MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 14, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr., at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 14, 1993, in room 352 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Chairman
Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Jan Evans
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Robert E. Price
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr. - Excused
Mr. David E. Humke - Excused
Mr. John W. Marvel - Excused
Ms. Sandra Tiffany - Absent
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst
Gary Ghiggeri, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
AB 561 MAKES VARIOUS CHANGES RELATING TO APPRAISERS OF REAL ESTATE
Joan Buchanan, Real Estate Division, testified in support of AB 561. Ms. Buchanan explained AB 561 would give legislative authorization for the appraisal subcommittee to pay a $50 appraiser fee to the federal registry. Fees were included in the license fee.
AB 580 SET GOALS AND MEANS FOR AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN.
Jerry Griepentrog-Carlin, Director, Department of Human Resources, testified in support of AB 580. He distributed the Department's proposals for Welfare reform (Exhibit C). Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin noted Welfare reform was of national concern. Competing value systems and political ideologies were two difficulties inherent in trying to achieve Welfare reform. Another was a stereotypical image of welfare recipients. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin asserted welfare reform could only be successful if all groups within the welfare population were targeted.
Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin noted welfare dependency could be perpetuated from one generation to another within the same family. He explained the Family Support Act provided federal funds on condition state welfare programs discourage generational welfare dependency. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program provided for in the Family Support Act was a program which provided job skills training, remedial education and school attendance incentives to welfare recipients.
Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained there are different stratifications of the welfare population and referred to page 2 of Exhibit C. The chart divided the welfare population into three groups: (1) currently employable (31 percent) with high school education, recent and stable work history, good mental and physical health, motivated, good support system and a typical length of stay of nine months; (2) employable with some assistance (51 percent) this group was working on high school, had limited work experience, poor physical/mental health, was not motivated, low self esteem, marginal support system with a typical length of stay of 23 months; and (3) employable only with intensive assistance (16 percent) which had less than a fifth grade literacy, minimal work history, substance abuse problems, law enforcement problems, no self esteem or support system and a typical length of stay of 51 months. He asserted AB 580 would work in conjunction with the Family Support Act. The proposal targeted Group 1 with a small number of programs such as job readiness and job search workshops, career information, supportive services. He asserted Fill-the-Gap budgeting would be counter productive for Group 1 because with minimal governmental assistance they would move off welfare in a very short time.
Group II required significant assistance such as adult basic education, on-the-job training, skill training, life skills workshops, community work experience, and supportive services.
Group III required intensive assistance such as literacy training, self esteem development, physical/mental health, intensive case management, and supportive services.
Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin asserted California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program was a successful pilot program for welfare reform. The program allocated 50 percent of the control group GAIN services (Exhibit C, page 3). Group 1 realized a 50 percent increase, Group II a 65 percent increase and Group III a 94 percent increase in earnings capacity and employability.
Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained the conceptual framework of Nevada Welfare Reform, (Exhibit C, pages 4 and 5). The proposal encouraged preventive health care, education, independence, job retention, and increased participation in employment and training activities. Although health care services were free and transportation was provided, over 50 percent of the welfare population did not participate in Nevada's immunization program in a timely manner. Additionally a significant number of mothers who were pregnant and eligible for Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) benefits did not fully participate in prenatal care services. He asserted AB 580 proposed two programs to address these problems: (1) $50 fiscal incentive for prenatal care; and (2) 25 percent fiscal sanction for families which refuse to participate in the early childhood preventive health care programs. He noted families would be given ample warning and compliance timelines before sanctions were imposed. Additionally, Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained if an 80 percent compliance rating was not achieved by 1995 the state would be fiscally sanctioned by the federal government. Currently the state had a 42 percent compliance rating.
Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained education sanctions proposed in AB 580. He asserted a high incidence of generational welfare dependence occurred in families with truant children. The proposal had been modified to impose a $20 sanction on those parents who did not make a good faith effort to cooperate with schools or participate in truancy prevention programs.
AB 580 encouraged independence by limiting the length of time a family could receive welfare benefits. It proposed to reduce monthly benefits by 25 percent after the first 24 months for those recipients who were not working, with exceptions for periods of economic hard times or for families exempt from participation in employment and training programs. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin noted the Clinton administration had previously discussed a proposal which waived sanctions to benefits for recipients willing to work for community services agencies.
AB 580 encouraged job retention by making ineligible for up to three months households who voluntarily quit a job without good cause. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained good cause would be defined by regulation through public hearings and the welfare advisory board.
Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained AB 580 proposed to increase participation in employment and training activities. Currently welfare recipients with children 1-3 years old were not required to participate in employment and training activities. The bill would require all recipients whose children were all age one or older to participate in employment and training. The bill would make adult recipients who failed to cooperate ineligible to receive benefits for three months for a first violation and six months for each successive violation.
Debbie Baragia testified in support of additional child care funding for the Employment and Training Unit of the Nevada State Welfare Division and Job Opportunities in Nevada (JOIN) program. Although Ms. Baragia was eligible for the job training program, the Division lacked necessary child care funds. She contended if child care funding had been available she could have been completed the program two years earlier. Ms. Baragia explained the program taught recipients essential job skills needed for employment. After completing the program she and her family no longer needed public assistance.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted additional child care funding could have enabled Ms. Baragia to gain full-time employment much sooner.
Michael Metty, Director, Community and Continuing Education, Southern Nevada Community College testified in support of AB 580. Mr. Metty stated inter-agency collaboration, education, support services and work training were essential to the long-term success of welfare recipients. He asserted without meaningful basic survival skills the welfare system doomed recipients to failure.
Mr. Metty commented an eighth grade reading and a sixth grade math level were necessary to survive in the Las Vegas job market. Many welfare recipients had learning disabilities and needed basic skills assistance to reach these levels.
Mr. Metty briefly explained the Community and Continuing Education Department's skills evaluation process. The program improved potential success of welfare recipients by 25 percent. Evaluation took approximately 12 to 16 hours with a total cost of $100. Once evaluation was complete, approximately 60 to 100 hours of instruction ($4 to $5 per hour) were required to increase the recipient's skills by one grade level. For illiterate persons, approximately 900 to 1,000 hours of instruction were required.
Mr. Metty stated AB 580 assisted parents in becoming better role models for their children. He asserted the cycle of poverty could be broken with long-term training and education programs.
Mr. Metty read a memorandum dated May 13, 1993 from L. Scott Chalfant, Director, Adult Education Programs Clark County School District which supported the continuation of the JOBS program.
Tina Nappe, Director, Job Opportunities in Nevada (JOIN), testified in support of AB 580. She explained JOIN was federally funded and worked in conjunction with the Division of Welfare. A system which would provide both sanctions and incentives to welfare recipients was helpful for JOIN. She noted benefits from the JOBS program would increase in the future. JOIN provided basic education, vocational training, subsidized jobs and job placement. Ms. Nappe advocated continued cooperation between the Division of Welfare and other agencies.
Marcelle Fernando Schaerer, Director, Center for Employment Training, testified in support of the JOBS program. The Center for Employment Training was established in 1987 and offered comprehensive job training, support services, and human development services. Mr. Schaerer supported welfare reform, however, he believed the reform must incorporate a very strong training component.
Linda Bogle, Counselor, Washoe High School Adult program, testified in support of the JOBS program. Ms. Bogle read favorable remarks from welfare recipients currently attending the Washoe High School Adult program and the JOBS program. She explained the Washoe High Adult program provided literacy skills, GED study and high school diplomas to individuals who left school prior to successful completion. During 1991-92 school year 150 welfare recipients enrolled in the program, of those 50 successfully completed their GEDs, six received high school diplomas and eight worked on basic literacy skills including English as a Second Language (ESL). Currently 2,150 students were enrolled in the Washoe High School Adult program. Of these, about 110 were adult participants in the JOBS program. Most of the participants expressed a strong desire to get off the welfare roles and become independent. Ms. Bogle asserted the JOBS program provided the welfare recipient with the fundamental skills to obtain gainful employment at a living wage. She continued to ensure welfare recipients become productive citizens and get off the welfare roles, funding for the JOBS program was absolutely imperative.
Mrs. Evans indicated all of the members of the committee agreed education and training were essential for successful welfare reform. She noted no additional funding had been recommended for the JOBS program in the Executive Budget.
Mrs. Chowning asked if programs were available for non-english speaking persons who were unable to read or write. Ms. Bogle stated a pre-literate english as a second language program were being planned for the summer of 1993.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the source of funding for the ESL program. Ms. Bogle explained the program would be offered through the Washoe High School Adult program.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the program defined literacy. Ms. Bogle stated above a sixth grade literacy level was considered literate.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the Washoe High School Adult program collaborated with other programs. Ms. Bogle replied they collaborated with JOIN, CETA, Truckee Meadows Community College, and the Reading Center of Northern Nevada.
Cindy Tapp had participated in the CWEP program. She advocated continued funding for the program.
Myla Florence, Welfare Administrator, reviewed the budget implications of the welfare reform as proposed by AB 580. She reminded the committee any welfare reform proposal required the state to obtain a 1115 waiver from the federal government. The proposal must meet the following requirements: (1) the program must be conducted over a five year period; (2) the program must be cost neutral and (3) demonstrate positive results through the course of the project.
Ms. Florence referred to Welfare Reform - Combined State and Federal Impact, (Exhibit C), which listed the cost of the Nevada Independence Project (NIP) over a five year period. She noted the Saving Type abbreviations were as follows: P, program; E, employment and training; A, Aid to Dependent Children; M, medicaid. Individual budget modifications which would result from implementation of AB 580 were listed pages all-A through all-E, Exhibit C.
Ms. Florence stated the program could be implemented with three additional administrative staff; one program specialist, one senior accountant, and one management assistant. The projected cost of additional staff was $682,409 over a five year period.
Data processing modifications were required for the current system and the NOMADS system. The data processing cost was approximately $1.5 million in FY 94 and approximately $400,000 in FY 95. The state was required to have a demonstration and control groups. Eligibility for the control group would be determined under current rules. Eligibility of the demonstration group, consisting of 10 percent of the urban population, would be determined by proposed reform rules.
Federal evaluations were projected to cost approximately $100,000 per year with the exception of the first year costs of $25,000. Projections were based on a survey of similar programs in other states.
AB 580 increased investment in JOBS program. Ms. Florence noted no additional funds had been recommended for the JOBS in the Executive Budget. However the proposal included an additional $1.2 million in FY 94 and $2.7 in FY 95 for JOBS. The enhancement to the JOBS program would result from the anticipated cost savings in other areas.
The agency projected ADC savings of approximately $25,000 in FY 94 and $39,000 in FY 95 as a result of non-compliance with school attendance policies. Savings could be significantly less if families ensured children were making efforts to attend school. Immunization sanctions were projected to save $144,000 in FY 94 and $222,000 in FY 95. Prenatal care incentives would cost $49,000 in FY 94 and $114,000 in FY 95. Savings to Medicaid resulting from improved prenatal care was projected to be $1.5 million over the life of the project.
Sanctions imposed on individuals who voluntarily quit their jobs were projected to generate $325,218 in FY 94 and $375,180 in FY 95 for the ADC budget and $479,131 in FY 94 and $580,125 in FY 95 for the Medicaid budget.
Sanctions associated the JOBS program would result in $84,075 in FY 94 and $193,461 in FY 95 in savings to the ADC budget and $244,088 in FY 94 and $589,564 in FY 95 to the Medicaid budget.
Sanctions for persons who do not participate in the Nevada Independence Project and stay on welfare roles for 24 months resulted in $1 million savings in FY 94 and $1.5 million savings in FY 95 to the ADC budget. Improved employment and training decreased costs to the ADC budget by approximately $274,265 in FY 95 and $1.9 million in FY 96.
Ms. Florence asserted if AB 580 was implemented the state could save approximately $11 million over a five year period. She suggested the state reinvest the savings to enhanced employment and training activities.
Ms. Florence referred to the Delineation, By Budget Account, of Impact of Welfare Reform on Welfare budgets, (Exhibit C). The spreadsheet delineated the impacts of AB 580 on specific welfare budgets. Saving from the ADC budget funded additional costs associated with the welfare administration budget, $1.6 million in FY 94 and $2.6 million in FY 95, for AB 580. The Medicaid budget would realize savings of $673,644 in FY 94 and $1.2 million in FY 95. The Employment and Training budget would increase funding by $1.2 million in FY 94 and $2.7 million in FY 95.
Chairman Arberry asked if the federal government provided incentives to the state for the proposal. Ms. Florence explained the state would receive the same federal participation levels. However, the federal rules would be waived for the period of the program.
Chairman Arberry noted if AB 580 was enacted into law it would no longer be a pilot project. Ms. Florence replied Section 5 of AB 580 required the state to comply with all federal laws and regulations as applicable. Chairman Arberry noted Section 5, line 2 read, "Change any goal or means set forth in those sections to the extent necessary to remain within the limits of money available from the federal government and through legislative approval." He asked if the section allowed the Division to allocate funds without legislative oversight. Ms. Florence said the intent was to remain within the available funding provided by the state and federal government.
Chairman Arberry asked about mailing costs. Ms. Florence replied all mailing costs were included in the operating cost listed on page 13 of Exhibit C. All notifications would be included with the welfare checks.
Chairman Arberry asked if children under the care of grandparents and foster parents would suffer truancy sanctions. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied AB 580 should be amended to reflect truancy sanctions would be imposed on grant recipients regardless of the relationship to the child.
Chairman Arberry asked if sanctions imposed on long-term recipients, more than 24 months, was an attempt to purge people out of the welfare system. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained sanctions were intended to motivate that segment of the welfare population which would not move forward on their own. The GAIN study employed heavy use of sanctions and was highly successful. One-third of successful candidates from the program were threatened with sanctions, however, only 6 percent of those actually had sanctions imposed. Sanctions would only be imposed if recipients did not take advantage of available services. He said the purpose of education and training was to enable recipients to gain employment. He noted sanctions would not be imposed during economic "hard times". Chairman Arberry said nothing in AB 580 specified that exemption. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin noted Section 4, subsection 5 explicitly addressed exceptions for economic "hard-times". Economic "hard-times" would be defined by the Employment Security Department's standards to determine the need for extended unemployment benefits.
Chairman Arberry asked if recipients would have an opportunity to appeal sanctions. Ms. Florence replied conference and appeal rights were available to all recipients. She noted sanctions would be imposed for the length of time the individual received benefits.
Chairman Arberry asked if she thought the sanctions were fair. Ms. Florence replied sanctions were intended to help recipients understand that public assistance was a temporary program for those persons who were able to return to the work force.
Chairman Arberry asked how good cause would be defined for recipients who voluntarily quit jobs. Ms. Florence replied the same standards currently employed in the Food Stamp program would be utilized.
Ms. Florence noted the agency attempted to work for the welfare of all Nevadan's. She asserted the focus of the Family Support Act was to provide support and training to recipients. Chairman Arberry wanted to ensure that sanctions did not serve to further humiliate recipients.
Chairman Arberry asked why the GAIN study had been selected as a model. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained the study used sanctions successfully and was the only site where extensive research had been conducted. He argued the services recipients needed most, such as training, education, child care, and transportation, would be provided more effectively if AB 580 was implemented.
Chairman Arberry asserted the welfare population in California was not a good basis for implementing a reform program in Nevada. He contended welfare recipients in the GAIN program were likely to have a higher level of training and education than Nevada recipients. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied 52 percent of the GAIN welfare population were illiterate and minority recipients. He noted backup documentation was available to substantiate the report.
Mrs. Williams asked if people not participating would be afforded the benefit and the sanctions of the welfare reform study pilot. Ms. Florence explained only the control group would receive benefits and sanctions associated with the pilot program and all others would be limited to the existing welfare system. This was a requirement of the federal waiver. Mrs. Williams commented AB 580 did not specifically address the exemption from sanction for non-participating recipients.
Mrs. Williams argued funding for mental health services had been decimated. She asked if participants would be sanctioned if mental health services were unavailable. Ms. Florence replied individuals with significant mental health problems would be classified as mentally disabled and exempted from sanctions. Mrs. Williams argued some forms of mental illness were only evident to professionals. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin acknowledged some clients did need mental health care but did not meet the criteria for care. He noted five additional counseling staff would be included in the budget request. Mrs. Williams asked for a description of the qualifications for the positions. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained a master's degree in a mental health discipline was required. He explained savings realized by AB 580 should be reinvested to expand the number of counselors and case managers available for mental health care.
Mrs. Williams argued if an application for appeal was filed by a recipient, AB 580 would favor welfare employees because it was highly subjective. Mrs. Williams asserted as born out by past experience, California models did not reflect the needs of Nevada. She asked for documentation to support the truancy statistics for ADC recipients noted in Exhibit C.
Mr. Perkins questioned the statistical accuracy of the GAIN pilot program; specifically, the increase in earning potential for long-term welfare recipients. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained statistics were based on a comparison of wages earned by GAIN participants and non-participants. Participants earned more and were employed more frequently. Mr. Perkins noted most long-term welfare recipients had little or no employment history. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin agreed.
Mr. Perkins was concerned geographic economies within the state would not be considered when determining economic "hard times". He explained an unemployment rate in one county could be 3 percent, and in another, 20 percent. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin supported an amendment to base economic "hard times" on geographic economies.
Mr. Perkins asked if recipients could receive immunization sanctions if services were unavailable. He noted the reduction in level of funding provided for Health Aid to Counties would have a great impact on available services. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained sanctions would only be imposed if services were available and recipients received free health care and transportation. Mr. Perkins noted it was unlikely sanctions would not be imposed over the next biennium because health service would not be readily available.
Mr. Perkins argued the description of the welfare population given in Exhibit C was extremely general. He asked how the Department determined the statistical characteristics for the description. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied the chart attempted to illustrate the welfare population in three segments; recipients with few, moderate and severe barriers to employment. He agreed the chart could have been more descriptive but it became cumbersome to do so. Mr. Perkins noted a recipient could fall in to one or more of the categories described by the chart. He asserted overlap made it difficult to target programs to the population. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied the characteristics generalized the welfare population into segments. He recognized there would be some deviation on an individual basis.
Mr. Perkins asked if a recipient would receive sanctions voluntarily quitting a job because of a lack of health care coverage. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied health care coverage was an essential component of employment and quitting a position for this reason would not cause sanctions.
Mr. Perkins asserted all of the questions posed by the committee were not specifically addressed in AB 580. He argued AB 580 was extremely general and open to subjective review by many individuals. He noted the bill was only two pages in length and argued comprehensive legislation should have specific language included in the bill. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained implementation of the bill would be based on existing regulations.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why matching funds from the Family Support Act of 1988 were not utilized earlier. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained because of the budget crisis, funds were being utilized on a limited basis. Additionally, the federal waiver had only recently become available. She asserted matching funds should have been available earlier.
Ms. Giunchigliani asserted AB 580 was not a comprehensive solution to the welfare reform question. She expounded cooperative agreements between the Department of Welfare and programs at the local level should be made.
Ms. Giunchigliani referred to the truancy sanction and asked if the local school districts could identify ADC children without compromising confidentiality. Ms. Florence replied the Welfare Division would match information with the school districts directly.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the home environment of many of the ADC children would facilitate truancy. She asked how the Department would determine legitimate illness. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained as long as the parent was attempting to comply with regulations by attending truancy programs sanctions would not be imposed. Ms. Giunchigliani argued because school offered stability and developed self esteem for ADC children they were less likely to be truant than higher functioning children.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if incentive based welfare reform pilot programs had been conducted in other states. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin was not aware of any pilot programs which were exclusively incentive based. He commented parental responsibility was a basic philosophical question which needed to be answered. Should a parent be paid for immunizing their children? He asserted bribing parents to perform duties which were basic parental responsibilities set an incorrect reinforcement precedent. Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged the philosophical implications of an incentive program; however, inadequate parenting skills were a result of many factors and could not be corrected with piecemeal welfare reform.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if other welfare reform pilot programs could be used as a point of reference for the committee. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied many states conducted pilot programs. He would provide information.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why less than 50 percent of recipients participated in the Well Baby program. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin noted services to recipients were free and transportation was provided. He asserted it was lack of motivation which prevented participation.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if rural outreach programs were available. Ms. Florence replied outreach was limited in the urban areas and non-existent in the rural areas. She commented publicity campaigns and material included in the welfare checks provided information to recipients. Ms. Giunchigliani argued reading material was useless for illiterate recipients. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin asserted recipients in Clark County with centralized services failed to walk across a parking lot to receive immunizations.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the percentage of ADC recipients in the rural areas. Ms. Florence replied 12 percent. She explained AB 580 was intended for the urban population only because it could not be effectively implemented in the rural population.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked for information on the number of injured workers on welfare. Ms. Florence explained the Department did not gather information on injured workers. However, SIIS speculated approximately 9 percent of their recipients were low income.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many months long-term recipients would receive JOBS training. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin replied when the program was fully implemented, recipients with significant barriers to employment would receive training for two years. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the Department presently had the staff required to provide these services. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin explained if the state reinvested the savings accrued after five years, $6 million, then adequate staffing and programs would be available.
Ms. Giunchigliani maintained long-term recipients with no work history would have difficulty sustaining employment. Ms. Florence explained recipients who received continuing child care supplements could be longitudinally studied. However, recipients out of the program were very difficult to track.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if recipients who received positions paying minimum wage were considered successful. Ms. Florence answered positions which paid more than minimum wage, included health benefits and supported the family were considered successful.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many people were predicted to be included in the program after the evaluation of the pilot program was complete. Ms. Florence estimated approximately 5,000 the first year of the program and 7,000 in the second year.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the Department did not support Fill-the-Gap legislation for recipients with low barriers to employment. Mr. Griepentrog-Carlin answered programs of this type would be most effective for recipients with moderate to high barriers to employment. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested combining Fill-the-Gap with a standard of need measure to ensure the success of recipients. She contended welfare and health budgets were inadequately funded and promised services that were impossible to provide with current staffing levels. The state must decide to raise taxes in order to provide adequate funding for promised services or not. She concluded AB 580 was not specific enough to facilitate adequate welfare reform.
Dr. Trudy Larson, Maternal/Child Health Coalition of Northern Nevada, testified against AB 580. She noted the coalition was comprised of approximately 40 agencies concerned with health of women and children. Dr. Larson asserted goals to improve health care for women and children were laudable. However, the methods proposed in AB 580 would not provide better health care for women and children. To ensure adequate health care, children needed frequent visits to health care providers. She asserted many fully capable parents had difficulty meeting these requirements. There were few providers which accepted Medicaid coverage. She emphasized many mothers tried to have their children seen and attempted to call many physicians without success because they did not accept Medicaid payments. For women who did not understand the purpose of the visit, this was an insurmountable burden. Availability of services and education on the importance of the services were of paramount importance.
Dr. Larson argued if services were available, sanctions would be a viable option. However, services were not available in the rural or urban areas. She advocated a cooperative agreement between the welfare division and clients.
Jon L. Sasser, Nevada Legal Services, testified against AB 580 (Exhibit D). Mr. Sasser asserted the bill was couched in nice rhetoric regarding laudable goals such as improved health, better school attendance, parental responsibility and self-sufficiency. The means, however, chosen to accomplish these goals were untested and were highly unlikely to produce significant results. He labeled the program punitive because it imposed sanctions on recipients for their failure to make changes over which they had little control.
He asked if significant change was unlikely to result from this program, what was its purpose? Aside from the obvious political advantages, AB 580 imposed a tax on certain recipients to replace funds lost in the JOBS program during the 1992 budget cuts which were not restored by the Governor.
Mr. Sasser agreed with the Administration on the value of education and training programs. However, the funding for the JOBS program had been reduced by 25 percent by the Governor during 1992. He asserted none of the witnesses supported the recommended sanctions.
He contended the Administration proposed to double the number of recipients mandated to participate in a JOBS program which today could service only one in three recipients currently mandated to participate. Even with proposed additional funding the percentage of those to be served would remain virtually unchanged.
Mr. Sasser asserted AB 580 was too broad. The bill provided a sweeping authorization to impose sanctions for failure to comply with any of the regulations and policies concerning ADC which may include reduced benefits after two years (without specifying any percentage), reduced benefits for those not receiving immunizations (without specifying a dollar amount). The language provided the administration was a blank check to seek federal waivers for any level of penalty it chose for any program violation. For this reason alone AB 580 should be rejected in its present form.
Dr. Eugene T. Paslov, Superintendent of Public Instruction, testified against AB 580. Dr. Paslov noted his interest in AB 580 was based on the attendance portion of the bill. He asserted incentives would be better than sanctions, all children want to be treated fairly and all people like to be free from dependency and productive in their environment. He noted Section 2, subsection 6, of the bill attempted to increase the rate of attendance at school by children of recipients, however, it missed the point by proposing a solution in Section 4, subsection 2, line 23 which reduced benefits and imposed sanctions on "families whose eligible children do not attend school regularly when able to do so."
He noted if teachers fulfilled the record keeping function of the sanction, they would be causing hardship and pain on a family. Teachers would not like such a requirement. Additionally, the technical requirements of a system would be costly to implement and complex to operate. He argued the Nevada school districts currently had a stringent attendance policy in place.
Penalizing welfare families for the attendance patterns of their children was unfair at its core. He stated if sanctions were imposed on welfare parents for school nonattendance, then sanctions should be imposed on all parents whose children miss an extensive amount of school.
He advocated the development of systems which identified the problem of individual children regardless of their social service status. He cited a similar proposal implemented in Wisconsin called the Learnfare. The program was evaluated after two years and was found to be generally unsuccessful.
Finally, Dr. Paslov asserted people respond best when they were expected to do well. A welfare reform program that provided support, demanded productivity and systematically moved recipients from dependency to independence in their own life as well at the life of their children, was going to be an effort that would break the cycle of poverty.
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association, testified against AB 580. She asserted a special attendance policy for students of welfare recipients would stigmatize only a small portion of the total student population with a high absentee rate. Ms. Cahill explained each district had an individual attendance policy. She argued school attendance policies would have to be standardized and this would concern the districts.
Lynn Bennett, Nevada, Parent Teacher Association, testified against AB 580. Ms. Bennett explained current statute gave local autonomy on attendance policies and gave local school boards responsibility for full impartial investigation if a complaint was filed against a parent concerning attendance. The appeals process was also dealt with within the district. For example, in Washoe County secondary schools after 10 absences the student does not receive credit for the class. According to the welfare reform synopsis "children in welfare families are absent from school 10 percent of the time". These estimates equated to 9 days per semester which was under the 10 day limit imposed by Washoe County School District. In Carson City, secondary schools considered a student truant when three unexcused absences were recorded and the student was referred to the juvenile authorities. She contended AB 580 created a discriminatory program with a parent in Washoe County being sanctioned and one in Carson City not.
Ms. Bennett referenced evaluations from the Wisconsin Learnfare and California's CalLearn both with unfavorable results. The evaluations found: (1) the programs did not improve school attendance; (2) many teen parents were sanctioned and (3) the programs were difficult to administer economically and fairly. She advocated, as an alternative, parenting classes, improved access to health care and identification of school related problems.
Mrs. Williams contended welfare benefits in California were higher than those in Nevada. AB 580 lacked the necessary specificity to ensure the intent of welfare reform was met. She noted support services for welfare recipients and noted they had been advocated for many years. However, to suggest that resources were currently available would create false expectations.
Ms. Giunchigliani advocated a parenting program rather than sanctions.
Barbara Hunt, Director, Community and Clinical Health Services, Washoe County District Health Department, testified against AB 580. Ms. Hunt advocated improving immunization levels for children. However, the demand for services could not be met. It was not uncommon for parents requesting immunization services to be asked to return the next day. For example, a mother of a four month old infant had been turned away by the Health Department three times.
Ms. Hunt was concerned sanctions would place Health Department in an advisory relationship with clients. She advocated an incentive program rather than the sanctions recommended in AB 580.
Frances Doherty, Staff Attorney, Washoe Legal Services, testified against AB 580. She asserted cost savings which resulted from sanctions to non-compliant recipients was not a good policy. When health care was inaccessible it was not wise to impose sanctions on recipients. She advocated public education, free vaccination and accessibility to health care.
Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters, testified against AB 580. Ms. Gilbert denounced the bill as mean spirited, punitive and "welfare bashing". She supported the JOBS program and Fill-the-Gap legislation. She noted over 90 percent of welfare recipients were women and children. She stated AB 580 would kick people when they were down.
Bobbie Gang, National Association of Social Workers, testified against AB 580. She asserted sanctions were detrimental to family well-being because they add stress to volatile families. If forced by sanctions to pressure their children to perform, parents could use inappropriate methods of discipline including violence. If the purpose of welfare reform was to enable recipients to become self-sufficient, they should be treated as capable, worthwhile adults. She contended sanctions proposed in AB 580 were parental and put recipients in a helpless, childlike position.
Sarah Chvilick, Nevada Women's Lobby, testified against AB 580. She objected to the punitive nature of the bill. The measures within AB 580 placed ADC within a policing mode rather than one of assistance. She advocated an incentive based program.
Dale Horkey, President, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Nevada, testified against AB 580. He asked the committee to search out their souls and seek out a better means of welfare reform such as Fill-the-Gap legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_________________________
C. Dale Gray
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
May 14, 1993
Page 1