MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Sixty-seventh Session
March 25, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order by Chairman Jan Evans at 1:45 p.m., March 25, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Jan Evans, Chairman
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Vice Chairman
Ms. Kathy M. Augustine
Ms. Marcia de Braga
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Dean A. Heller - Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll Davis, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Frances M. Doherty, Washoe Legal Services
Jon Sasser, Nevada Legal Services
Jeanette Hills, Chief of Eligibility and Payments/Welfare Division
Jim Foreman, Clark County Public Response Office
Mrs. Evans informed the committee she was contacted by someone in Las Vegas representing Parent Activists Committed to Education (P.A.C.E.) who requested a bill be introduced on behalf of her group. Stating she was not altogether comfortable with the material, Mrs. Evans noted she would leave it in the committee's hands as to whether they would like the bill drafted and introduced and asked Kerry Davis, Research Analyst, for a presentation (Exhibit C).
Committee discussion ensued with the general thought being the deletion of education in the proposed legislation would be irresponsible.
Mrs. Evans moved to not go forward with the drafting of the proposed legislation. Everyone was in agreement, with Mr. Petrak voting "No" and Mrs. Evans abstaining.
ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 26: Directs State Welfare Board to extend time that families are eligible to receive aid under Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Unemployed Parent Programs.
Mr. Williams, speaking in support of ACR 26, encouraged committee consideration as the measure would have direct impact on welfare reform. He indicated the program came into existence in l988. Federal law allowed states to set the ADC-UP eligibility period from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum period of 1 year. Nevada, as well as 11 other states, used the minimum 6-month benefit period for their ADC-UP program. Currently, the average ADC-UP recipient's grant was $77.89 per month compared to an average of $104.55 per month in the ADC program. After the 6-month period families could no longer receive ADC-UP benefits and their eligibility for the program must be redetermined. This, according to Mr. Williams, would encourage the split-up of families.
In further clarification, Mr. Williams noted a certain amount of criteria must be maintained for persons to remain on the program: The unemployed parent must not, without good cause, have refused an offer of employment or training for employment within 30 days prior to receipt of aid. The principal wage earner must have a connection to the labor force as follows:
1. Received unemployment compensation or was "qualified" for unemployment compensation within 1 year prior to the date of application. A person is "qualified" if he/she would have been eligible had an application been filed or had his/her work been covered by the Unemployment Compensation Law; OR
2. Had 6 or more quarters of work in which he/she received at least $50 or participated in the JOBS program within any 13 calendar-quarter-period ending within 1 year prior to the date of application.
Up to 4 quarters of full-time school attendance, vocational or technical training or participation in an education or training program under JTPA.
Mr. Williams further noted both parents, unless exempt, must be referred to and available to participate in the JOBS program. The parents must participate at least 16 hours per week in a community work experience program, other work experience program or on-the-job training. This would lead people more to the job market and finding work.
Frances Doherty, Washoe Legal Services, speaking in support of ACR 26, reiterated much of Mr. Williams' commentary as to the background of the ADC-UP program. She further indicated since the purpose of the act itself was to provide stability and ensure transition, 6 months for an unemployed family that may be unemployed for l2 months was not going to make that much of a significant difference if at the end of the 6 months that family was still unemployed. Thus, the need existed to continue the cash grant to help that family make the transition which could be accomplished with an effective jobs program. She noted, "The termination of the grant is not going to be the motivation to obtain a job. The motivation will be if at the end of the 6 months they are not employed, an effective training program is continuing."
Mrs. Evans further clarified in contrasting the two programs, under ADC (a single parent program), there currently were no such time limits. So since a family could be considered for ongoing benefits, it would encourage a father to absent himself in order for the mother and children to qualify. ACR 26 would complete the effort of what the federal government started in helping families out of transition.
Jon Sasser, Nevada Legal Services, prior to his testimony in support of ACR 26, stated Jan Gilbert/ Nevada League of Women Voters, wished to indicate her group's support of the bill. Mr. Sasser noted caseloads in the unemployed parent program were very small compared to those of the single parent program and he surmised ACR 26 would not carry a huge fiscal note with it. He again stressed, as previous testifiers had, ACR 26 would enable families to stay together and stated Nevada Legal Services strongly supported its passage.
Jeanette Hills, Chief of Eligibility and Payments/Welfare Division, presented testimony from Myla Florence, Administrator of the Welfare Division, in support of ACR 26 (Exhibit D). She presented to the committee a copy of a l992 fiscal note (Exhibit E) concerning the cost of ACR 26.
Extensive discussion ensued between committee members and Ms. Hills. Since there were no further comments, Mrs. Evans closed the hearing on ACR 26.
SENATE BILL 72 - Authorizes certain additional persons to enforce laws pertaining to illegal disposal of garbage.
Jim Foreman, Clark County Public Response Office, stated his office was entrusted with the responsibility of fighting illegal dumping in Clark County about two years ago. In the last 14 months the office had received over 400 complaints, 30 percent of which had been resolved. The unresolved 70 percent must clean illegally dumped materials from their own lands.
Mr. Foreman said currently only law enforcement officers or agents for the Health District were able to write citations. Clark County would like to see legislation expanded to other persons specifically designated by the local authority so building inspectors or zoning inspectors, for example, could also issue citations. He added it would be a cost effective measure as it would not encroach on a police officer's time.
In response to Mrs. Freeman's question as to whether the measure pertained to strictly garbage, Mr. Foreman explained all forms of debris would fall into that category. Mr. Toomin asked for a better definition of "trash" and "garbage." Mr. Foreman agreed to supply that information. Further discussion ensued.
Since there was no further testimony, Mrs. Evans closed the hearing on SB 72.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CHRISTINE SHAW
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services
March 25, 1993
Page: 1