HOUSE BILL NO. 98 "An Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for regional public assistance plans and programs in the state; relating to grants for Alaska tribal family assistance programs; and providing for an effective date." JIM NORDLAND, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSITANCE, DEPARTMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES spoke in support of HB 98. He observed that one reason for success around the nation, has been that the Federal welfare reform law afforded the states the flexibility to design and run their own programs. With flexibility caseload has been reduced and savings realized. This has happened all across the nation. In exchange for flexibility, the federal government capped the amount of dollars going to the states in the form of a fixed block grant. In this same vein, the federal law allows tribes and Alaska Native organizations to run their own programs. The belief is that programs are better run if they are locally controlled and culturally relevant. The federal law specifically names the 13 regional Native non-profit organizations as eligible to run their own programs. Under current state law (47.27.070), the Department of Health and Social Services has the authority to coordinate with these organizations in the development of their programs. Federal funding for the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP) comes in the form of a block grant. To be eligible, states are required to participate in funding state programs through a maintenance of effort. In Alaska, the maintenance of effort is 80 percent of the amount of funding that the state provided in 1994 to the proceeding program: Alaska Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). However, federal law did not require a match for Native run programs. Without state funding, Native programs would be left to operate with approximately half the funding that the state program receives, which would inevitably mean cuts in services. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00-82, SIDE 2) Mr. Nordland observed that there is a comparability requirement in the federal law regarding the Native program. The federal government is not likely to approve a Native program without state funding because of the failure to meet the comparability requirement. A Native program cannot be a comparable program with half of the funding. House Bill 98 allows the state of Alaska to fund a Native family assistance program. It is important to note that the funding is already going to Native clients through the state program. A portion of the funds that are already going to Native clients would be transferred to the Native organization. The Native organization would marry the state funds with the federal block grant that would be going to them directly. The bill has a zero fiscal note. Money would be taken out of the Department of Health and Social Services' budget and transferred to the Native organization. The money transferred would be for cash benefits for work services, childcare, and the kinds of things that are needed to operate the ATAP program. The Native organization would be responsible for running the program. Co-Chair Mulder observed that the same people would be served. A more direct provider (Native organizations) would be providing the services as opposed to the department. Co-Chair Therriault referred to pages 5 and 6. He observed that the department cannot pay benefits above and beyond those paid in the state program. He clarified that the entire population of an area would be served, not just the Native population. Mr. Nordland explained that the federal law requires the state to look at what was spent in 1994 and determine how much was spent on Native families in a particular service area. The federal law also requires that once the service area is set aside that the population within the area can fluctuate and that it is up to the Native organization to decide what the service population is. Co-Chair Therriault asked for assurances that the Native run operations would be allowed to serve everyone in their service area. Mr. Nordland observed that section 2 speaks to regional public assistance programs. This allows the department to subcontract with the Native organization to serve the entire region, including non-natives. "In some cases we will do that, in some cases we won't, depending on the makeup of the region." He added that the bill allows funding of a Native run program. The state currently funds the Tanana Chief's Conference (TCC) program. To receive state funds, TCC had to have a program that was substantially the same as the state's ATAP program. Originally, TCC wanted to do things somewhat differently from ATAP. The bill would allow Native run organizations to depart from what is done under ATAP, as long as the program is still comparable to the state's program. At present TCC only serves the Native population. In Fairbanks, the non-natives are still served by the Department of Health and Social Services. In smaller villages it would make sense to contract with TCC to serve non-Native families. Co-Chair Therriault acknowledged that the populations are large enough in Fairbanks to run two separate programs, but expressed concern that the state not be in the position of administering to a handful of people when there is a large Native organization serving the Native population. He maintained that it makes more sense to serve the entire regional base. Mr. Nordland estimated that the state would contract in some areas to serve the entire population. Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that 60 percent of rural Alaskans are non-Natives. Mr. Nordland noted that the region that TCC serves is 50/50 Native/non-Native. Half of the families on ATAP in Southeast Alaska are Native. In the Bethel area there are 800 Native and 10 non-Native families being served. He observed that the ratio depends on the area of the state and the definition of rural. Vice Chair Bunde acknowledged that there can be a difference in the makeup of the total population and the population being served. DON SHIRCEL, DIRECTOR, FAMILY SERVICES, TANANA CHIEF'S CONFERENCE spoke in support of the legislation. He read the following prepared statement to the committee: I have been the Director of TCC's Family Services for the past sixteen-years. I hold a Master of Science degree in Behavioral Disabilities and administer approximately $8 million of the total $55 million dollar TCC annual budget of state and federal health and social service programs. As a social service professional and program planner, I strongly support HB 98. In a state, of our unique size, it makes a lot of sense to regionally design and administer temporary assistance programming. HB 98 is consistent with the same rationale from which state and federal Welfare Reform emerged. Programs closest to the people are more responsive, relevant, effective and efficient than large centrally operated "one size fits all" programs planned and administered outside the community. This January we completed our first year of operating of a Regional Native Family Assistance pilot program. While it is still too early to fully access the overall success of the project, some of the preliminary statistics indicate that we're headed in the right direction. In January of 1999 when the state fully transitioned the program to TCC there were 440 cases. This January, a year later, our monthly caseload was 356 families. Like the state's temporary assistance program our monthly caseload is the lowest it's been in the past three years. Villages in the interior feel we're headed in the right direction. Our preliminary statistics also indicate that more Native families receiving temporary assistance - particularly those who live in rural communities of the interior - are working for the check they receive. Village leaders feel really good about that. Alaska's rural communities through their Regional Non- profit Corporations have been designing programs to better fit the needs of their families. Many have also been developing local and regional infrastructures that now rival the state's capacity to provide a comparable level of local service delivery, especially in rural remote areas. Villages in the TCC service area feel good about our partnership with the state on this pilot project - but they feel that they could do more and get a still bigger bang out of their buck if they were allowed to incorporate other regional variations within the temporary assistance programs administered by the Regional non-profits. HB 98 would allow Native family assistance programs the degree a flexibility needed to do more with the same program dollar. For example; the state's plan finances One-Stop Centers with a wide range of services to help people to get off of welfare. But the state plan finances such centers only in a handful of Alaska's urban centers. Over the course of the first six months of the TCC pilot program we developed a community based service delivery infrastructure that included 37 existing community based offices and assigned staff located in one stop centers in each of the communities of the service area created through shared funding from state and federal program funds. These shared staff and facilities were funded through the combined resources of other federal programs to minimize administrative cost and maximize the level of collaboration with other support services needed by families seeking to enter the labor market. These small community based service centers serve as locally accessible, culturally appropriate single points of entry for families needing assistance and also as the single points of contact for a regional service providers and employers seeking to get information about their services and employment opportunities to potential clients. The small size of each of these village one stop service centers allows for personal attention, individualized planning, and services tailored to the needs of each family as well as the accurate, timely and ongoing monitoring of each client's progress. The TCC Regional Native Family Assistance program incorporates a service delivery infrastructure in which people are working with people.. .not paper! They know each other and regularly interact as members of the same community and work together toward a common goal to move on to work and to be more self-sufficient in providing for the needs of their family. Under HB 98 the TCC Native family assistance program could impose the following standards not permissible under current state statute. 1) All applicants would be required to undergo alcohol and substance abuse evaluations and follow the recommendations of their evaluation or lose a percentage of their benefit (for those who comply with the evaluation recommendation within six months -- their benefits would be restored and the percentage of their benefit which was withheld would be returned to them upon successful completion of their treatment). With the enabling legislation of HB 98 we'd not only be able to provide benefits for an indigent family, we'd be more able to assertively approach the problem of alcohol and substance abuse and even create bonus incentives for parents who comply ... all on the same dollar. Under HB 98 TCC's Native Family Assistance Program could require all parent's receiving benefits to attend their children's parent teacher conferences and include their children in regular health screenings and immunizations made available in their community. Failure to do so would result in a small but noticeable reduction in their benefits for that month. With the enabling legislation of HB 98 we'd be able to promote better parenting by encouraging increased involvement in their children's school work and increased vigilance regarding their children's immunization and general health ... and once again we'd be doing it all on the same dollar that we currently receive. Our program cannot impose such sanctions under current state statute. TCC's original Native Family Assistance program plan included a provision to more assertively approach the issue of domestic violence. That plan provided that in two parent households in which domestic violence is a problem -- the perpetrator would be required to leave the home and receive counseling -- by court order if necessary. He/she could receive a portion of the household benefit only if they continued counseling outside the home. Such sanctions and incentives (none of which incur any additional cost to the program) are not possible without the enabling legislation of HB 98. In regards to getting people off of welfare and on to work, there are many different ways to accomplish these goals. There are many good ideas in Alaska. HB 98 simply allows these two realities to merge and to do so in each of the diverse regions of the state. "What works in Alabama doesn't necessarily work in Alaska-and the way they do it in Anchorage doesn't always make sense to the people in Angoon. HB 98 is about more local control and getting a bigger bang for the same buck. Villages in the interior continue to support the recommendations of the Alaska Native Commission especially those related to local control, decreasing dependency, encouraging self-sufficiency and developing jobs and local economies. Our experience to date, we feel indicates that we're headed in the right direction. We hope you do too. Thank you for your time and this opportunity to testify. Vice Chair Bunde expressed appreciation of TCC's efforts. He questioned how evaluations of drug and alcohol abuse are carried out. Mr. Shircel observed that TCC has a general screening, similar to the state. He stated that they would like to require that every person that applies for assistance go through an entire evaluation. The evaluations would be done locally. The idea is to put real teeth into what the community desires. Vice Chair Bunde found it interesting that some rural areas wish conservative screening. In response to a question by Vice Chair Bunde, Mr. Shircel gave a brief overview of his "Behavior Disabilities" degree. In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Mr. Shircel clarified that TCC receives direct federal funding. Half of the funding that TCC has received for their operation has come directly from the federal government; the other half comes through the their two-year agreement with the state of Alaska, which is about to expire. The legislation would not change the percentage coming from the federal government. Direct funding from the federal government comes from the federal amount calculated based on 1994 state expenditures to Native families. All regional non-profits and Metlakatla are eligible to receive direct federal funding. He emphasized that it requires a great deal of planning and is a very complex program. Other regional non-profits have been cautious to assure that any services that they elect to provide directly are done as well as current programs. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that AS 47.27.070 allows the department to coordinate with Alaska Native organizations as designated under federal law. In response to a question by Representative G. Davis, Mr. Nordland noted that TCC is currently the only Native organization that is operating. At least two other organizations are in the planning stage. He acknowledged that there is some level of duplication, to the extent, that there are two administrative entities in some regions. Mr. Nordland emphasized that the program will not necessarily lead to better levels of efficiency. He stressed that the program would be better run at a local level. The program would provide a greater level of local control Representative G. Davis questioned if federal law would prohibit TCC from administering to non-natives. Mr. Nordland responded that federal law would not preclude Native organizations from administering to non-Natives. Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 98 (HES) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 98 (HES) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes: one by the Department of Health and Social Services, published date 3/3/00; and one by the Department of Revenue.