines that the participant is not in good faith compliance with the requirements of (b) of this section. The Alaska Native family assistance program shall determine whether the participant has good cause for refusing to cooperate. (f) An Alaska Native family assistance program that receives assignments of ongoing child support must provide public assistance information concerning those assignments to the child support enforcement agency of the Department of Revenue in a timely manner in order to establish a valid assignment. The information must be provided by electronic means and in a format acceptable to the child support enforcement agency. For the purposes of this subsection, "timely manner" means within the time constraints established for child support agency distributions under federal law." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 6, line 26, following "interest.": Insert "The grant agreement must state that the Alaska Native family assistance program will require all program participants to assign child support rights to the Alaska Native family assistance program under AS 47.27.040, unless the Alaska Native organization elects to require participants to assign those child support rights to the state." Page 9, following line 25: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 26. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: INSTRUCTION TO REVISOR. Notwithstanding sec. 148(c), ch. 87, SLA 1997, and secs. 53 - 54, ch. 132, SLA 1998, the new language added by the amendments made to AS 25.27.120(c), and 25.27.165(a) and (i) by secs. 7, 14, and 15 of this Act shall be retained if sec. 148(c), ch. 87, SLA 1997, and secs. 53 and 54, ch. 132, SLA 1998, take effect." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Page 9, line 26: Delete "immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)" Insert "January 1, 2001" Number 1119 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for purposes of discussion. Number 1099 MR. NORDLUND stated the deficiency in the legislation was noticed last year and the department couldn't go forward until the issue of child support was resolved. State law wasn't clear on how child support distributions would be impacted through a tribal-run program. This amendment allows for the assignment of child support collections that would normally go to the state to go to the Native organization for the clients served by the Native organization. The amendment is quite long, but the first six pages are conforming language and technical changes to provisions in the statutes. MR. NORDLUND explained the heart of the amendment is on pages 6-7. Page 6, line 3, (d) is the part that says the assignment can go to the Native-run program if the Native-run program chooses to have the assignment to their organization. Section (e) makes it clear that a Native-run program, just as the state is required to, will cooperate with the child support enforcement division for the purposes of establishing paternity and for establishing or enforcing child support orders. This is not different from what the state is doing, it just says the Native-run program will do the same. Page 6, line 26, (f) says that the Native-run program needs to provide adequate information in an appropriate format to the Department of Revenue so they can make the appropriate adjustments and distributions. MR. NORDLUND said in response to Ms. Lauterbach's memo, the native-run organizations are going to be the beneficiary of child support collections that used to be collected by the state. The state proposes to be paid back for those collections by taking an appropriate reduction in the grant money given to the Native-run organizations. The language in the bill that talks about funding being "fair and equitable" should cover all the issues. Number 0800 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification on the language in lines 4-7. Number 0674 MR. NORDLUND pointed out that page 6, line 26 answers Representative Coghill's question. The CSED will still be collecting child support from both Native and non-Native families. What they do with the proceeds is the heart of the question. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if what's been actually collected won't be known until a "timely manner." MR. NORDLUND confirmed that the actual amount of the collections won't be known until after they have been made. Number 0478 CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen to comment on his question about varying economic conditions. Number 0457 MS. BOMENGEN said she did have an opportunity to look at that, but she didn't have an opportunity to completely examine the entire thing. Page 2, lines 20-22 of the bill, is addressed towards the provisions in proposed 47.27.072 on page 7, the requirements that allow the department to determined that the plan that has been developed for a particular region can be appropriate for all of those individuals in the region, not necessarily just the participants in the Native organization program. So it may be appropriate to insert language about varying economic conditions in the first sentence in that one provision, but she hasn't had a chance to look at it in the context of the entire bill. She noted there is an inconsistency, and it could be read into the provision of 47.27.072, but it could also be safer to provide the same words in that first sentence on page 7, line 28, that addresses the varying economic conditions as one of two reasons there would be varying economic conditions and to deliver the state's public assistance program. CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Ms. Bomengen if she looked at page 3, line 16. Number 0329 MS. BOMENGEN said she did look at that but it didn't appear to her that the terminology was going to be useful there or that there was a contradiction there. It didn't appear to be inconsistent. Number 0306 The committee took an at-ease from 4:34 p.m.-4:37 p.m. CHAIRMAN DYSON closed the public hearing on HB 98.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|