The Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12 of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 8:20 a.m., on Friday, April 2, 1999, in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Jan Evans, Chairman

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Mr. David E. Goldwater

Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick

Mr. David R. Parks

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Millard Clark, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Rawson said there were some major issues that needed to be decided today for this budget. He noted the proposed changes to the Aging Services Division budget identified on page 7 of Exhibit C, an 8-page handout titled "Budget Closing Action Detail Report," would cost about $600,000. The senator noted there were other programs that had been cut short of needed funding. He said, "What we need to consider is that while it may be logical to make the change requested, in a tough budget year it may be better to use the funds in other budgets." Senator Rawson said there was no predetermined decision and the questions would be decided today.

Mary Liveratti, Deputy Administrator, Aging Services Division, Department of Human Resources, said it was stated in previous testimony that whether the programs were transferred to this budget or not, they needed an infusion of money to accomplish the job that needs to be done. Ms. Liveratti stated that even without transferring the programs, the programs needed additional funding to support them. She testified that because of the limited staff in the Aging Services Division budget, it cannot absorb these programs without additional administrative funds.

Ms. Liveratti acknowledged that these programs should be included in the Aging Services Division. She said that Elder Protective Services (EPS) would receive a much greater emphasis in the division. She declared the program would be much more visible to the public, would serve the public better, and would serve frail, vulnerable, seniors better. She said she would very much like to have the program in the Aging Services Division.

Senator Rawson said he noticed that in a bill being sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary the amendments to the bill identified that reports of elder abuse would be submitted to the Aging Services Division. Ms. Liveratti replied that the Aging Services Division currently receives those reports. She noted the bill Senator Rawson saw had the reports being sent to the Welfare Division and the Welfare Division is no longer responsible for EPS. Senator Rawson questioned whether the reports of elder abuse should be sent to the Aging Services Division regardless of whether the programs are moved or not. Ms. Liveratti replied that the reporting should be made to whoever has the EPS program.

Senator Rawson noted that the cost to make the change requested would be about $600,000. He asked what could be done to mitigate the additional cost or whether the $600,000 should be used to backfill some of the cuts to other budgets. The senator questioned whether it was possible to make the change with fewer than the six additional positions requested. Ms. Liveratti said she had discussed this question with Carla Sloan, Administrator, Aging Services Division, and Ms. Sloan felt that all of the positions were needed to accomplish the duties required. Ms. Liveratti noted there were no additional positions being requested to address growth other than one additional Social Worker position for the Las Vegas area. She explained that currently there is only one full-time Social Worker for the EPS program in Las Vegas to address the growth projected for that area.

Senator Rawson questioned what difficulties would be created if it were decided to fund only four of the six positions requested. He asked whether the EPS program should remain where it is if only four additional positions were approved. Ms. Liveratti replied the Aging Services Division is the proper location for the EPS program. Ms. Liveratti indicated that all requested positions are necessary. She noted the current Homemaker program includes 80 employees who provide homemaker services and this requires a lot of tracking for their hourly wages, as well as a determination of the cost per hour to provide the services. She stated the Aging Services Division would not know the impact until it has a chance to administer the program.

Senator Rawson commented the subcommittee would look at the other decisions that have been made and those decisions may dictate the legislators’ decisions today. He pointed out that if the Legislature starts funding some of the other budgets, it may not be possible to make the transfer. The senator said it may be suggested that four of the six requested positions be funded and that the LCB fiscal staff be assigned to identify other positions which may be transferred to this program.

Senator Rawson asked whether the subcommittee wished to issue a Letter of Intent to the Taxicab Authority requesting they provide an analysis of the financial position of the reserves in the Taxicab Fund as of September 30, 1999, to the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) to determine whether funds are available to support an additional 4,000 to 6,000 coupon books for the Senior Ride Program in each year of the 2000-01 biennium. He asked whether the subcommittee wished to vest this authority in the IFC to make the decision to supplement this program "if the numbers justify it."

Senator Rawson asked the subcommittee whether funding for the Volunteer Programs should be combined into one category and awarded based upon a competitive process rather than earmarked by program.

Ms. Liveratti said she would like to see the funds combined into one category and awarded on a competitive basis. Senator Rawson asked whether this process could be directed to some degree. He remarked, "A couple of the programs are strong. Their budgets are in the $600,000 range and cuts have not hit these budgets as hard as they have some of the smaller programs." The senator asked whether the division could ensure that the smaller programs are not affected more than they should be if the funds were combined into one category. Ms. Liveratti replied the programs would be considered based upon the needs they address. She explained the division looks at the community needs and what the programs will address. A program that had not received funding for the past few years would be closely reviewed. Ms. Liveratti said this is one of the reasons the division would like to see the funding combined.

Senator Rawson said that with the provision the smaller programs which have been hit the hardest by cuts may receive some preferential treatment, the division should be allowed to make the decisions through a competitive-grant process. Senator Raggio stated he did not think this action was inappropriate but he was optimistic that there will be some additional funding available to enhance this area of the budget. He noted that if such is the case he would like to have the opportunity, after the final revenue amount is identified, to address this area with some minimums recommended in the budget by this subcommittee. Senator Raggio said he has "real difficulty, because these are very important programs and their funding has been carefully guarded." He noted that at this point there appear to be necessary but rather "draconian cuts." Senator Raggio stated he was optimistic there would be additional revenue and these budgets would have a high priority for receiving additional funding. He said he would like to retain, to the extent possible, the amounts of funding which have been provided in the past for these programs.

Senator Rawson said he would accept a motion to combine the Volunteer Programs funding into one category with the provision that if the Legislature were able to supplement the funding for these programs that, at a minimum, the previous levels of funding would be maintained. He said that if the Legislature is able to supplement this budget, the division should maintain the current grant levels for all of the areas.

Ms. Evans said she shared concerns about the reductions in the programs. She asked whether the motion was to close the programs at the current level, or to restore the cuts pending the reprojected revenue. Senator Raggio replied that he assumed the motion is to authorize pooling the funding at the present time within the budget before the subcommittee. Further, if additional revenue becomes available these projects would be given a high priority and the effort would be made at that time to ensure, to the extent possible, the level of support which now exists for these programs as well as some others that might fall within this category. Senator Raggio said he did not think money could be added today that is not available but said he shared the optimism that there will be additional revenue and believed this should have a high priority. Ms. Evans said she did not want these programs to get lost in the shuffle when the Legislature was closing a lot of major budgets.

Senator Rawson asked the subcommittee whether funding for rural senior centers should be increased to offset a portion of the reduction in the Governor’s budget. He said the amount was $50,000. Senator Rawson noted the budget request includes $40,000 in enhancement E-352 for senior transportation needs for Nevada’s rural areas. He explained the $40,000 was made up of $20,000 from the General Fund and $20,000 from the Petroleum Overcharge Rebate funds from the Nevada State Energy Office in the Department of Business and Industry in each year of the biennium. It is proposed to be used to address senior transportation needs. The senator questioned whether the $40,000 would offset any of the $50,000 reduction.

Ms. Liveratti answered that the $40,000 would be specifically for transportation programs. The $50,000 that went to support the senior center programs was for a multitude of programs, not just transportation. She explained that the division was "looking at that money to just meet some of the unmet needs for transportation services." Senator Rawson asked whether some of the $50,000 could be pulled out which relates to transportation so the funds are not duplicated. The senator pointed out this is an area where there is not enough money. Ms. Liveratti said the division did have programs in some centers that requested additional funds for transportation. She said she did not have that number in hand but could extract it if needed. She explained that many of the programs use the transportation funds for delivery of additional homebound meals in their nutrition programs.

Mr. Dini remarked that this should be added to the priority list. He said the senior centers would not be able to handle the cuts included in this budget. Mr. Dini noted that with inflation and an increasing senior population, cutting the senior centers is very serious.

Birgit Baker, Program Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said that item No. 5 on page 2 of Exhibit C is a housekeeping item. Ms. Baker explained that the Medicare Insurance Counseling and Assistance (ICA) program and the Nevada Elders on the Net (NEON) project, which would put computers in all of the senior centers and has been pending IFC approval for several months, will be heard by the IFC during its April 8, 1999, meeting. If the IFC approves this project, item No. 5 on page 2 of Exhibit C will incorporate those changes, which include 1.5 FTE (full-time equivalent) new positions to manage the program, into the closing for this budget.

Ms. Evans asked whether all of the funding was federal funding. Ms. Baker replied that it is and there is no state match required for this federal funding.

HR, Senior Services Program – Budget Page AGING-11 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3146

Ms. Baker said the maintenance M-200 budget request will provide approximately 200 additional slots over the biennium for the Medicaid funded Community Home-Based Initiatives Program (CHIP). She confirmed the funding is in the Medicaid budget but noted there has been some discussion that an adjustment between fiscal years may be required. Ms. Baker explained there would be an adjustment in the Medicaid budget to accommodate this request.

Ms. Baker stated that included in this budget for each year of the biennium is approximately $40,000 in Title XX funds which were placed in the budget during the last legislative session to attempt to address the state funded CHIP waiting list. She pointed out the division has found that the eligibility criteria for the use of Title XX funds is quite restrictive and there are available slots that cannot be filled. Ms. Baker said the question for the subcommittee is, Should Title XX funds be replaced with general funds to provide flexibility in addressing the state waiting list? Senator Rawson commented that there would be no increase in the budget but changing some funds around. Ms. Baker noted that there are budgets that have general funds which could be changed to Title XX funds. Senator Raggio stated, "If this is revenue-neutral, I would have no problem with it."

Mr. Hettrick stated his concern is that when the Title XX funds are placed somewhere else the same type of problem may occur and then have an impact on the General Fund. He said, "If we are comfortable that this will not happen, there is no problem." Senator Rawson stated this was understood to be included in the motion.

Ms. Baker said the subcommittee had asked what it would cost to eliminate the current state CHIP waiting list. She said the number of clients on the waiting list for state CHIP services is about 82. She said the projected wait times are 2 years in Carson City, 18 months in Las Vegas, and 15 months in Reno. Ms. Baker said the division estimates that it costs approximately $7,600 in general funds for each client each year to address the state waiting list. She noted that to eliminate the current state waiting list would cost about $625,000 in general funds in each year of the biennium.

Senator Raggio said this is another area that is equally important and it is almost unconscionable to have people on a waiting list like this. He said he would like to put this on the high-priority list and readdress it after the new revenue projections are received.

Senator Rawson said the Governor’s budget recommends the transfer of the Elder Protective Services (EPS) and Homemaker programs from the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (DHCFP) to the Aging Services Division. The senator said the issue now is, Do we want the transfer to take place?

Senator Raggio commented, "If it will cost this amount of money to make the transfer–and this is hard for me to understand–it is hard to justify." The senator said the benefits are not clear and do not justify the cost of the new positions required. Senator Rawson said there is "an instinct" that these programs are better off in the Aging Services Division. Senator Raggio said, "It may sound better but there is no clear evidence that the services will be very different or improved." Senator Rawson said he thinks the transfer has at this point failed the test to show that it is cost-effective. He commented it may be more "comfortable" to make the transfer but the transfer has not been shown to be cost-effective.

Ms. Evans asked to clarify that the change being discussed is currently built into the budget request. She said no augmentation to the budget was needed, "we are just considering what is already in the budget." Ms. Evans said it sounds as though the Aging Services Division focuses on the elderly; that is their mission and that is all the division does. She noted that adding the EPS and Homemaker programs, which are for the elderly, seems to make sense in terms of providing better coordination of services. She said efficiencies may be gained by making the transfer rather than continuing to have the EPS and Homemaker programs be stand-alone programs in the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy. Ms. Evans asked what the net gains for the client would be if the transfer is made. She asked how the clients would be better served.

Ms. Liveratti replied the Aging Services Division believes the improvements discussed by Ms. Evans will occur. She stated that older people are the business of the division and that is the only business the division has. She said the division considers itself to be expert at providing services to older people. Ms. Liveratti stated the public would be better served because the Aging Services Division has additional resources that could be put toward these programs if the programs are transferred to the division. She pointed out the division is already providing public education about elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. She noted the division also has a very close working relationship with law enforcement and has within the past few years launched a statewide elder abuse prevention campaign to develop more public and law enforcement understanding about the issues and how to address them.

Ms. Liveratti stated it is "a natural fit" for the Aging Services Division to have these services. She said the division can bring in all the services the aging network has to complement the programs, and this would be an asset. She pointed out the programs are currently buried in the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy and many people in the public are not aware the programs are there. She stated the Aging Services Division will provide much better public awareness and will cross-train the division employees so there will be additional backup for the programs. Ms. Liveratti noted the division’s compliance/audit investigators will enhance the EPS program which will also enhance the long-term-care ombudsman program. She stated that there is currently a duplication of effort and fragmentation which is confusing to the public and the law enforcement system. She indicated that the public would be better served by transferring the programs to the Aging Services Division because the division would eventually be able to be more effective and more efficient. She pointed out that with the growth in population of the elderly in the state the division sees more elder abuse issues arising. Ms. Liveratti said the division has resources that could be brought to these programs.

Senator Rawson said the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy is transferring 15 positions; 18 positions are identified in the Medicaid budget for the administration of these programs, and 3 of the remaining positions cannot be transferred because they are funded by Title XIX funds. The senator asked whether transferring these positions, if it is possible to do so, would violate any federal requirements, considering that the positions would be accomplishing the same work. Ms. Liveratti replied that to be reimbursed by Title XIX a service must be provided under the state Medicaid plan or through a waiver. She stated there is a lot of overlap between the EPS and the Title XX Homemaker program and there are a number of Medicaid clients receiving these services.

Senator Rawson said that it seems three positions could be taken from the Medicaid budget and assigned to work with the EPS program. He noted the positions would not be transferred, just assigned to work with the EPS because there is an overlap. The senator said he did not want to jeopardize federal funds but this could be a workable alternative. Ms. Liveratti stated that the possibility of targeting case management for some of the at-risk clients had been discussed. She said it is something that could not be addressed before this budget was submitted.

Senator Rawson asked what problems would be created if four of the six requested positions were approved and two positions from the Medicaid budget were assigned to work with the programs being transferred.

Senator Raggio said he was impressed by the division’s comments. He commented that his question about what additional benefit would be gained from transferring the programs to the Aging Services Division had been answered. The senator said he heard the division say it could provide considerably better service than was currently being provided. He asked whether the division was representing to the Legislature that it could accomplish 344 more EPS investigations in each year of the biennium. Ms. Liveratti replied, "Yes, that is why we requested the additional Social Worker position in Las Vegas." She noted the division was projecting a 21 percent increase in investigations for the Las Vegas area. Senator Raggio wondered whether the current budget request would accommodate those changes or whether additional funding is needed but said his concerns were satisfied.

Senator Raggio asked whether this action retains the ombudsman program and enhances it. Ms. Liveratti replied there were no enhancements for the ombudsman program in the Aging Older Americans Act budget, account 101-3151, but the division believes this action will enhance the ombudsman program as a result of the cross-training and the ability to streamline both of these programs. Senator Raggio asked whether the division was assuring the Legislature the clients would be better able to reach the services, or be directed to the services, that they need if this action is taken. Ms. Liveratti replied yes.

HR, Welfare Administration – Budget Page WELFARE-1 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3228

Senator Rawson explained that the maintenance M-200 portion of the budget request included a request for 3 new positions. He noted the 3 positions requested were a Social Welfare Program Specialist, a Quality Control Specialist, and a Computer Network Technician.

Ms. Evans pointed out there is funding for the Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) in this budget. She mentioned that when Ms. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, met with her last week to discuss the NOMADS project, Ms. Florence said she was meeting with all the stakeholders to try to iron out some of the disagreements or inconsistencies. Ms. Evans said the electronic benefits system seems to be more expensive than the paper system but the state does not have a choice; this system is required by the federal government.

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, replied the federal requirement is that the state have an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) system by 2002, unless the federal government grants a waiver indicating the system is not cost-effective. Ms. Florence said recent discussions with federal government representatives indicated there are some additional costs that can be reported in the cost-benefit analysis report. She mentioned she has testified previously that the real winners are the federal government, not necessarily the state. Ms. Florence indicated the division was continuing to analyze this issue insofar as whether the division comes back with a recommendation to start implementation.

HR, Welfare Field Services – Budget Page WELFARE-11 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3233

Ms. Evans said the people who toured the professional development center (PDC) in Las Vegas were very impressed and were convinced that establishing the center was a very smart move. She commented the center was a step forward in terms of implementing welfare reform. Ms. Evans mentioned the division has expressed interest in developing a PDC, similar to the one in Las Vegas, in northern Nevada. She noted that a request for the northern PDC was not included in this budget request. Ms. Evans asked what the estimated cost is to develop a PDC in northern Nevada and what the real advantages are to having a PDC in northern Nevada. She inquired what had been learned from the experience with the PDC in Las Vegas, and what would be gained by having a PDC in northern Nevada in terms of program improvement, better staff training, and how it helps the clients.

Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator, Program and Field Operations, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, said the benefits of the PDC are that it allows the division to do numerous things. Mr. Willden noted the clients have work-participation rates that have to be met, and those are increasingly steep through the year 2002. He pointed out the PDC allows the division to perform a majority of the client-training activities in a central location. He commented that with the PDC it is not necessary to search for and rent rooms in the community and be at the mercy of other organizations. Mr. Willden stressed this is a huge benefit. He noted that in northern Nevada the division does not have a central location for this type of training.

Mr. Willden commented that staff training benefits greatly from the computer training facility in the PDC. He said that in northern Nevada the division is rapidly outgrowing the welfare office in Reno. He commented the division is currently looking for a new child support office in Reno because the existing space became too expensive. Mr. Willden suggested it might be cost-beneficial to find office space that could house both the child support services and the PDC in one location.

Mr. Willden said the total General Fund cost for the start-up year of the PDC in northern Nevada would be about $143,000. The ongoing cost for this office would be about $71,000 each year. He noted the increased cost for the start-up year includes moving expenses, telephone purchases, and purchasing the necessary equipment. He said the ongoing costs included rent, janitorial service, security, and utilities.

Ms. Evans asked whether the current cost for the child support office had been considered when identifying the estimated start-up cost of the new child support office space and the new PDC. Mr. Willden replied the estimated $143,000 start-up cost included the savings that would be realized by canceling the current office lease for child support services. He said there would be some savings realized by combining the child support services with the PDC telephone system.

Ms. Evans commented the estimated cost of $143,000 assumed the child support office and the PDC would be together. Mr. Willden replied that was correct. Ms. Evans asked whether the current expense of looking for training rooms, meeting rooms, and office space was considered when estimating the ongoing office expense. Mr. Willden said it is rare the Welfare Division actually rents the space for training and meetings. He commented the space is usually loaned to the division at no cost.

Ms. Evans noted permanent training facilities equipped with computers were provided in the southern PDC. She asked how the training was handled in the north. Mr. Willden replied there were no facilities for training in the north. He commented the division does have a 22-station computer room in the Reno office that is primarily used for staff training. He commented this computer room has been occasionally used for client training. He stated that allowing clients to use the computers in the Reno office creates a security problem. Mr. Willden explained that when a client uses the computers in the southern PDC, a firewall prevents the clients from accessing the state’s computer databank. When staff is using these computers the firewall is removed so they can access all the systems needed. He commented that Reno does not have the same systems so it is rare that clients are allowed to use the computers.

Ms. Evans asked whether the Reno office was in better condition that it was 2 years ago when she visited it. Mr. Willden replied the office has been painted and recarpeted but it is still an old building, and has quite a number of electrical problems, limited parking, and a very small lobby area. Ms. Evans commented it is a dreadful building and she would hate to work there.

Ms. Evans asked how much of the $143,000 first-year start-up cost and the $71,000 ongoing yearly cost was General Fund money. Mr. Willden replied that all those amounts are General Fund money.

Senator Rawson asked whether Ms. Florence has been able to meet with the interested parties to facilitate a meeting that will provide additional information about the NOMADS project.

Ms. Florence replied the division has not coordinated a meeting that included all of the interested parties at one time. She said that following this meeting she would be attending a meeting with the district attorneys in the Office of the Attorney General. Senator Rawson said it is important to keep everyone informed about the status of the meeting. Ms. Florence said a meeting was held with Governor Guinn yesterday. She said the Governor was very concerned about the federal funding issue and the lack of unanimity and has indicated he will be leading the team to meet with the federal representatives. Ms. Florence stated she was very pleased the Governor has taken an active interest in the federal funding issue.

Ms. Evans stated there were many arguments for the establishment of a PDC in northern Nevada. She said, "Unfortunately, the state does not have the funds to pay for the start-up and the ongoing expenses of the PDC." She asked that the division keep the PDC question in mind and continue to request the funding during this session of the Legislature. Ms. Evans stated she agrees there are efficiencies to be gained in developing a PDC in northern Nevada.

Mr. Dini agreed it is important to train staff before they are assigned a caseload. He recalled there was recently a bad experience with untrained staff in Yerington. He asked whether the existing budget would provide a full-time secretary for the Yerington office rather than the half-time position that was currently in place. Ms. Florence replied there was a full-time secretary assigned to the Yerington office and she hoped the person was working full-time. She requested to be notified if the secretary assigned to the Yerington is not working full-time.

Senator Rawson noted the budget request contained in enhancement E-125 and E-350 appears to be reasonable.

HR, Welfare/TANF – Budget Page WELFARE-18 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3230

Senator Rawson commented the Legislature needs to determine in the budget closings whether or not to approve two major welfare reform proposals that use Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds. He said the first proposal is to increase the monthly cash assistance payments to nonneedy caretakers by $187 each month. The senator noted this was an expensive proposal which would cost $5.6 million in the first year of the biennium, and that amount is not even for a full year. The cost during the second year of the biennium is about $7.5 million. Senator Rawson said the Legislature should look at alternatives while this proposal is being considered and commented the time is very limited.

Senator Rawson pointed out one possible alternative might be that rather than pay a monthly cash assistance, the Legislature could consider a bi-annual bonus. He said another possibility is an incentive payment that would offset some of the costs associated with preparing children for school. The senator said that less costly alternatives would still recognize the importance of the non-needy caretaker.

Senator Rawson requested that staff propose some alternatives for the Legislature to choose from. He commented the changes could be phased in to save money.

Ms. Florence said this funding is composed strictly of TANF funds, not General Fund dollars. She stated:

Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Coalition, said she supports the increase for nonneedy caretakers. Ms. Gilbert said she continues to see the savings in TANF and appreciates that Nevada is willing to put the money back into the program. She noted that in many states this is not happening. She said she recently received information showing that 10 states have increased their regular grant level, which Nevada has not done for many years. She urged the Legislature to keep the TANF money within the TANF budget, whether for the non-needy caretaker or for a grant increase because the state is seeing savings. Ms. Gilbert said, "You and I know that $348 each month for a family of three is very difficult to live on." She urged the Legislature to support the increase in the payment to the nonneedy caretakers or increase the grant level.

Senator Rawson said the second reform proposal recommends approximately $1.6 million over the biennium to provide a onetime $350 job-retention incentive for TANF recipients who successfully complete 6 months of continues employment. He said this is to encourage people to stay in the workplace.

Ms. Florence said it was discussed earlier that this will contribute to Nevada’s efforts to be eligible for a high-performance bonus from the federal government. She restated that this was strictly TANF funding and included no General Funds dollars in this initiative.

Senator Rawson stated that enhancement E-352 recommends reinstating the diversion program, now called the Self-Sufficiency Grant (SSG) program, approved by the 1997 Legislature but never implemented.

HR, Welfare to Work – Budget Page WELFARE-24 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3226

Senator Rawson said the Legislature must decide whether it wants to fully fund the program to recoup the $700,000 in federal Welfare-to-Work (WtW) funds. He said if it does, an additional $325,000 in state funds would be needed. He requested the division evaluate whether there are other certifiable match funds that could be used to save General Fund moneys.

Ms. Florence said, "With regard to Welfare to Work, I believe that if we have the ability to approach IFC during the interim, that will be sufficient." She further stated:

Ms. Florence stated the Welfare Division has indicated to LCB staff that the division requests a closing adjustment with regard to the computer system for WtW. She emphasized the division did not have any qualified bidders respond to the request for proposal (RFP) that was recently reviewed. She said the computer system RFP would have to be rebid again, so the closing adjustments requested would reinstate funding for the development so this system can move forward.

Senator Rawson asked whether the division has any idea what the ongoing maintenance cost of the system will be. Ms. Florence replied the maintenance costs are built into the WtW budget and the Welfare Administration budget.

Senator Rawson said the LCB Fiscal Analysis Division has asked for information on the costs for the proposed "super system." He said it is known the ongoing costs are currently funded from the Welfare Administration budget, as part of the divisionwide information services budget, but additional information is needed. He said the information on the ongoing costs is specifically what is needed for the Welfare to Work and the Welfare Administration budgets. The senator said April 13, 1999, is the latest this information can be dealt with. Ms. Florence said she would clarify the information with the LCB Fiscal Analysis Division staff. She said she believes the cost is approximately $1 million.

Ms. Evans said her question pertained to the Welfare/TANF budget. She stated:

Ms. Florence replied that is correct, there was a meeting last week. Ms. Evans asked, "What are some of the things you will be doing to improve that operation?" Ms. Florence replied there were a number of issues discussed. She said the major issue has to do with pending clients and how services might be reimbursed for the pending clients. She noted this issue was being assessed. Ms. Florence said additional concerns included worker training. She added "While we have had a number of sessions for our front-line workers on domestic violence issues, the division has requested identification of areas where it might improve and enhance the training." She commented these were the two major issues she was aware of.

Mr. Willden said there was one additional issue beyond the two that Ms. Florence mentioned. He said that is the common billing process. He explained that the division contracts with a dozen domestic violence advocacy groups as providers now. Some of them bill for 1 or 2 types of services and others bill for 12 to 15 types of services. He said that in the meeting with the advocates it was agreed they would survey all the provider groups to develop a uniform listing of services and a uniform cost per unit for these services. Mr. Willden said this will address the current problems.

Mr. Willden noted the pending period of eligibility has been a problem. He said the problem is this: When a TANF client applies for assistance, it may take up to 30 days to approve his or her TANF eligibility. Because the person is not yet approved for TANF eligibility, the division is not accessing TANF funds to pay for services. Mr. Willden said the first step in solving this problem is that the division will expedite processing of the applications when it is known domestic violence is an issue. The goal is to have the applications processed within 10 days. This will allow the division to access the TANF funds much quicker than the current process does.

Mr. Willden said there is a problem with the federal rules that stipulate unless the client is TANF-eligible the TANF funds cannot be used. He said the division is attempting to get agreement to issue a onetime, lump-sum, short-term payment that will meet the federal requirements and allow services to be provided during the pending period. He summarized that by expediting the application process and implementing the onetime, short-term payment the division may be able to resolve the pending-period issue.

HR, Child Support Enforcement Program – Budget Page WELFARE-28 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3238

Senator Rawson noted there is funding in The Executive Budget to continue implementation of Nevada’s State Disbursement Unit (SDU). He asked whether the division has received approval of the waiver exemption from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Florence replied the division has not received approval at this time. She said, "This is another area where we will be requesting a closing adjustment with regard to carrying forward some of the activities that we were not able to accomplish between now and June 30, 1999, for the SDU." She indicated this information has been transmitted to LCB staff.

Senator Rawson remarked that the rural district attorneys are discussing a regionalization of child support enforcement programs. He was not sure whether this concern stems from the NOMADS project or whether it is the district attorneys’ general reluctance to adapt to and be involved in the continuing reform. The senator said he has no information on how regionalization will affect the state.

Ms. Florence said the issues have expanded beyond just an automated system. She commented the regionalization concept was just proposed about 10 days ago. She said Douglas County has submitted the regionalization concept to others in the state but has not yet received feedback on the concept. Ms. Florence said it is her understanding the issue of either regionalization or having the state assume full responsibility for rural child support operations has been debated over the years. She commented the concept that there would be some potential for economies of scale if the small office operations were centralized in some manner may have some merit. But the proposal on the table at this time is that Douglas County would provide its current level of support for the child support program to be managed by the state during the first year of the biennium. After that the state would assume at least the Douglas County program after the first year of the biennium. She pointed out this is not a concept that has been debated or determined by the Douglas County Commissioners so it is very fluid at this point. Ms. Florence said further discussion on this issue was to take place at the district attorneys’ meeting today.

Ms. Florence said her concern was that the timing is difficult because the state is attempting to roll out a new system, and to pull in 12 rural operations within a year’s period would be a difficult undertaking. She said, "Potentially there could be a pilot program but currently local counties do contribute to those office operations with their own funding resources." She said the state does not put any General Fund dollars into the child support program, so there could be a significant fiscal impact to the state.

Ms. Florence said that under current cooperative agreements, any district attorney can terminate the county’s agreement with the state within a 60-day period. She noted that by its very nature the agreement is cooperative. If an entity does not want to administer that program it would fall back upon the state to assume the responsibility.

Senator Rawson commented, "One of the ways of bringing the local areas to the table is, as long as they are participating in a certain direction, the state could absorb the penalties and if they will not come to the table, let them assume the penalty."

Ms. Evans asked whether one of the federal requirements for certification is that the counties must participate in this program. Ms. Florence said the system must be a single statewide system but some states are totally state-administered. Ms. Evans wondered, "If the complexity of NOMADS is so overwhelming to small rural offices that the offices cannot use the system, where are we?" Ms. Florence replied this is the genesis of the regional proposal. She said the state is in a very difficult situation because the local entities have the right to say they want the state to assume control of enforcement of child support within their areas. Ms. Florence said the state has not analyzed this possibility either from a practical aspect or a cost-benefit aspect. She said she will be interested to see whether the concerns are strictly driven by NOMADS or whether there are other issues that can be considered in terms of working with the local entities. She commented the state has had a very strong working relationship over the years and she prefers to see that continue.

HR, Assistance to Aged and Blind – Budget Page WELFARE-39 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3232

Senator Rawson asked whether the subcommittee wished to be involved in how the annual Supplemental Security Income (SSI) funds are distributed or instead prefers that the division continue to make this decision. He asked how the recipients feel about this issue. Ms. Florence replied that of course the recipients would like to see their personal needs allowance increase with every cost-of-living increase. She said the division has tried to balance the needs of the clients and the operators over the years and having the flexibility to do so has been beneficial.

HR, Employment and Training – Budget Page Welfare-41 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3267

Senator Rawson noted there is an additional $1.3 million in federal child care matching funds for both fiscal years of the upcoming biennium. He asked whether any certifiable match has been identified for these funds. Ms. Florence replied the division has not found specific local match to access these federal funds at this point in time but the division will pursue this issue. Senator Rawson asked how many children are on the current waiting list for child care. Ms. Florence replied that at present there are about 3,873 children on the waiting list. Senator Rawson noted that the priority list is ranked by poverty guidelines and asked how many children were included in the highest priority of receiving subsidized child care. Ms. Florence replied this information was provided to LCB staff in the March 12, 1999, response on the numbers of individuals that are above the priority guideline. She commented that at the time of the response about 26 percent of the families had income above the 185 percent of need.

Senator Rawson asked whether the subcommittee wants to increase the funding for New Employees of Nevada (NEON) by approximately $760,000, which would allow the division to serve 100 percent of the eligible NEON population. Ms. Florence replied, "The TANF funds could support this effort but there would be an impact to the budget stabilization fund." Senator Rawson asked that the division review any adjustment which might be used by NEON and submit the recommendations to LCB staff.

Senator Rawson noted the decision unit E-125 budget request includes a request for a new Supervisor position. He asked about the supervisor-to-worker ratio of from 1:10 to 1:8 and how the ratio is calculated. Ms. Florence replied:

Ms. Florence noted the current ratio is 1:16, which she said is well beyond reasonable supervisor-to-employee ratios. Senator Rawson noted there may be some misunderstanding of the information received and requested that LCB staff confer with the division to ensure the correct information is available.

Ms. Evans asked about the child care waiting list. She indicated it appears that if the state had matching funds it could draw an additional $1.3 million of federal funds and asked whether that was correct. Ms. Florence replied that is correct. Ms. Evans asked how the amount of certifiable match available is determined. Ms. Florence replied it is primarily locally funded child care or preschool programs that can be used as certifiable match. She said, "It is primarily accessing the cities and counties with regard to local funding that they may be supporting existing programs." Ms. Evans asked whether there is something the Legislature can do to assist in identifying available match. She said, "If there is something we can do to encourage these people to work with you to identify certifiable match, we will do it." Ms. Florence said that would be helpful and the division will pursue these discussions as soon as possible. She said there is $1.2 million in additional discretionary money that is not included in the budget. She commented that in addition to the $1.3 million in federal funds that requires a match, there is an additional $1.2 million in discretionary child care funds that will not require a match which may be incorporated into the budget. She noted that as long as the Welfare Division deals with the identification of certifiable match the division can return to the Legislature to discuss the $1.3 million of federal funding.

Ms. Evans said she would take personal responsibility to contact various groups to discuss possible match money. She asked who in the division her contacts should talk to. Ms. Florence said they should contact her or Mr. Willden.

Senator Rawson adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Millard Clark

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE:

Assemblywoman Jan Evans, Chairman

DATE: