Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
02/24/2005 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| SB42 | |
| HB69 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 69-PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 69 "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 Native family assistance programs; relating to assignment of child support by Alaska Native family assistance recipients; relating to paternity determinations and genetic testing involving recipients of assistance under Alaska Native family assistance programs; and providing for an effective date." KATHARINE FARNHAM, Director, Division of Public Assistance, (Division), Department of Health and Social Services, stated that she and the Division support HB 69. She explained that the Native Family Assistance Program, (NFAP), is a state complement to tribal temporary assistance programs. She continued: Federal law has allowed, since 1996, tribal programs to get direct federal block grants for public assistance. For those programs to be fair and equitable, in the same way the state would have served them, a state supplement in the form of the Native Family Assistance Program grants has been offered. In the legislature in 2000, the legislature chose to go ahead and pass this program, however, to put a "sunset" on it for June of '05 ... to request that a report be written to evaluate how successful the program may have been and ... to limit it to only 4 of the 13 federally authorized entities. 13 entities were authorized by the federal Welfare Reform Act and those were the 12 Native regional non-profits and Metlakatla. In the bill passed in 2000, that was restricted to Tanana Chief's Conference, Association of Village Council Presidents, Tlingit and Haida and Metlakatla ... 3 of them have been ... operating a Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, (TANF), program since '99, 2000, or 2001 depending on when they started up. The report ... does include the explanations on the nature of the project, the way that they have been able to take those federal and state programs and be very successful. The whole emphasis on all of these temporary assistance programs is put people to work, people moving from public assistance, to self-sufficiency ... we're pleased with the results of those pilot years and we'd like to see the bill made permanent rather than temporary, and "sunsetting." The other thing that this bill does is it expands it to the full 13, therefore matching the federal authorities. It's not that all 13 are going to immediately come on board and ask or seek to run a tribal TANF program, however, there are a few ... waiting in support of this expansion and ... those that are in the wings include Cook Inlet Tribal Council. We've been working with them ... we, the [Department of Health and Social Services] and the Division, have been working with Cook Inlet for about 9 months in preparation for them running a tribal TANF program in the Anchorage area ... for all Alaska Natives and American Indians in the Anchorage area ... that would be a significant, new tribal TANF partner ... and takes a little over 700 cases from the State of Alaska and puts them with Cook Inlet. This is not completely new to Cook Inlet ... they have been a contractor for the state on the case management aspects of this work for a number of years and been highly successful. The fiscal note, attached to this bill, pertains to the Cook Inlet addition. The rest of the budget is already in the fiscal year '06 governor's budget, which would assume continuation for the three existing programs ... later in '06, we anticipate discussions with two other smaller, Native regional organizations because they've expressed their interest formally with the federal government and ourselves ... Bristol Bay Native Association and Maniilaq. The two of those together are relatively small so they are not that significant and at this point too early in the planning stages to know when and if that will ever take effect, as compared to Cook Inlet. 3:34:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to fiscal note 3, showing a general fund (GF) match of $3,685,000, and asked, "is most of this state GF match?" MS. FARNHAM said that when the TANF program for residents is run as a state program, there is a maintenance of effort, which is general fund match. She pointed out, "when it becomes a tribal program, and we can ... give them some state monies, we can also count that as "maintenance of effort" for the statewide program ... it was general fund when we were running the state program and, yes, the Native Family Assistance Program is funded by general fund, and it does count as our "maintenance of effort"." In response to Chair Wilson's comment, Ms. Farnham stated that the general fund portion is being moved from the temporary assistance component to the Native Family Assistance component. She highlighted a summary on the bottom of all four fiscal notes: the tribal assistance total of $4,000,093 ... it's got two components: a general fund and an interagency piece ... that's an addition in tribal assistance but that's also a reduction in the line item above ATAP (Alaska Temporary Assistance Program). There's other ATAP reductions but they're inside there, the amount of general fund that used to go to ATAP for Cook Inlet Families, now goes to Cook Inlet. 3:36:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to any negative aspects of the TANF program. MS. FARNHAM related that there is a need to watch out for organizations taking on all of the responsibilities associated with a Tribal TANF program. She explained that the areas where challenges were observed, pertained to the complexity of the "IT" [Information Technology] systems and federal reporting. She continued: and some of these organizations did not have a state "IT" department to help them produce perfect reports so the state helped in some early years with some funds for "IT" systems, however, the lessons learned now tell us perhaps a better solution is to allow them to utilize the state system. And, in fact, the Cook Inlet Tribal Council implementation is designed with that in mind, where they actually utilize our technology ... and it works, and we are developing a arrangements to share that system. MS. FARNHAM said that some of the other existing grantees, specifically Tanana Chiefs, are interested in moving away from their own system to follow the Cook Inlet approach. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to training for new workers. MS. FARNHAM stated that the complexities of eligibility determination are significant. The training program is robust, she said, because there are hundreds of staff who need to know intricate details about eligibility; training resources are available to the new start-ups. She explained that the goal with Cook Inlet is, eventually they build their own capacity and on an ongoing basis they can do mentoring and development with knowledgeable staff. She said that there may be policy changes in the future as TANF approaches federal reauthorization. 3:41:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING questioned if general fund monies support these programs. MS. FARNHAM stated that the program has a "maintenance of effort" at a statewide level at 75 percent, and that is true of both the state programs and the tribal programs. In response to Representative Kohring, Ms. Farnham explained that the $5.7 million in the summary table of the fiscal note is a reduction to general funds. She referred to fiscal note 3: it shows that the reduction of general funds comes in 2 pieces. The first piece is merely a transfer from our ATAP component over to our tribal assistance, that's a transfer of $3.685, however, because the federal block grant of the state's does shrink, so too does our "maintenance of effort floor" ... the federal block grant that moves to Cook Inlet reduces the state's block grant and allows us to lower our maintenance of effort floor and that's the $2,000,070 reduction ... so, two general fund reductions there of this component, one of which is a true reduction, the other is a transfer ... resulting in a net fiscal impact ... of a $2,000,000 general fund reduction. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING asked what is being done to discourage people from going on welfare and what is the Division doing to encourage those that are on welfare, to get off of it. MS. FARNHAM said that the Division focuses on employment from the moment a client seeks services. The programs offered include: "job search," subsidized employment with an employer, "work readiness training," and "job club." She explained that the Division is taking some of the money saved from what was used to pay for cash assistance, and reinvesting it as a preventative measure. She said that the Division's funds are invested into the kinds of preventative measures that enable low-income families to avoid public assistance in the first place, with work-readiness related activities. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING asked why the program had to be enshrined in law as opposed to replacing the "sunset" date. He opined that the program could be re-evaluated for its effectiveness in another five years. MS. FARNHAM suggested that it would be wise to enforce a permanent statute comparable to the federal statute. The federal statute is permanent, she said, and it will allow the tribe and the state to continue to receive the temporary assistance federal block grants. She said that the uncertainty associated with the state match does create some unease for some organizations. She explained that the Division has not contemplated what might happen if the state program ended and the federal program continued. In this case, she pointed out, tribal organizations would see a reduction in their available resources and potentially return programs back to the state to run. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that Alaska is behind all of the other states in the country that have [temporary assistance] programs. She explained that in other states, the numbers of people transitioning off of public assistance and into the workforce have increased and eventually reach a plateau; Alaska is still transitioning and continues to make steady progress. 3:46:37 PM MS. FARNHAM stated that one of the reasons that Alaska successfully continues to reduce caseloads is because of the strong community based programs that the tribal organizations offer. She explained that the Division's programs combined with tribal programs have greater flexibility than state programs. She pointed out that Alaska is doing well and is in its third year receiving a high performance bonus for continuing to move families off [of public assistance]. She emphasized that the hardest to serve families require different strategies. She opined that a public assistance program is a viable need on an ongoing basis and making it permanent allows the tribes to understand the stability of their funding in the same way that the state can. 3:48:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that there are not as many incentives to work for many of the recipients and that translates to borough organization bills. He stated: I think the bill is important in terms of funding and I think your responses were fair, but ... as ... finances wane ... and we're looking at where we spend excess monies, and where are the incentives for jobs ... we think more in the foundational level which is, "why can't we reduce this in half or more," ... regardless of ethnicity, or federal mandates, or owing ... I am glad you recognize, that as legislators, it's good to supplement these with ... success stories ... REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING noted his overall concern about this legislation. He opined that this is yet another social program, more welfare, more government subsidies, and more taxpayer subsidies. He advocated for a law that would require some repayment for services received by the state. He pointed out that if gainful employment is achieved, then taxpayers could be reimbursed. He inquired as to the development of a program focused on repayment. MS. FARNHAM clarified that this [TANF] is a federal program and that a repayment program has not been considered at the federal level. She underscored that a simple look at the situation would say that this is another welfare program, but this [program] is saving state dollars. She emphasized that it is a more efficient approach to providing a necessary service, "while all the time we are putting people into self-sufficient jobs, we are able to take the savings and make sure future families don't end up on welfare." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that though he understands the reasoning behind trying to reduce [spending], this [HB 69] is one way to reduce money spent and keep the number of state workers at a minimum. 3:54:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that this was the first time that local groups were allowed to administer [assistance] programs. She said that finally, there is less privatizing and more emphasis on promoting local solutions. She opined that [HB 69] should be celebrated as it demonstrates this change. MS. FARNHAM stated that the tribal organizations are the first to take on the full scale of temporary assistance from eligibility to case management, to employment, and retention services; they are working well because the people in the local areas know their community, their economy, and their employers better than the Division. She said that she is proud of the success of the Division. She mentioned that it is not just about Native organizations. In the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, where the Association of Village Council Presidents has a tribal TANF program, she explained, they run the entire TANF program for the region. She explained that the state is not out there, alongside them, replicating or duplicating; they are serving both Natives and non-Natives. She said that Bristol Bay could develop similarly, because the [tribal organizations] have a much stronger presence in that region, and some are successfully serving the region, not just their shareholders. 3:57:16 PM DEAN GEORGE, TANF Coordinator, Tlingit-Haida Central Council, stated that he represents the Central Council and presented the packet entitled, "Testimony on Native Family Assistance Program." He explained that the packet was compiled by Sharon Olsen, Director of Employment & Training for the Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. He offered to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to Mr. George's opinion of why local [public assistance] solutions are working more efficiently and accomplishing more than state run programs. MR. GEORGE stated that as coordinator, he has seen the success of a local presence. He explained that the familiarity and personal contact has brought individuals to the tribe to get needed services when they may not have utilized state services before. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER mentioned that in Mr. George's report, the total number of people served drops consistently from one month to the next. She pointed out that the number of people served increases from June to July. She inquired as to why more people would request assistance in the summer. MR. GEORGE said that there weren't reportable statistics on the number of different reporting elements and many of the statistics were combined into one category. In order to answer the question, he said, it would be necessary to go back and take a look to find out. 4:02:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered that her business was always slow in the summer. She said that jobs are sometimes scarce and there isn't work available. MR. GEORGE added that the other thing is the [value of] having that familiar face and this might be one of those peaks where some people looked at the tribal TANF program and said, "Now I believe I can get either service or get the service I need." MOLLY MERRITT-DUREN, Director, Employment and Training Services, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, stated that she is in support of HB 69. She explained that Cook Inlet Tribal Council is a "home away from home" for all Alaska Natives and American Indians that live in the Anchorage area. She said that the Council currently has programs that include employment and training, substance abuse services, family services, youth employment in school and out of school youth programs. She pointed out that the Council intends to, if approved, move its tribal TANF program into its employment and training services because the focus is the potential of the Council's people. She stated that the Council believes employment is the key. MS. MERRITT-DUREN stated that the Council has been providing TANF case management for eight years, as a state vendor. She explained: when you negotiate with the federal government and in the state government, you go back to the 1994 caseload. And the 1994 caseload, in the Anchorage area, was 1,123. Currently ... [the caseload is] 692. Basically, during that same period, Alaska Natives and American Indians on the ... 1990 census were listed as 12,000. On the 2000 census, if you count Alaska Native, American Indians, and others ... that's at 46,000 ... during that time period, while we did case management for the state, we brought that caseload down by 62 percent, with a huge influx ... in addition, Cook Inlet Tribal Council provides "IT" services and accounting services for 39 non-profit agencies ... so we have the infrastructure, we have the experience ... in regard to comparability and accountability ... as a vendor for the state, or whether we become a tribal TANF provider, we're still held to the 5 year limit for people to be on services ... it's a big responsibility to take on a program like this, but we think we're poised, we're ready, we're experienced ... 4:07:29 PM CHAIR WILSON inquired as to the history of Cook Inlet Tribal Council and how successful it was when it took over for the state. She said that she is curious about what should be anticipated with the changeover to locally run programs. MS. MERRITT-DUREN stated that at the national level there is an increase [in the amount of people seeking assistance] when local organizations take over state programs. She said that the Council can wrap around services because we're not a "Silo" funding source and through the Council's board of directors and public block 477, can put funds into system wrap around services. She explained that the life skills of transitioning from rural to urban need to be addressed, as well as substance abuse issues; it is more difficult to address these issues under state guidelines than it is under tribal TANF. She opined that tribal TANF programs can deal with core issues effectively. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that it is really hard to track success with programs that come and go because of unreliable funding. She advocated for a stable, local based operation that wraps around and serves the whole person. She inquired as to the Council conducting assessments that use multiple approaches for long-term effectiveness, so that there is a record of a model that works and can be replicated elsewhere in the state. 4:11:27 PM MS. MERRITT-DUREN stated that she would be delighted to conduct assessments and eventually create a model. She said that within her department [Employment and Training Services] there are many services available that could serve as good models. She explained that the Council has developed a central intake process with state partners and when it becomes tribal TANF; there will be one intake to record all eligibility. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that she would like to meet with Ms. Merritt-Duren and make [the Council's] recorded information available to the legislature. 4:13:47 PM DON SHIRCEL, Director, Family Services Division, Tanana Chiefs Conference, (TCC), stated that he strongly supports the intent of HB 69 as a social service professional and program planner. He said that it makes a lot of sense to locally design and administer services such as those provided under temporary assistance programming. He related that TCC's tribally administered program is currently in its seventh year of operation, and the tribes of the Interior are proud of the accomplishments they have collectively made to date in getting people from welfare to work. He stated that the report to the legislature, prepared by the "Division," indicates that what the Native Family Assistance has been doing includes getting people to work in Alaska's urban areas, and in some of the most economically challenged rural areas of the state. He opined that the report and the outcomes achieved through this pilot program indicate that the state and the tribes are headed in the right direction. He continued: HB 69 enables us to collectively and collaboratively stay [on] what clearly appears to be a good course. Overall, HB 69 simply allows for the continuation of local program variations and innovations that make sense to people of diverse regions of the state. The chances of achieving positive outcomes are greatly increased if the programs and services we provide are fairly, equitably and locally administered and make sense to the people they serve. HB 69 is about common sense, get-to-work programming that fits, but it's about a lot more than that. HB 69 is about a sense of community, about local control, encouraging family and cultural values, marriage, fatherhood, work, self- sufficiency and individual responsibility ... it's about outcomes, and creative ways to achieve them. It's about getting a bigger bang for the same buck and even about reducing the state's general fund expenditures. It's about the 33 million dollars saved in state general funds in the past 5 years alone because of the Native Family Assistance Program, with a potential to save even more over the next five years and into the future. To us, HB 69 is about continuing one of the most successful collaborative partnerships between the states and the tribes to date; HB 69 is about work and it's about working together. If there is one shortcoming of the bill, it would be that HB 69 includes no specific reference to child support enforcement programs that may be administered by a tribe. The landmark Welfare Reform legislation that enabled tribes to design and administer their own temporary assistance programs also enable tribes to administer their own child support enforcement programming. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has already approved a plan for the central council's Tlingit and Haida tribe to start up a tribally administered child support enforcement program and tribes in the Tanana Chief's Conference service area and the Association of Village Council Presidents are pursuing the similar course. We hope that the current mechanisms in place with the state's child support enforcement division to honor foreign orders, will be sufficient to allow tribal child support enforcement programs adequate articulation with the state, and that the child support enforcement related provisions in HB 69 will not be a detriment to the future development of these programs. Aside from this concern, TCC fully supports the overall intent of the bill. Our collective experience ... we feel indicates that we, the tribes and the state, are headed in the right direction. CHAIR WILSON inquired as to the child support enforcement program and if it is working in other areas. MR. SHIRCEL stated that there are six original tribal child support enforcement programs throughout the country that were grandfathered in, pending the final rule, which was recently published last spring. He said that all of the existing programs were in the lower 48. 4:19:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 69 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying four, attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for the purpose of discussion. He said that he would like to discuss the last point that was made on tribal support. He directed his question to Ms. Farnham and inquired as to the incorporation of tribal child support enforcement [to HB 69] and whether it is a necessary add on. 4:20:26 PM MS. FARNHAM stated that she is not an expert on child support programs, but can understand the reasoning associated with if it is run community based or culturally relevant. She explained that after speaking with the director of the Child Support Enforcement Division, (CSED), in Alaska, in the Department of Revenue, it was decided that HB 69 was not an appropriate vehicle to solve the question. She said that if, in fact, the tribes in Alaska are going to move forward with tribal child support, that will take more than an adjustment to this bill. This bill deals specifically with the NAFP and TANF programs, she related, and the only reference to child support is that there is a relationship between child support and TANF that has to occur if there will be future changes regarding tribal child support. She opined that it will take a full discussion, and it is not necessarily allowed or stopped by HB 69. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON clarified that adding an amendment [regarding the child enforcement program] to this bill would make it difficult to accomplish the original "work partnership" goal of HB 69. MS. FARNHAM stated that she agreed with Representative Anderson's comments. 4:23:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his previously stated objection. Therefore, HB 69 was reported out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying four attached fiscal notes by the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|