Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/08/1995 09:07 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
March 8, 1995
9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act establishing a pilot program for charter schools; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act creating the crime of criminal transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."
Presentation by the Division of Public Assistance.
SHES - 3/8/95
SB 98 (PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995) was scheduled, but
not heard on this date.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 88 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
2/22/95 and 3/1/95.
SB 91 - No previous action to record.
SB 98 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Sharp
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SB 88.
Claudia Douglas, President
National Education Association - Alaska (NEA-AK)
114 Second
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the concept of charter schools and
noted some concerns.
Joe Ambrose
Staff to Senator Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 91.
Barbara Brink, Deputy Director
Alaska Public Defender Agency
900 W 5th, No. 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged that SB 91 not be passed.
Randall Burns, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
419 Barrow
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that ACLU opposed SB 91.
Peter Nakamura, MD, MPH
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110610
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 91 and offered possible amendments
if the bill passes.
Deborah Vandruff, Director
Stop AIDS
520 E 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Felt that SB 91 would discourage HIV testing.
Rita De Souza, Executive Director
Alaskans Living with HIV
174 S. Franklin, #208
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Read the letter she intended to send to
newspapers statewide which indicated
opposition to SB 91.
Jim Nordlund, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the briefing document on Public
Assistance Programs.
Curt Lomas
Welfare Reform Program
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered additional information.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-11, SIDE A
SHES - 3/8/95
SB 88 PILOT PROGRAM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS
Number 003
CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:07 a.m. and noted that at
10:00 a.m. there would be a presentation by the Department of
Health & Social Services. She introduced SB 88 as the first order
of business before the committee.
SENATOR MILLER moved to adopt the Ford 3/7/95, version F, CS of
SB 88 in lieu of the original bill. Hearing no objections, it was
adopted.
SENATOR SHARP, prime sponsor, reviewed the changes which had been
incorporated in the CS.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the added language regarding operating
within a public school district meant that all charter schools
under SB 88 would be creations within the public school system.
SENATOR SHARP clarified that a proposal for a charter school must
be approved by the local school board and the commissioner of
education. The charter school would operate under the guidelines
of the school districts.
Number 106
SENATOR ELLIS asked if charter schools would be public or semi-
private schools. SENATOR SHARP said that SB 88 intended for
charter schools to be a form of public schools which have a
different focus or goal. The charter school would be funded by the
public and overseen by the local school board.
SENATOR SALO expressed concern with the type of discrimination that
may be allowed with the students of a charter school. Another
concern is regarding a teacher giving up their contractual rights
in the school district in order to teach at a charter school.
SENATOR SHARP understood that existing contractual rights would be
honored for all personnel who transfer to a charter school.
In response to Senator Salo, Senator Sharp did not foresee how
discrimination could occur unless those applying happened to be
skewed to a certain group. He stated that SB 88 specifies that any
children could apply to a charter school and if there were too many
applicants then lots would be drawn.
SENATOR SALO clarified her concern regarding the possibility that
a child could be discriminated against, denied admission, if they
were a low academic student. SENATOR SHARP did not think so. The
school board would have to approve the methods of the charter
school. He noted the possibility of problems with busing which the
school board would also have to address.
Number 171
SENATOR ELLIS thought that SB 88 would utilize academic
discrimination; a student would have to perform to a certain degree
on an aptitude test in order to be accepted into the charter
school. SENATOR SHARP said that SB 88 does not provide for the
super selection of students for charter schools unless the school
board or commissioner of education approve such selection
standards. Senator Sharp did not foresee their approval of such.
SENATOR ELLIS clarified that if a local board of education and the
commissioner of education approved that a certain score on an
aptitude test would for be allowable for admission requirements
then it would be as such. SENATOR SHARP agreed.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if SB 88 was designed after other programs in
other states. SENATOR SHARP said yes, the primary example used for
this legislation was the program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Number 231
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President of NEA-AK, stated that NEA-AK supports
the concept of charter schools, however, there are concerns that
charter schools could undermine education by allowing unprepared
individuals to start schools. She pointed out that charter school
plans must meet the following conditions:
(1) no negative effect on the regular school program,
(2) no diversion of current funds from public schools,
(3) voluntary staff and student assignment to charter schools,
(4) direct involvement of all effected school employees in the
charter schools design, implementation and government,
(5) adequate defense in regards to contract and employment
provisions for all employees,
(6) appropriate procedures for assessment and evaluation at
predetermined periods within the term of the charter,
(7) licensed professional staff,
(8) health and safety standards for all students and
employees,
(9) non discrimination and equal educational opportunities,
(10) adequate defenses ensuring physical accountability,
(11) adequate and equitable funding, including start up money,
(12) equitable procedures regarding student admission and
retention, and
(13) appropriate safeguards against racial and ethnic
segregation.
Ms. Douglas felt that SB 88 does address many of the concerns of
NEA-AK. She suggested adding the language, "may not discriminate
as based on AS 14.18 which relates to the basis of intelligence,
achievement, aptitude or athletic ability." Every child should
become a part of the classroom, the concept of inclusion. She did
not believe that SB 88 addressed the exclusion of students who may
be disabled. Section 5 poses another concern because with regard
to transfers, evaluations, and negotiated agreements only teachers
are addressed not all the other school employees.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that subsection (b) of the CS may
address that concern. CLAUDIA DOUGLAS suggested that the title of
Section 5 seems misleading and perhaps, the word employee should be
used instead of teacher. Ms. Douglas noted the need for start up
money for charter schools.
Number 311
SENATOR MILLER noted that the recommendation by NEA-AK to change
"faculty" to "teacher" on line 2, page 2 was encompassed in the CS.
He felt that administrators should also be a part of the academic
policy committee; the CS does not allow any freedom to add
principals or administrators to this committee.
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS clarified that the recommendation from NEA-AK was
to replace "faculty" with "school employees" due to the lack of a
definition for "faculty." She agreed that administrators should
also be on the academic policy committee. There would be no
problem with adding language which would include administrators.
SENATOR MILLER moved that on page 2, line 2, after the word
"teachers" the words ", school employees" be inserted. Without
objection, the amendment, Amendment 1, was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN suggested that the parents be listed first and then
the previous amendment.
SENATOR MILLER moved that CS SB 88(HES) as amended be moved out of
committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection,
it was so ordered.
SHES - 3/8/95
SB 91 CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV
Number 350
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 91 as the next order of business
before the committee.
JOE AMBROSE, staff to Senator Taylor, explained that the goal of
SB 91 was to put Alaska in a proactive position with regard to
individuals who knowingly put others at risk to HIV infection.
SB 91 intends to be preventative, punitive, and render a criminal
rather than moral judgement. As of December 31, 1994, 272 Alaskans
have been confirmed to have AIDS, of those 152 have died. He noted
that the Epidemiology Section of the Division of Public Health
reports that 540 Alaskans, only those who voluntarily tested
through the state section of laboratories, have tested positive for
HIV infection as of December 31, 1994. The rate of infection in
Alaska is growing.
Mr. Ambrose pointed out that under current state law, someone who
intentionally attempts to kill another by infecting them with the
AIDS virus can be charged with attempted first degree murder. What
happens when an individual does not intend to kill with this virus,
but puts others at risk? He stated that in 1990 the attorney
general suggested that a person who puts others at risk with the
AIDS virus could be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. Reckless
endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor which prohibits reckless
conduct that creates substantial risk to serious physical injury;
most would view becoming infected with HIV as more than a serious
physical injury.
Mr. Ambrose stated that 26 other states have adopted specific laws
regarding knowingly transmitting or exposing another to HIV
infection. SB 91 creates the crime of criminal transmission of HIV
and covers actions and conduct known to transmit the disease. The
bill also provides an affirmative defense when an exposed
individual knows beforehand that the action could result in
infection. He said that SB 91 is not intended to punish those who
have HIV; the bill intends to protect others who may be unknowingly
exposed to the virus. An Illinois Statute that has been in place
since 1989 is the basis for SB 91. He informed the committee that
this statute has been upheld in the Illinois court system; the bill
has been upheld as constitutional. Mr. Ambrose discussed the
concern that SB 91 would discourage testing of HIV. He said that
HIV/AIDS tests have been increasing in Illinois since this statute
has been in place.
Mr. Ambrose said that the suggestions Dr. Nakamura would offer
regarding the transmission of the virus to unborn children did not
pose a problem for Senator Taylor. He recognized that SB 91 may
encourage some individuals to avoid being tested in order to
alleviate the possibility of criminal prosecution; if the other
involved party knows such information then there can be a
consensual choice. SB 91 addressed intimate contact, blood
transfusions, organ and tissue donations, and drug paraphernalia.
SB 91 should encourage safe sex practices rather than discourage
testing.
Number 423
BARBARA BRINK, Deputy Director of the Alaska Public Defender
Agency, informed the committee that she had been a public defender
in Alaska for 12 1/2 years. The Alaska Public Defender Agency
expressed concern with the broad language of SB 91. The prohibited
behavior should be clearly specified in order that the average
individual knows exactly what actions are prohibited and are
criminal. SB 91 does not provide due process notice. She pointed
out that much of what is prohibited is sexual contact which is
defined very broadly; there is much debate as to conduct that
results in the transmission of HIV. SB 91 would criminalize
behaviors that she felt were not intended to be criminalized such
as the transfer of HIV from a mother to a fetus. The
criminalization of voluntary blood and organ donations seems
unnecessary since the medical profession already does routine
screening procedures for HIV.
Ms. Brink pointed out that SB 91 shifts the burden of proof to the
person accused of the crime; normally, the constitution provides
that the state must prove someone guilty to the jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. She stated that the intent of SB 91 was good;
every effort to discourage the transmission of HIV is a positive
step. Using criminal law in order to contain a communicable
disease does not seem appropriate. She felt that SB 91 would
discourage testing. The fact that testing has increased in
Illinois since they enacted similar legislation proves nothing;
testing across the nation has increased as the number of HIV
infections and AIDS has increased. She posed the example of when
the state became involved with crack babies. Mothers did not seek
medical care that was needed for themselves and their babies due to
the criminal consequences of having a crack baby; they would lose
their baby and have criminal penalties.
Ms. Brink stressed the need to encourage voluntary testing and
behavior modification which SB 91 does not achieve. She explained
that the moral issues attached to AIDS have created discrimination
against people with AIDS. This discrimination poses a barrier to
those with the disease and the punitive efforts in SB 91 would
further that barrier while making preventative measures more
difficult to achieve. She emphasized that there are other serious
health care concerns in Alaska besides HIV/AIDS such as
tuberculosis and hepatitis. Other health care issues do not place
criminal repercussions on the disease in order to stop the spread.
There are better manners in which to promote public health.
Ms. Brink explained that, as a practicing criminal defense
attorney, there are currently laws in Alaska that punish and
isolate persons who deliberately, intentionally, or recklessly
infect others. She informed the committee of various existing laws
one of which would prosecute a person for attempted murder if they
intentionally transmit the disease. In conclusion, Ms. Brink urged
that SB 91 not be passed in order that the criminal justice system
be left untouched in regards to this public health concern.
Number 499
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to the difficulty in proving the infected
person's knowledge of their disease; are medical records
confidential under all circumstances in a legal proceeding? How
would the state prove that an individual knew their HIV status?
BARBARA BRINK explained that there are numerous federal and state
regulations, as well as rules of evidence and procedure which
effect the confidentiality of medical records. Many persons who
receive testing not only have confidential testing, but also
anonymous testing. There would be no way to identify people who
were anonymously tested. Anonymous testing is used in order to
prevent the misuse of confidential medical records.
SENATOR SALO asked Ms. Brink how a trial would proceed under
current law regarding the intentional transmission of the disease
as opposed to under SB 91. BARBARA BRINK explained that under
current law in Alaska when a person is charged with an intentional
crime, the State of Alaska must prove that person's intention
beyond a reasonable doubt. Under SB 91, the defense would have to
prove that the infection was not intentional because the other
person knew of the infection and consented to the conduct; the
defense would assume various obligations in order to prove his case
to the jury.
Number 544
RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director of the Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), noted that a position paper had been sent to the
committee. He expressed concern that there would be an invasion of
privacy in order for the state to prove intentional transmission.
The case would be the word of two opposing individuals. He
reiterated the concerns with the court being able to gather
sufficient facts that a person knowingly transmitted the disease.
He restated the point that existing law already provides a
mechanism to bring claims against such persons as SB 91 addresses.
The most serious repercussion of SB 91 would be the possibility of
discouraging testing by criminalizing the transmission of the
disease. He stated that ACLU was opposed to SB 91.
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Division of Public Health in the Department of
Health & Social Services, reiterated that SB 91 does not
significantly increase the ability to prosecute persons who
knowingly expose others to HIV beyond current law. He too pointed
out that SB 91 could discourage testing in order for persons to be
precluded from prosecution under this law. Criminalization of HIV
exposure could undermine the prevention strategy which encourages
testing of those at high risk.
TAPE 95-11, SIDE B
Number 587
DR. NAKAMURA addressed concerns that SB 91 could discourage high
risk women from HIV testing and discourage HIV positive women from
receiving prenatal care. There is no way to measure the impact of
SB 91 with regards to the possibility of decreasing testing. He
assumed that SB 91 would attempt to effect those engaging in high
risk behaviors, however, the majority of persons infected with HIV
are responsible citizens and would not be in the high risk
category. Dr. Nakamura stated that if SB 91 were pursued, he would
suggest the following amendment: page 1, line 9, add "voluntary"
before "engages" and after "person" add "without the reasonable use
of prophylactic measures designed to minimize the risk of
transmission of sexually transmitted disease."
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the amendments Dr. Nakamura would be
suggesting were in writing. CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that she
intended to have the written amendments at the March 10, 1995
meeting.
DR. NAKAMURA offered another possible amendment on page 1, line 12,
after "another" add the following language, "excluding perinatal
transmission."
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the position of the Department of
Health & Social Services. DR. NAKAMURA stated the department's
opposition to SB 91.
SENATOR LEMAN asked what are the "reasonable prophylactic measures
designed to minimize the transmission of sexually transmitted
disease" and what are the percentages with such measures. DR.
NAKAMURA pointed out that with the use of condoms, the possibility
of transmission would be reduced to approximately 1 to 10,000.
DEBORAH VANDRUFF, Director of Stop AIDS, reiterated the concern
that SB 91 would discourage HIV testing. Currently three quarters
of the Alaskan population have not been tested for HIV.
Number 535
RITA DE SOUZA, Executive Director of Alaskans Living with HIV,
informed the committee that this is a state-wide agency which does
prevention education and advocacy services on behalf of persons
infected with HIV and AIDS and their family and friends. She
applauded the common sense approach of the previous witnesses. She
indicated that SB 91 would not encourage testing. This epidemic
has been in progress for 14 years. She mentioned the notion of
contributory negligence which means that engaging in high risk
behavior without some protection indicates that the newly infected
person has been negligent in their own infection.
Ms. De Souza read the letter that she intended to send to
newspapers across the state. In the letter, she said that SB 91
was counter productive in combating HIV disease. She did not
understand why existing statutes such as assault, sexual assault,
rape and attempted murder were not sufficient. Why not include
other sexually transmitted and communicable diseases in with the
criminalization of HIV; why is HIV being singled out? She
expressed concern that SB 91 would discourage testing for HIV. The
World Health Organization states that 90 percent of those infected
with HIV do not know they have the disease. She indicated that
testing would not work unless it was confidential or anonymous;
people desiring testing may need to be warned of the possibility of
becoming liable for the transmission of HIV under SB 91. Measures
such as SB 91 have been defeated in the lower 48 because such
legislation would leave people fearful of being tested and the
disease would be driven underground where it would continue to
spread.
Ms. De Souza felt that legislative concerns regarding HIV could be
better addressed through education prevention. She expressed
disillusionment that last year's Senate killed the healthy student
bill. She pointed out that the state-wide survey done by the
Epidemiology Section every two years for the past six years has
expressed the need to teach HIV education in public schools; 96
percent of those polled said that children should be taught how to
protect themselves. SB 91 would address the rare case in which an
individual would purposely transmit HIV to another. Comprehensive
HIV education to teens and adolescents would save young lives; they
are the fastest growing group of those contracting HIV, according
to the CDC.
Number 479
SENATOR LEMAN said that he was glad to meet Ms. De Souza. He
indicated that Ms. De Souza had made a number of comments in the
letter that she read that were not true. He suggested that Ms. De
Souza review the record in order to find the truth. In regard to
the mandatory sex education bill, sex education was already being
done so why mandate what was being practiced? He discussed the
amendment that he had offered on past legislation. He too wanted
positive measures to end the spread of HIV and he too wanted to
educate the public about HIV. He said that Ms. De Souza was doing
an injustice when she distorted his efforts.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the need to begin the presentation by the
Division of Public Assistance.
RITA DE SOUZA expressed the need to talk with Senator Leman. She
pointed out that her facts came from the CDC, the World Health
Organization, and the Epidemiology Section of the Alaskan
Department of Health & Social Services. She informed the committee
of a poll of parents by the Department of Education which found
that 52 percent of parents said that their children were receiving
sex education as opposed to the 100 percent that Senator Leman
suggested.
SENATOR ELLIS requested that SB 91 be held until next week because
he would be unable to attend Friday's meeting due to state and
personal business. He indicated that he had questions for the
sponsor. He hoped that this committee would spend more time on
SB 91. SENATOR SALO made the same request.
Number 437
CHAIRMAN GREEN invited Mr. Nordlund to begin his presentation.
JIM NORDLUND, Director of the Division of Public Assistance (DPA)
for the Department of Health & Social Services, introduced other
members of DPA who were available if needed. He noted that he
would review the document, "Briefing on Public Assistance
Programs." He began with a review of the table of contents which
highlights and breaks down the programs of DPA: Aid for Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC), Adult Public Assistance (APA), the
Food Stamp Program, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS), and
the Energy Assistance Program. He noted that there was also a
section on the fraud unit within DPA. The first two pages of the
document give an overview of DPA. He pointed out that AFDC is the
biggest portion of income maintenance of DPA.
SENATOR SALO asked if the change in 1988 to include two-parent
families for assistance was responsible for the rapid growth that
we see in the figures.
JIM NORDLUND said yes and noted that this issue would be addressed
more thoroughly later in the packet. He mentioned that the
eligibility information system interfaced with the various
departments listed under Interagency Service Coordination. Page
two illustrates the 1996 fiscal year budget for DPA. The top graph
illustrated that the largest portion of the budget are the payments
and benefits. The bottom graph exemplifies that most of the
funding received by DPA is from the federal government. He noted
that the eight percent other funding source would be the hold
harmless of the permanent fund dividend. Page three shows the
unduplicated count of the number of Alaskans who were served
through the programs of DPA.
Number 362
CHAIRMAN GREEN specified that page three did not include those who
receive multiple services from DPA. JIM NORDLUND said yes.
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to how many of the 72,000 persons who
received public assistance in October of 1994 were able-bodied and
could be working; could there be a way in which to obtain such
information? JIM NORDLUND said that he did not know. Mr. Nordlund
noted that DPA was beginning to create profiles of persons in order
to determine which persons are more capable with regards to self-
sufficiency.
CURT LOMAS, DPA, did not have a count as to which recipients were
able-bodied, however, he offered to gather data regarding the
number of persons exempt from the JOBS Program due to health
reasons. There is no data that takes into account the caseload of
all the programs.
SENATOR LEMAN indicated the need to recognize that able-bodied
persons should carry the children associated with them. He stated
that many of the staff of DPA had presented him with substantial
evidence that numerous cases involved persons who had just arrived
in the state or had no intention to work. Public assistance should
be the last stop for needy people.
JIM NORDLUND agreed that there are cases of misuse of the system,
but characterizing the majority of persons on public assistance as
such is unfortunate and does not apply across the board. There are
persons who need support from the state in order to maintain a
basic lifestyle. The division should be vigilant in recognizing
the able-bodied persons and offer them incentives to work.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that some persons may need support to maintain
a basic lifestyle, but that support may not need to be primarily
from the state. Perhaps, state support should not be the primary
source of support for persons needing assistance, other people and
groups should be offering assistance. He expressed the need to
focus on delivering support in a different way than the current
system. JIM NORDLUND said that he would be exploring those
options.
Number 297
JIM NORDLUND continued his review of the briefing document on page
four which explained the AFDC program. AFDC is oriented toward
helping needy children and the persons who support them. If a
person is eligible for AFDC then they are automatically eligible
for Medicaid and energy assistance. He noted that 50 percent of
AFDC families have one child and 78 percent have two or less
children. He emphasized that most persons on AFDC, 62 percent,
receive it for less than two years.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Medicaid and energy assistance were
automatically given when a person qualifies for AFDC. JIM NORDLUND
restated that a person would automatically be eligible for Medicaid
and energy assistance if they qualified for AFDC. An unidentified
speaker from DPA clarified that a person who is eligible for AFDC
would automatically receive Medicaid benefits, and the person would
qualify for energy assistance should the person apply.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were people who needed only AFDC and
not Medicaid. JIM NORDLUND clarified that in order to receive
Medicaid one would need a medical problem, but when one has a
medical problem then they become ineligible.
CHAIRMAN GREEN applauded the Governor's bill regarding one shot
fixes for the immediate needs of a person needing assistance.
Number 265
JIM NORDLUND noted the complexity of the eligibility and
determination system. The burden on this system would be lessened
when allowing the qualification of one type of assistance to mean
that the person would be eligible for other types of assistance.
The administration of these programs would be simpler.
Mr. Nordlund pointed out that Alaska ranks 14th in the number of
persons on AFDC when compared to the population. He offered the
explanation that the population in Alaska is younger. Page 5
reviews the basic criteria of AFDC eligibility.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the residency requirement for AFDC.
SENATOR SALO mentioned that she had heard the notion that people
come to Alaska to receive AFDC was exaggerated.
JIM NORDLUND said that there is basically little empirical evidence
to support the notion that people come to Alaska to take advantage
of AFDC benefits.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that the staff of DPA, those who do the
interviews for AFDC, have communicated examples of this notion.
People come to Alaska for AFDC benefits as well as other benefits
and the states they come from advise them to do so.
JIM NORDLUND directed the committee to page 12 and the graph that
illustrated that the primary reason people move to Alaska is to be
closer to family followed by those looking for work. The graph
shows that only three percent of the people move to Alaska for
state programs. He commented that this was the only study he knew
about that assesses why AFDC participants came to Alaska.
SENATOR SALO asked Mr. Nordlund to address the top graph on page
12. JIM NORDLUND pointed out that the top graph illustrated that
92 percent of those receiving AFDC had been in Alaska for more than
12 months.
SENATOR SALO felt that as the graphs seemed to indicate, only three
percent of the discussion should be about those persons moving to
Alaska for state programs. Of the three percent, perhaps, the
longevity bonus and the permanent fund dividend would be a larger
portion of the reason those persons moved to Alaska.
SENATOR ELLIS mentioned that the court case which attempted to
increase residency requirements to two years for the longevity
bonus and the permanent fund dividend was struck down. However,
AFDC and Medicaid are federal programs which any U.S. citizens
would be entitled to at a level determined by the state. He
reiterated Senator Salo's point to keep discussions regarding
persons moving to Alaska and receiving AFDC in perspective. He
suggested that the committee could benefit from information about
what is allowable under the courts from legislative or legal
services.
Number 156
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the reality of a person's situation
may not be the same as what a person would say their intent was in
coming to Alaska. JIM NORDLUND did not know if such biases were
considered in this study. Policy should not be made on the popular
notion that people come to Alaska for the state programs, unless
there is proof.
SENATOR LEMAN maintained that the 92 percent of persons in Alaska
on AFDC that had been in Alaska for over 12 months suggested to him
the need to have a support structure. JIM NORDLUND felt that the
Knowles' Administration was attempting to find those people jobs.
There is a direct correlation between the number of people on these
programs and the employment rate; the economy primarily determines
how many persons are receiving public assistance.
SENATOR ELLIS suggested that there could be work on amendments to
the welfare bills. He posed the possibility of requiring persons
who want to sign up for public benefits to go to their local church
first or other community support agencies for assistance. This
requirement could be used like the diversion program.
SENATOR LEMAN said that he agreed with Senator Ellis, but he
emphasized that there are other community support agencies and
groups that could also be a part of such a program. JIM NORDLUND
stated that the ultimate solution would entail help from the
private sector, private industry. The private sector needs to
realize their part in welfare reform which would be to provide
public assistance recipients the opportunity to work.
Number 070
SENATOR LEMAN emphasized that the ultimate solution would be
everyone as an individual which makes up the private sector.
JIM NORDLUND continued his briefing on page 6. He explained that
when HB 67 passed, the automatic COLA was eliminated and the amount
of AFDC payments was capped. The needs standard, the cost of
living, continues to rise while the payment level remains constant.
Page 7 provides a monthly review of the AFDC caseload. When
explaining the caseload breakdown, he clarified that cases refer to
families and recipients are individuals. Mr. Nordlund noted that
page 8 addressed Senator Salo's concerns that including two-parent
families affected the caseload growth.
TAPE 95-12, SIDE A
Number 005
JIM NORDLUND pointed out that including two-parent families under
AFDC was a federal and state decision mandated in order to keep
families together. The Family Support Act of 1988 allowed poor
families to receive benefits. That act did have a fiscal impact on
DPA as the light portion of the graph on page 8 indicates.
SENATOR ELLIS added that intact families are statistically more
likely to leave the welfare system and move toward self-
sufficiency. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there had been any tracking
of those that were impacted by that law.
JIM NORDLUND specified that all AFDC recipients are required to
fill out a monthly report to ensure their eligibility. Within the
JOBS program the federal government requires a 20 percent
participation of the AFDC-Basic caseload while a 50 percent
participation of the AFDC-UP caseload is required. The concept
behind requiring 50 percent participation in the JOBS program of
the AFDC-UP families is that one of the parents should be more
capable in finding a job since the other parent can provide child
care. He noted that Governor Knowles' welfare reform package will
have stricter requirements on two-parent families to find work.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was evidence proving that since the
Family Support Act had passed that two-parent families were more
likely to end the receipt of assistance. SENATOR ELLIS commented
that there is national evidence if the division did not have such
information.
JIM NORDLUND said that the division would get that information to
Senator Green. He continued with his overview on page 9. Page 9
specifies the savings due to the passage of HB 67. The savings
from HB 67 in the fiscal year 1995 will be $11,133.2 million and
$15,368.4 million for the 1996 fiscal year. He directed the
committee to page 10 and the bottom graph which illustrates how
long individuals remained in the AFDC program over a ten year
period; 73 percent of the recipients were in the program for less
than three years.
Number 061
SENATOR SALO asked if there should be concern regarding those who
received AFDC for 61 months or more. JIM NORDLUND explained that
the 26 percent to which she referred represents those that will
never be able to work and will always be on the caseload. For the
most part, those persons are the most needy and dependent.
SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that on page 4 the information
illustrates that 62 percent of AFDC recipients received benefits
for less than two years for those in the ten year span. However,
the graph on page 10 says that 61 percent of those current cases
receiving benefits have done so for more than two years.
SENATOR SALO thought that the bottom chart on page 10 referred to
the last ten years.
Number 141
CURT LOMAS clarified that the top chart was a snapshot of the
monthly caseload while the bottom chart illustrated a historical
view of the caseload since 1984. Over time, the majority of
families requiring AFDC only need it for a short time while a
snapshot of the caseload would indicate that the long-term
recipients remain and make up the greater portion of the caseload.
The greatest portion of the caseload consists of persons who have
received AFDC for the long-term. He explained that the JOBS
program began with a focus on persons who were long-term recipients
or who were at risk of being long-term. One example of a long-term
recipient would be a teen mother. He pointed out that people
remain on AFDC in the long-term as a result of the lack of jobs in
some rural areas. The Governor's package focuses on creating jobs.
SENATOR SALO said that Alaska is unique in that the long-term AFDC
rate here seems to lower than many other states. She expressed
concern that the current snapshot illustrated that there are a lot
of long-term recipients as compared to the last ten years.
CURT LOMAS recognized Senator Salo's concern to be legitimate.
With a snapshot, there would always be a large portion of persons
receiving AFDC in the long-term because they are always present.
The persons that cycle in and out of the system would not be in the
current caseload for an extended period. The core group of long-
term recipients would always represent a significant portion of the
caseload since they do not cycle in and out.
Number 206
SENATOR LEMAN stated that budgets and spending are done annually
and perhaps, reviewing the data in a snapshot by snapshot manner
would be more appropriate.
SENATOR SALO suggested that in one view of these charts the
conclusion could be drawn that more people have entered the system
than cycled out. CURT LOMAS did not think that the charts
illustrated that, but the observation would be accurate. With
caseload growth, more people enter the caseload than those dropping
off the caseload.
JIM NORDLUND specified that the economic situation also has
ramifications on AFDC participation. SENATOR SALO proposed that
perhaps these charts are the result of the downturn in the oil
industry.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that impacted the figures for rural areas.
JIM NORDLUND responded that these charts do not separate between
rural and urban Alaska.
JIM NORDLUND continued with the review on page 11 which breaks down
AFDC cases by district area, race, and category. Page 13 uses
graphs to present AFDC parents and children by age groups.
CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee that this presentation would
be continued on Friday.
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
adjourned at 10:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|