Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2001 03:05 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 142-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS CHAIR DYSON announced that the committee would hear HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program; and providing for an effective date." Number 1760 JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), came forth and stated that HB 142 makes amendments to the Alaska temporary assistance program (ATAP), which was created under the welfare reform law in 1996. He said the bill addresses four separate issues related to the law. One of the provisions in the bill is in response to a lawsuit that the state lost. The main provision of the bill deals with the 60-month limit. He explained that [ATAP] provides cash benefits to low-income parents on behalf of their children. Under one of the provisions of the welfare reform law those cash benefits are limited for families to only 60 months, which is the lifetime limit. Both the Congress and the legislature recognized that not everybody who is on temporary assistance is going to be able to get off. MR. NORDLUND stated that Congress said 20 percent of the caseload could be exempt from the five-year limit. It is up to the states to decide who is eligible for the exemptions. When [Alaska] passed ATAP in 1996, the 20 percent requirement was replicated in the state law. He remarked that the real problem is a math problem. The 20 percent applies to the caseload at the time it is looked at. Neither Congress nor the legislature anticipated how much the caseload was going to come down over the course of the last five years. Alaska's caseload in 1994 was about 12,000, and it is anticipated to be around 5,000 for fiscal year 2003. He explained that 20 percent of the 12,000 is approximately 2,400, which is a good amount of people who should get extended. Now the 20 percent has to be applied to the 5,000 figure, which is a 53 percent reduction in the number of people who can be eligible for an exemption. Number 1886 MR. NORDLUND stated that the original bill the governor introduced asked the legislature to get rid of the 20 percent arbitrary cap. [The Division of Public Assistance] thought the best approach for the [Department of Health & Social Services] would be, in regulation, to be able to define very strict, objective criteria as to who could get an extension beyond the 60 months. If [a family] meets the hardship criteria to prevent them from being able to go to work, then that family would get an extension. MR. NORDLUND explained that the bill was open-ended; therefore, in the proposed committee substitute (CS) [Version C, 22- GH1023\C, Lauterbach, 3/20/01] there is a different approach that keeps the 20 percent, but it will be applied to the caseload as it was in 1994, versus the caseload that it is today. He stated that the 1994 figure is the figure that the federal government uses to determine the block grant that [Alaska] receives to run this program. Number 1456 CHAIR DYSON summarized what Mr. Nordlund had explained of the bill. He asked if [DHSS] is committed to putting into regulation information about who can receive a waiver. MR. NORDLUND stated that there is a provision in the bill that allows the department to draft those regulations. He explained that what would be put into regulation would address the families that have barriers such as physical health problems, disabled children or relatives in the home, victims of domestic violence, people who have mental health or substance abuse issues, people with learning disabilities or literacy issues, and those with multiple challenges. MR. NORDLUND continued, stating that under federal law, which is addressed in Section 1, [Version C], people who live in Alaskan Native villages with an unemployment rate of over 50 percent are exempt from the five-year limit. He explained that this was and amendment to the federal law, which Alaska law doesn't reflect; therefore, this would allow Alaska law to come into conformance with federal law. He stated that Section 4 [Version C] is a small change to a section of the law that deals with the requirements of a family's self-sufficiency plan. Every family who receives temporary assistance has to have a family self- sufficiency plan developed for them that charts their course for eventually getting off of welfare. In the original law, people with disabilities were exempt from this, but the [Division of Public Assistance] thinks it is still a good idea to have a plan that would address some of the issues associated with that disability. [The Division of Public Assistance] would work with other agencies that are working with that family to combine that plan. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what Section 4 would eliminate. MR. NORDLUND explained that currently in the law there is an exemption for people who are on the caseload but have a disability from having to have a family self-sufficiency plan. [The Division of Public Assistance] no longer wants them to be exempt. Number 1125 KRISTEN BOMENGEN, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forth to address Section 3 of the bill. She explained that this refers to a decision that was made by the superior court that invalidated a regulation of the department for administering this section of statute. She said the original intent of AS 47.27.015(f) was that when there was higher employment availability in the state for two-parent families, they should be treated differently by reducing their benefits at a time when they might be expected to find employment. The wording that was selected when this was made was the wording that was taken to qualify two-parent families under the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) language, which was "eligibility based on the unemployment of the family's principal wage earner." She stated that with the change in welfare reform, that language disappeared from the federal statute. MS. BOMENGEN stated that taking the discussions during the welfare reform, the department generated a regulation that provided for the exemption of families in which there was a second needy parent who was mentally or physically unable to perform gainful activity. The Jackson family appealed that determination, and the department's hearing officer said that because of the intent of the bill it wasn't necessary for the department to make an evaluation of the unemployment status of a wage earner. That was then appealed to the superior court, which interpreted the language that appeared in the statute and said the regulation that was in place was not adequate and that there needed to be an analysis truer to the language of the law. She stated that the proposal in Section 3 is an effort to rectify the miscasting of language that occurred in the original bill. This would refer to the qualifications for two-parent families and make a consideration for families in which the second needy parent is unable to work. Number 0914 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if, according to Section 3, both parents are unemployed and one is disable in some way. MS. BOMENGEN responded that in the proposed language there will be no reference to unemployment status of either parent. She said there may be a parent who is employed and earning income but still is eligible to receive assistance. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a person who is physically or mentally unable to perform gainful activity receives some sort of check for assistance. MR. NORDLUND answered that if a person was receiving SSI (Supplemental Security Income), then he or she would not be receiving temporary assistance and would not be covered by this program. He added that if there is a two-parent family and one of the parents is disabled, their benefits are not cut. JERRY JACKSON testified via teleconference. He stated: In 1997 we went down south knowing that we would have problems with our child at birth. ... She was born with a (indisc.), without a vagina, clubfoot, spina bifida, (indisc.) at the base of her spine, and associated medical conditions. My wife dealt with these issues for two years and 23 surgeries. We got popped with the cease order reduction in '98. We were left with no choices. We either had to sell our only means of making a living in rural Alaska, which was our fishing permit to pay rent. When it came back in '99 - I had two months before graduating college - we protested this. If I had been able to take a job, I would have. If I had [taken a job], we would have lost medical [coverage] and our Alaska residency. We were between a rock and a hard place. ... These matters are gone for us now, but this piece of legislation will not address those people with special kids that have needs. ... It will put hardship and burden on these parents. This issue was addressed by the court system, and this is only a means of trying to circumvent fixing the situation. ... What I'm hearing is mostly in-state issues. We had to fight for our residency for three years. It's been an uphill battle. My wife was at the hospital more; she was at home. I attended school full-time - graduated with a 3.5 GPA (grade point average). I had no choice. I wish I could have gone to work, I wish I could have made it easier. But to do so would have devastated my family, and we would have lost our residency. CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Jackson if this bill makes it any worse for people in his situation. MR. JACKSON responded that he would think so, if it is the same as in the past, with individual cases not being addressed. Number 0485 NICOLE NELSON, Staff Attorney, Alaska Legal Services Corporation, testified via teleconference. She stated that [Alaska Legal Services Corporation] sees two fundamental problems with HB 142 that will have detrimental impacts on disabled Alaskans. The first problem, she said, concerns Section 1, which proposes to amend seasonal benefit reductions. Alaska Legal Services Corporation represented the Jackson family in the lawsuit, she noted. She explained: The Jacksons are a two-parent family with three children, the youngest of which was born with several birth defects and is severely disabled. Both of the Jackson parents are trying desperately to support their family and still provide proper care for their disabled child. Ms. Jackson was unable to work because her child's disabling condition demanded around-the-clock medical care and attention. These parents realized their family would never become self- sufficient unless Mr. Jackson was able to obtain a higher-paying job. So they followed the family self- sufficiency plan designed for them by the state. This plan required Mr. Jackson to attend a full-time, two- year welding program so that he could get a higher- paying job and support his family. However, when Mr. Jackson was within two months of completing this program, his family received notice that their ATAP benefits would be cut in half for the next three months. Since the family was barely making ends meet without the cut, this reduction meant not only that the family could not meet its most basic needs and face homelessness, but it also jeopardized Mr. Jackson's completion of the welding program and thus moved the family further away from self-sufficiency. The Jacksons asked the state for an exemption from the seasonal benefit reduction, but were told that the state did not have the flexibility to grant such an exemption. Their tragic situation was the basis of the superior court's decision in Jackson v. the State of Alaska. In that case, the superior court held that the regulation which prevented the state from granting the Jacksons an exemption was inconsistent with the seasonal benefit reduction statute, and remanded that case back to the state. With that regulation gone, the state was able to grant the Jacksons an exemption from the seasonal benefit reduction based on their compelling circumstances. Now that the proposed amendment was due, it changed the statute so that it mirrors the restrictive and faulty regulation. And this would take away the state's ability to exempt families with disabled children from the seasonal benefit reduction. Any legislation which would punish families like the Jacksons, who are doing the right thing by both working toward self-sufficiency and taking proper care of their disabled child, simply isn't just. We are asking that you oppose Section 1 of HB 142 [of the original bill] ... or that you carve out an exemption for parents that must provide home care for a disabled child. The second problem with HB 142 is that it mandates that all disabled parents have a self-sufficiency plan in order to get benefits. Currently, disabled persons can and do participate in self-sufficiency planning; however, they are not required to do so in order to receive benefits. There's no evidence to suggest that there has been a problem with this system, and nothing indicates that disabled persons have been abusing it. Without such evidence, there simply is no justification for making it more difficult for people with disabilities to access public benefits. ... We are asking that AS 47.27.030(c)(2) cannot be repealed. Number 0132 MR. NORDLUND explained that there had been a discussion relating to the legislation about benefit cuts, which was an across-the- board cut. Everybody's benefits were going to go down 15 percent from the benefit level established in the statute now. He stated that there were three benefit cuts. One took into consideration housing expenses; the second got rid of allowing the second parent in a two-parent family to receive money; and the third cut 50 percent of the benefits during the three months in the summer because there are more jobs in Alaska then. Also [there were cuts] for two-parent families because, presumably, there is one person who can take care of the children and another can work. He clarified if one of those parents is disabled, then the two-parent benefit cut does not apply. TAPE 01-34, SIDE A Number 0054 MR. NORDLUND stated that from the standpoint of the administration, they didn't like doing benefit cuts, but it was part of the legislative process. The way that the law was drafted was a mistake. Language borrowed from the old AFDC law said [the Division of Public Assistance] had to determine whether the family was unemployed and who the principal wage earner was. That was never the intent; the intent of the legislature was to simply say, "If you are a two-parent family on the program, your benefits get cut in the summer." He said if there is any change, he suggests that [the legislature] go back and look at that policy. CHAIR DYSON asked if [the Division of Public Assistance] is open to fixing the problem that the Jacksons found themselves in. MR. NORDLUND responded that they would consider a situation like the Jackson case. Number 0220 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that in rural Alaska there is no medical attention, not much childcare, and little employment. He stated that he is heartened to hear that people who find themselves in those situations will be benefited. CHAIR DYSON asked if it is impractical for language to be drafted that includes, in the exemptions, a family that is taking care of a child who requires that kind of care. MR. NORDLUND replied that this is a discussion that would have to involve the commissioner of [DHSS]. MS. BOMENGEN stated that this is simply proposed as a fix. The way the statute reads right now is not workable, because the department no longer makes the assessment of unemployment and principal wage earner. This has been framed as a method to restore a status quo. CHAIR DYSON asked if adding a slight change to the law to take care of situations like the Jacksons found themselves in would be a policy shift. MS. BOMENGEN answered yes, that it is a change in how the program has been operated. CHAIR DYSON asked if the title [of the bill] would have to be expanded. MS. BOMENGEN responded that it is a very broad title and she doubts that it would be [changed]. Number 0435 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that she doesn't understand why, if a self-sufficiency plan has already been approved, it would be necessary to go back on it. She asked, if there is a waiver to accept self-sufficiency plans that is fair, whether that is a possible fix. MR. NORDLUND answered that [the Division of Public Assistance] probably made a mistake by not talking adequately with the disability community about that provision. He said the intent is to help [disabled families] move along toward a process of improving their lives. CHAIR DYSON asked if he would be correct in stating that this bill helps get the department out of the 20 percent bind and brings Alaska law into conformity with the federal law. And he asked whether it doesn't do anything to help people who are in the Jacksons' situation, but also doesn't do anything to make it worse for them. MR. NORDLUND stated that he was correct. CHAIR DYSON announced that he was going to suspend the hearing on this bill. He asked whether there could be a change so that two-parent families - one parent of able body and one who has to take care of a profoundly handicapped child - also qualify and are considered as a one-parent family. [HB 142 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|