Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview of Department of Health and Social Services; Maintenance of Effort and Formula Programs | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 19, 2016
1:38 p.m.
1:38:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Kawasaki
ALSO PRESENT
Sana Efird, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Health
and Social Services; Shawnda O'Brien, Administrative
Operations Manager, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services; Monica Mitchell,
Policy & Planning Chief, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services.
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES;
MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT AND FORMULA PROGRAMS.
Co-Chair Neuman reviewed the agenda for the day.
1:41:10 PM
^OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES;
MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT AND FORMULA PROGRAMS
SANA EFIRD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, introduced the PowerPoint
Presentation: "Maintenance of Effort Presentation" dated
February 19, 2016 (copy on file).
Ms. Efird began with slide 2: "Definitions":
· Maintenance of Effort (MOE): A requirement by the
federal government that the state continue
funding certain programs at a specified level.
· Match: State general funds expended for the state
to receive federal receipts.
· The greatest state obligation for MOE in the
department is in the Division of Public
Assistance budget.
· Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
· Adult Public Assistance
Ms. Efird indicated that the difference between MOE and
match money was that a match required the state to spend a
dollar to receive a dollar.
SHAWNDA O'BRIEN, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER,
DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES, turned to slide 3: "Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families":
· The program was created under the name Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) by the
Social Security Act of 1935
· Passed by the 3rd State Legislature in Alaska in
1964
· Became Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) in 1997
1:44:53 PM
Ms. O'Brien advanced to slide 4: "Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families":
· Each state receives a fixed annual amount of
federal TANF, technically known as the State
Family Assistance Grant (SFAG) but generally
referred to as the TANF block grant.
· The amount allocated to each state is in
accordance with the 1996 welfare law, based on
the amount of funding each state was receiving in
AFDC and related programs before 1996.
Ms. O'Brien explained that the TANF funding was shared with
the Native Family assistance programs. In addition, seven
tribal organizations also received federal funding separate
from the state and managed the programs themselves.
Ms. O'Brien pointed to the chart on slide 5: "Caseload
Summary for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." She
related that the chart contained caseload history. In 1994,
13,209 families received TANF and the number dropped
significantly to 3,170 in 2015; about 10 thousand
caseloads.
Ms. O'Brien scrolled to slide 6: "Alaska's FFY2016 TANF
Award $63,609.1." She noted that the pie chart represented
a visual interpretation of how the award was distributed:
· FFY2015 State of Alaska TANF Award$44,607.4
· FFY15 Federal TANF Award to Tribes $19,001.7
29.8%
Awards to Tribes beginning in FFY 1999
-Tanana Chief's Council
-Association of Village Council Presidents
-Cook Inlet Tribal Council
-Bristol Bay Native Association
-Kodiak Area Native Association
-Maniilaq
-Central Council Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes
Ms. O'Brien discussed slide 7: "State of Alaska FFY2016
TANF Award $44,607.4." She highlighted the figures on the
pie chart:
· Child Care Block Grant $8,921.5
· Social Service Block Grant $4,460.7
· Balance for Program $31,225.2
·
Ms. O'Brien turned to slide 8: "How Alaska Uses the TANF
Funds":
· Basic Assistance Payment: 46% of total funding
· Benefits to meet a family's ongoing basic
needs for food, clothing, shelter,
utilities, household goods, etc.
· Work Efforts 14.5% of total funding
· Subsidized employment, education and
training, work experience and community
services, job search and job readiness,
transportation supports, etc.
· Child Care 28.7% of total funding
· Child care for families that need child care
to work or participate in work activities.
· Other Supports
· Domestic violence services, health, mental
health, substance abuse and disability
services, housing counseling services, and
other family supports.
· Administrative Cap 15% Cap
Ms. O'Brien relayed that the spending cap included MOE
spend as well as spending on federal dollars. Alaska
historically, spent below the 15 percent cap. The state
spent more than other states on work efforts funding.
1:49:42 PM
Ms. O'Brien continued to slide 9: "Work Effort Requirements
for TANF":
· The TANF program requires a family member to
participate in work activities in order to remain
eligible.
· Work Participation rates:
· Requires states to engage 50% of all
families and 90% of two-parent families in
work activities.
· Alaska has met the "all-families"
participation rate for all years since 2002
except 2012.
Ms. O'Brien explained that the state struggled with meeting
the 90 percent participation rate requirement.
1:50:23 PM
Ms. O'Brien discussed slide 10: "Maintenance of Effort for
TANF":
Defined as: "a requirement that a State spend at least
a specified amount of State funds for Federal
assistance program purposes."
45 CFR 263.8
A penalty is imposed on State's for failing to satisfy
the Maintenance of Effort requirements. The penalty is
equal to the amount of MOE that is not met and a
reduction to the award in the following fiscal year.
Ms. O'Brien indicated that as caseloads declined the
division was attempting to find ways to satisfy the MOE
requirements outside of GF and that the effort was
challenging.
Ms. O'Brien advanced to slide 11: "Federal Citation for
calculations of Maintenance of Effort":
· By federal regulation the minimum basic
Maintenance of Effort for the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families is 80% of the
State's historic State expenditures.
· Award to the State is reduced by the amount
awarded to the tribes.
Ms. O'Brien discussed Slide 12: "Federal Formula for
Determining Maintenance of Effort."
Alaska's Maintenance of Effort is currently at
$36,610.2 as per the following formula using 80% of
historic state spending as previously defined and
reduced by the percentage that is awarded to the
Tribes:
$52,205.2 -1994 Historic State Spending
-$15,595.0 - (29.8276% of $52,205.2)
$36,610.2 Alaska's MOE Requirement for TANF
Ms. O'Brien scrolled to slide 13: "Maintenance of Effort
for Medicaid":
· In order to receive federal Medicaid funds,
Alaska must maintain Adult Public Assistance
(APA) expenditures consistent with 20 CFR
416.2099 section (c).
· The state may use one of two methods.
Ms. O'Brien explained that expenditures were historically
declined as caseloads lessened. The state was obligated to
continue to spend the Adult Public Assistance (APA) general
funds in order to maintain the state's entire Medicaid
program.
Ms. O'Brien continued to slide 14: "Medicaid Maintenance of
Effort Options":
· Method 1: Maintain prior year Adult Public
Assistance spending levels of $60,178.4.
· Method 2: Maintain payment levels at or above
1983 levels.
· Currently Alaska is using method 1 because it is
the most cost effective for the state.
1:54:44 PM
Ms. O'Brien discussed the pie chart on slide 15: "Public
Assistance UGF $145,352.5."
GF Not used for Matching or MOE $28,822.1 20%
GF Used for TANF MOE $31,974.0 22%
GF used for APA MOE $59,436.5 41%
GF used for Matching $25,119.9 17%
GF by Component used for Maintenance of Effort:
Alaska Temporary Assistance Program -$13,901.0 UGF
Child Care Benefits -$3,544.8 UGF
Tribal Assistance Programs -$14,278.5 UGF
Work Services -$249.7 UGF
Third Party Contributions for TANF MOE $4,218.1
(Non State)
Adult Public Assistance -$59,436.5
Ms. O'Brien informed the committee that the division was
able to work with non-profit organizations to find third
party contributions to help meet the MOE requirement under
the TANF program.
Ms. O'Brien turned to slide 16: "Public Assistance UGF not
used for MOE or Matching $28,822.1:"
· Senior Benefits Program $20,029.3
· Administrative Support to State Funded Programs
$5,056.1
· Women Infant and Children $391.8
· Child Care Benefits $2,139.5
· General Relief $1,205.4
Ms. O'Brien pointed out that the division's numbers changed
slightly since the budget overview due to adjustments to
the governor's amended budget.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether there were only two
programs that were required to meet MOE. Ms. O'Brien
responded in the negative. She elucidated that she spoke to
the two programs that were residing in the division.
Ms. Efird explained that there were only a few other
programs in the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) that required a small amount of MOE. She elaborated
that a small amount was required in Senior Disabilities
Services, and a piece in the Division of Behavioral Health
for the Behavioral Health Division for a federal grant for
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
She explained that the reason the department focused on the
public assistance division because the programs were close
to not meeting the TANF MOE. She reiterated that the total
MOE was over $36.6 million and the department identified
roughly $31.2 million of GF that the state spent on MOE.
The department searched for funding outside of state
spending that was allowed under federal guidelines as
meeting MOE requirements. The amount totaled approximately
$4.2 million. The effort continued and DHSS was attempting
to identify GF funding used by other state agencies that
could qualify as MOE funding.
1:59:13 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether it was difficult to track
maintenance of effort spending. Ms. Efird replied that DHSS
was able to track the funding via codes in the accounting
system. Ms. O'Brien explained that the department tracked
expenditures on a quarterly basis. The data identified
actual expenditures versus projected caseloads and
projected expenditures based on caseloads specifically for
the TANF program. The division reported to the federal
government on a quarterly basis. The division had fairly
good data that was provided by the research and analysis
unit that helped monitor the amount of expenditure that
should be spent at a given time.
Co-Chair Neuman cited the department's efforts to identify
funds from third parties. He mentioned that the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) had a homeless
assistance program. He wondered whether the department had
inquired with AHFC to determine whether it's funding
qualified as MOE funding. Ms. Efird responded affirmatively
and noted that it appeared positive. She noted that DHSS
must prove and meet the qualification that the funding was
used for TANF families or recipients. The department was
currently working on verifying that the criterion was met.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Ms. Efird to further explain the AHFC
program. Ms. Efird explained that DHSS would engage in
follow-up meetings along with the division's research unit
to ensure AHFC data matched federal government guidelines
on reporting MOE funding. She was extremely certain that
the AHFC program was serving the same population but
emphasized that confirmation was necessary.
Representative Wilson referred to slide 6 regarding TANF
awards to tribes. She asked whether the tribal recipients
were also eligible for TANF through the department. Ms.
O'Brien responded that the tribal organization maintained
its own TANF programs. The program was similar except for
slight differences in its work activity requirements.
Representative Wilson asked whether the native awards were
exclusively comprised of federal funding. Ms. O'Brien
responded in the affirmative. Representative Wilson
referred to slide 8 and the work efforts. She wondered what
the results were regarding gaining employment. Ms. O'Brien
did not have the exact figures but reported that the
program was successful in "getting people back to work."
Representative Wilson requested an accounting of the
expenditure for training and the number of people that
found work and left the TANF program. She also inquired
what the dollar amount of the 15 percent cap was. Ms.
O'Brien needed to provide the information after the
meeting.
2:05:48 PM
Representative Wilson asked what the actual qualification
criteria for the TANF program was. Ms. O'Brien relayed that
she was not the expert on eligibility. She mentioned that
the program handout contained the details. Representative
Wilson noted that the application had dollar amounts rather
than percentages. She was looking for a percentage and
whether or not the percentage was over federal
requirements.
2:07:22 PM
MONICA MITCHELL, POLICY & PLANNING CHIEF, DIVISION OF
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, offered to provide the information to
the committee after the meeting.
Representative Wilson asked about a provision that required
the TANF funding [for recipients] to end after five years
that provided for many exceptions. She wondered whether the
division had data regarding the number of recipients that
received state TANF funds over 5 years. Ms. O'Brien
answered that approximately 148 cases were receiving TANF
funding over 60 months. She would provide the committee the
dollar figures subsequent to the meeting.
In response to a question by Representative Wilson, Ms.
Mitchell responded that the division performed research
since a prior meeting with the representative and
discovered that no cases over 60 months existed in exempt
villages. Representative Wilson inquired whether the reason
was the recipients were under the TANF tribal awards. Ms.
Mitchell did not know due to lack of access to tribal data.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if she could provide any more
information regarding levels of qualifications. Ms.
Mitchell did not remember the dollar amounts from memory.
Vice-Chair Saddler referenced the 148 cases exceeding the
60 month limit and wondered whether "the cases were
exclusive of exemptions in villages that are specifically
because of their economically disadvantaged villages." Ms.
Mitchell replied in the affirmative. Vice-Chair Saddler
asked her to help members understand the exempt village
concept from the 60 month cap and how many people qualified
for the exemption. Ms. Mitchell explained there were
several exempt villages but she did not have the census
information. She recounted that the villages had to meet a
certain level of unemployment and were located a certain
distance from other areas with a specific low unemployment
rate to qualify for the exemption.
2:10:53 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked what the justification was for
exempting recipients from the lifetime cap. Ms. Mitchell
responded that the unemployment rate was so high it was
extremely difficult for residents to find jobs and that the
rate was determined by the federal government. Vice-Chair
Saddler asked whether there were villages that exceeded the
cap by over two years. Ms. Mitchell answered in the
affirmative and elucidated that the TANF manual contained
the names of the villages and the length of the exemption.
Ms. Efird added that the information was sent to the
committee.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the department could find
other third-parties to assist in meeting the MOE
requirement. He asked how additional assistance would
benefit the program. Ms. Efird replied that the department
was engaged in an effort to identify other third-party
contributions and had retained a contractor to help. She
shared that she had been with the department for more than
three years and each year maintaining MOE efforts increased
in difficulty. She furthered that additional MOE assistance
in GF from other agencies would also enable the department
to access more of the federal TANF grant money. The
department's GF MOE dollars were required before federal
TANF funds could be accessed, therefore employing other
agencies GF for MOE would free up the departments GF funds
for other items.
2:14:20 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked her to repeat the answer. Ms.
Efird explained that the state of Alaska had a $36 million
spend that it had to prove in order to access the states $
44 million in TNAF federal funds. Historically, the
department accomplished the MOE spending requirements
through the expenditures in the public assistance funding.
She detailed that if the department could find other agency
state spending that could qualify for the MOE expenditures
DHSS could reduce its MOE UGF spending and utilized federal
funds to fill the GF that the department did not have to
utilize for MOE. She exemplified that if $10 million of
AHFC GF spending qualified for MOE then the department
would count AHFC funding to meet MOE, reduce the public
assistance UGF funding and backfill it with federal funds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the result would mean more
federal dollars or would it mean more flexible in the use
of existing federal funding. Ms. Efird reiterated her
explanation of how meeting the MOE requirement worked. She
restated that if the department could meet some of the MOE
requirements outside of the departments GF money, the
department could access more of the TANF federal funding
dollars.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered what kind of match the MOE
required. Ms. Efird specified that it was not a match but
rather than designated MOE requirement of $36.6 million in
state or other allowable funds in order to utilize the
total pot of federal TANF funds that was awarded. Co-Chair
Neuman asked whether the state had ever not used the total
pot of money available. Ms. Efird responded affirmatively
because caseloads were lessening. Co-Chair Neuman commented
that people considered federal funds the public's money as
well and perhaps DHSS should be satisfied with the amount
that was necessary. Ms. Efird clarified that the state was
at risk of losing the federal funding and would be required
to pay a penalty.
2:20:02 PM
Representative Gara thought it sounded like the state was
leaving a level of federal money on the table but also
achieving an amount of MOE and was not receiving a penalty.
Ms. Efird responded in the negative. She clarified that
with the caseload dropping the funding expended for TANF
was reducing and DHSS was experiencing difficulty in
meeting the MOE required amount of GF dollars. The
department was seeking other outside expenditures to
qualify for MOE GF. The result would allow DHSS to expend
more federal TANF dollars and less in UGF. Representative
Gara wondered whether more federal funds would be available
or whether the state would use them differently. Ms.
O'Brien explained that the amount of money the state spent
on the program in total had decreased. The goal was to use
more federal dollars as opposed to state GF. The required
MOE amount did not change so the state wanted to enlist GF
dollars that were already being spent on programs in other
agencies that met the TANF requirements for MOE funding.
2:23:40 PM
Representative Gara suggested that the state would not
achieve additional federal dollars but could use the money
for other programs. Ms. Efird agreed with the first part of
his statement. Representative Gara reiterated his question.
Ms. Efird responded that the number of caseloads dropped
but the MOE requirement remained the same. She clarified
that the department was spending more GF money to meet the
MOE requirement that was historically set in federal
regulation. She related that the agency was trying to
identify other state agency GF expenditures that were
already being spent that would meet the MOE requirements
and be counted for DHSS which would allow access to more of
the federal TANF money.
Representative Gara asked about the qualifications for
adult public assistance. Ms. Mitchell replied that the
resource limit for adult public assistance was $2000 and
the individual must be determined as disabled by social
security, blindness, or 65 years of age. The income limit
was about 98 percent of the federal poverty level.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that the state had to provide the
MOE of $36 million but could be reduced if the state found
other third-party funds or outside funds, but the
department had to use the $36 million in state funds first
before federal funds could be accessed. He voiced that DHSS
currently used approximately $10 million out of the $44
million in federal funding. Ms. Efird responded in the
affirmative. She made and additional clarification that
money identified from another agency to help meet the MOE
requirement could not meet another type of MOE required of
the other agency. She stated that double counting was not
permitted.
Representative Wilson asked about the 98 percent poverty
level for adult public assistance and wondered whether it
was a federal guideline. Ms. Mitchell answered that APA was
a state program although an MOE agreement existed with
Social Security. The agreement required the state to spend
the same amount of money as in the previous year or the
state lost all of its Medicaid funding.
2:28:44 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether other state exemptions
existed beside the 5 year TANF limit in state statute. Ms.
Mitchell asked whether she was referring to other
exemptions for the 60 month limit. Representative Wilson
replied in the affirmative. Ms. Mitchell indicated that the
villages were exempt purely based on the unemployment rate.
Recipients not residing in the exempt villages were
exempted via a disable child, or a medical condition that
prevented full time work. She furthered that a doctor's
note was required for the medical exemption. Representative
Wilson asked about the "hold harmless" funds amounting to
$15 million that were not counted as income for the
Permanent Fund Dividend. She wondered whether the funds
were "tied to the TANF funds." Ms. Mitchell responded that
hold harmless funds were mainly tied to the SNAP
(Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) food stamp
program. A waiver through the Food Nutrition Service with
the state allowed up to a four month suspension of a case
if a recipient was over income. The state paid a hold
harmless instead of the federal food stamp money. The hold
harmless payments met a state statute that prohibited a
public assistance recipient to be adversely affected by
receiving the Permanent Fund Dividend. Representative
Wilson wondered why the state would have to pay the $15
million in hold harmless money. Ms. Mitchell indicated the
requirement was state statute. The family would be
adversely affected by the suspension of food stamp money.
Representative Wilson understood the recipient received
more than just food stamp hold harmless funding. Ms.
Mitchell explained that there was another provision that
replaced a month suspension in social security low income
insurance money due to the dividend. Representative Wilson
requested that the legislature should look more closely at
hold harmless provisions.
2:32:45 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the state could draw more money
from the $44 million in federal funds if it was successful
in finding more third-party or other money for the MOE. He
wondered whether the state was leaving money on the table.
Ms. Efird responded in the affirmative. She added that the
state retained the money but was not able to spend it.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered how the federal dollars could
be spent. Ms. Efird responded the funds could be spent
under TANF guidelines. Vice-Chair Saddler deduced that the
department's UGF funding freed up by outside MOE money
could be used for other purposes. Ms. Efird responded in
the affirmative.
2:35:00 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered if the state would be
able to maintain its efforts in the short-term. Ms. Efird
explained that the state was working to identify outside
funding to maintain the TANF federal program at the same
amount. The historic grant of $44 million was predicated on
the state's ability to maintain the $36 million MOE.
Representative Guttenberg recounted that the program was
projected to be status quo. Ms. Efird relayed that he was
correct. She stressed that the outside assistance for MOE
had to meet the federal requirements.
Representative Gara clarified that DHSS only spent $10
million of the $44 million in federal TANF funds. Ms. Efird
responded in the affirmative. Representative Gara asked
whether $34 million was the remainder of the funding. Ms.
O'Brien referred to slide 7 and pointed to the amount of
$31 million [$31,225.2.] identified as the amount spent on
program benefits. The $10 million currently spent was
deducted from the $31 million. She detailed that the
department transferred $8.9 million to Child Care Block
Grants [$8,921.5] and roughly $4 million to Social Service
Block Grant [$4,460.7]. Representative Gara asked whether
the amount of TANF funds DHSS was not able to utilize was
$31 million. Ms. O'Brien answered that approximately $20
million in federal TANF funds was carried forward each year
and the balance continued to either grow or maintain at a
certain level due to caseload decline.
2:40:14 PM
Representative Gara asked how much of the $44 million in
federal TNAF funding was spent each year. Ms. O'Brien
responded the state spent roughly $20 million.
Representative Gara asked for the balance of rolled over
funding. Ms. O'Brien replied that the balance was
approximately $63 million.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the excess federal funds were
due to decreased caseloads and opined that the decrease was
"a good thing." Ms. O'Brien replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether the TANF funds could be
spent on other items. Ms. Efird responded that the money
had to meet the federal TANF guidelines.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether inmates recently released
were able to receive assistance. Ms. Mitchell responded
that there were some prohibitions depending on the crimes
committed. She delineated that drug felonies committed
after 1996 were ineligible for SNAP benefits and for TANF
benefits as well. Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the
department worked with the Department of Corrections (DOC)
to help ex-convicts that were eligible for assistance to
attain it. Ms. Mitchell responded that DHSS recently began
to renew its efforts.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Ms. Efird for monthly updates on the
progress of the efforts. He reported that the legislature
was working on the issue for the last three years and
wanted better results than 68 percent of the 6000 thousand
inmates that qualified for assistance and did not receive
it. Ms. Efird agreed to supply the information.
2:45:29 PM
Co-Chair Neuman referred to slide 10. He wondered whether
the penalty for failing to meet the MOE requirements lasted
for one year. Ms. O'Brien replied in the affirmative. Co-
Chair Neuman asked whether the MOE would be adjusted down.
Ms. O'Brien responded in the negative and added that the
amount would remain the same. She elaborated that the MOE
amount would remain unchanged but the award would be
reduced. Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the state ever
failed to meet the MOE requirement. Ms. O'Brien responded
in the negative.
Representative Wilson asked if both single men and woman
qualified for the programs under discussion. Ms. Mitchell
answered in the affirmative for APA. Representative Wilson
inquired whether the individuals fell under the 60 month
limit. Ms. Mitchell replied that the 60 month rule was not
applicable to APA. Representative Wilson asked what
specific programs a single man or woman ex-convict would
qualify for. Ms. Mitchell responded that they qualified for
food stamps or Medicaid.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that the individuals qualified
for food stamps unless they were convicted of a drug
offense. Ms. Mitchell concurred with the statement.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to slide 8. He thought that
about 12 percent of TANF block grants were used for other
supports such as substance abuse and disability services.
He relayed that many other social needs existed. He
wondered about restrictions on the use of TANF funding for
use on programs for substance abuse and disability
services. Ms. O'Brien responded that as long as the
services were covered under the purposes of TANF and under
the state plan other support programs could be expanded.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether some of the funding for
work efforts could be shifted to substance abuse and
whether the division had any metrics showing better results
if the money was shifted. Ms. O'Brien thought that the work
effort funding was needed to achieve the participation rate
that was federally required. Vice-Chair Saddler stated that
it was not possible to easily shift between the block
grants due to requirements. Ms. O'Brien responded in the
positive. She reiterated that the participation rate was 50
percent for all families and 90 percent for two parent
families and indicated the funding was needed for
compliance.
2:50:30 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler deduced that "a more delicate balance in
the commitment of resources" existed when spending "welfare
money" than he was previously aware of. He referenced slide
7. He clarified that the state was spending $10 million out
of the $31 million balance. Ms. O'Brien replied in the
affirmative.
Representative Guttenberg cited slide 8 and mentioned that
the state was leaving money on the table. He noted that
other programs around the state had waiting lists for its
services. He asked whether the state could expand a service
and the funding would count towards the MOE. He inquired
whether "the support for filling those needs, let's say a
University program, count towards those funds [MOE]." Ms.
O'Brien understood that Representative Guttenberg wondered
whether the state could leverage federal funds under the
TANF program to benefit other programs in the state. She
answered that it was possible if the funds were serving
recipients of the TANF population. Representative
Guttenberg wondered whether currently there was a
"concerted" effort with other agencies to figure out if
other programs qualified for TANF funding. He thought a
coordinated effort should be in place to ensure people had
services. Ms. Efird replied that there was currently "a
concerted effort between agencies to look for many ways to
coordinate and collaborate on programs." She revealed that
the effort in the TANF program over the last two years was
to identify funding that would qualify for the MOE
requirements. She emphasized that in other areas "an
absolute concerted effort" among all agencies was in
progress attempting to identify shared services
possibilities.
2:56:59 PM
Representative Guttenberg observed that on "the native side
of the equation" a number of services were available that
were not under TANF because double counting was prohibited.
He suggested using some of the funds he mentioned as part
of the MOE.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked a general question about whether
there were other standards or criteria besides the MOE that
created a similar situation. Ms. Efird guaranteed that
similar circumstances in other areas of federal grant
awards probably existed. She remarked that she was not the
expert on each grant and reported that the department
received 220 federal grants. Vice-Chair Saddler inquired
whether the TANF was the largest federal grant. Ms. Efird
replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether a father or a mother with
a dependent child qualified for TANF. Ms. Mitchell answered
in the negative. Representative Gara asked whether an
individual with a child in foster care or someone leaving
prison with children count as people with dependent
children under TANF qualifications. Ms. Mitchell did not
believe so. Representative Gara provided a hypothetical
scenario in which a prisoner was released from jail but
parental rights were not terminated. He asked whether the
person qualified. Ms. Mitchell responded that if the parent
was not living with the child the person did not qualify.
Representative Gara asked that once reunited and living
with the child the person would qualify. Ms. Mitchell
answered in the affirmative.
3:01:43 PM
Representative Wilson interjected that if a child was
removed from the home by the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) all of the parent's services were revoked for the
length of time the child was living under OCS placement.
Ms. Mitchell answered that for the programs that required a
dependent child in the home she affirmed that the benefits
were revoked. She could not speak for other programs such
as housing. Representative Wilson relayed that parents that
have their children removed from the home under OCS lost
all benefits including medical and housing benefits. She
understood concerns about prisoners, but was more concerned
with families that lose benefits under the circumstances
and can only get the children returned if they have medical
and housing benefits.
3:02:54 PM
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
3:03:20 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DHSS HFIN MOE Powerpoint SFY2017.pdf |
HFIN 2/19/2016 1:30:00 PM |