MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

Ways and Means committee/Senate finance committee

joint subcommittee on human resources/k-12

 

Seventy-First Session

April 27, 2001

 

 

The Joint Subcommittee on Ways and Meanswas called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Friday, April 27, 2001.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mrs.                     Barbara Cegavske

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.  (Excused)

Mr.                     David Goldwater  (Excused)

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

            Senator William J. Raggio  (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Andrea Carothers, Committee Secretary

 

BUDGET CLOSING

 

WELFARE FIELD SERVICES – BUDGET PAGE WELFARE-12

 

The Chair recognized Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst.  Mr. Abba noted that the Welfare Field Services budget was the account that housed all the eligibility staff.  There were a number of decision issues the committee would need to decide upon. 

 

Mr. Abba said that decision unit M-284 requested six new eligibility worker positions to be Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) coordinators for each of the division’s largest district offices.  The EBT system was currently in the development process, and had to be implemented by October 1, 2002.  The division proposed to have within the six largest offices an EBT coordinator position.  This position would be responsible for issuing EBT cards to program recipients, operating the Personal Identification Number (PIN) device, providing technical training assistance to staff and recipients, training staff on EBT issuance procedures, and problem solving within the district office.  The division was proposing to eliminate a total of nine existing investigation positions to assist in offsetting the cost of the proposed positions.  Mr. Abba noted that from a staff position it appeared that the positions were justified, and there were no technical adjustments because the operating and outfitting costs were already built into the budget for the positions designated for elimination.

 

The next policy issue the committee needed to address was decision units E‑432 and E-433, stated Mr. Abba.  The two decision units provided for 20 new eligibility workers to handle the projected caseload that was anticipated for the elimination of the Child Health Assurance Program (CHAP) Assets Test and for expediting eligibility determinations for pregnant women and children.  These two initiatives had been proposed by the Governor to increase prenatal care and to enroll more woman and children into the CHAP program.  The assets test had been considered an enrollment barrier and that issue had been brought before the committee previously.  The committee had requested that the department look at the potential of delaying the two initiatives.  The Welfare Division and the Division of Health Care Financing and Policy had provided information regarding the potential savings.  If the implementation of the initiatives was delayed from July of 2001 to July of 2002 the implementation costs would be $1,577,63 for a savings of $1,421,380.  If the implementation was delayed from July of 2001 to October 2002 the implementation costs would be $1,132,860 for a savings of $1,866,083.  Mr. Abba stated that staff suggested that the project be delayed until July.  It would be beneficial to receive caseload information before the next legislative budget cycle was started, and implementation in July would provide six months of caseload information.  This information would show what impact the elimination of the CHAP assets test would be on the Welfare budget and the Medicaid budget.

 

Mr. Abba said that the committee needed to decide on decision unit E-477.  This decision unit recommended five new quality control positions in the Belrose, Owens, Charleston, Henderson, and Reno district offices.  The division had significant problems with the error rate in the Food Stamp Program.  There had been a number of projects initiated during the interim to reduce the error rates and the division had been successful.  The food stamp error rate had exceeded 12 percent and was currently approximately 5 percent.  In decision unit E-477 the division was proposing to have designated staff to continue error reduction initiatives as well as have staff to complete quality assurance work on input into the Nevada Operations Multi-Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) system to ensure that eligibility workers were inputting information correctly.  Mr. Abba noted that this was important for the work participation rate, and disaggregated data reporting.  At the request of the subcommittee the staff had requested a prioritization of the requested new positions.  The division indicated that the requested positions were not new because six existing positions were being eliminated in the Employment and Training budget.  The concern from a staff perspective was that the eliminated positions were federally funded positions, and the requested new positions would require a state match.  In reviewing decision unit E-477 the positions appeared reasonable, but due to the additional cost the committee would need to decide upon the need.  The committee could establish a pilot project providing for three of the five staff, two of the new staff in the south and one in the north, or the committee could increase the vacancy savings in the budget in the amount of the additional General Fund appropriation that had been recommended.  Mr. Abba noted that this budget was large, with a payroll of approximately $35 million.  The vacancy savings rate budgeted was at 2.4 percent of total salary costs.  If the vacancy savings was increased by the amount of the state match required for the new positions there would be a total increase of less than 0.15 percent. 

 

Mr. Abba explained that the committee would need to make a decision regarding decision unit E-805.  This was a recommendation to reclassify what was currently referred to as 24 front desk clerks.  These positions were currently a grade 23 and the proposal would reclassify the positions to a grade 27, a 20 percent increase.  The division felt that these positions needed to have advance knowledge about the programs that the division administered due to client contact.  The client contact also created a need for more inter-personal skills, and warranted the higher classification.  Mr. Abba explained that the Department of Personnel had not reviewed the reclassification request.  If the committee approved the reclassification it would be contingent upon what the Department of Personnel would find through their study.  The fiscal staff did not have a concern with the proposal and had received information that indicated the division did not plan to complete wholesale reclassification of all clerical staff.  The proposed reclassification was restricted to front desk clerical staff that would be dealing with clients on an ongoing basis. 

 

Senator Rawson asked if the vacancy savings was increased to 3 percent, what level the amounts would be at, and whether that would be realistic.  Mr. Abba explained that the budget that was being discussed was large with a number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) accounts.  Mr. Abba was unable to comment for the division in terms of how they would manage with the increase.  He noted that the proposed increase for the vacancy savings was from the current 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent.  The additional half percent Senator Rawson was asking about would be an additional $75,000 to $100,000 per year.  Senator Rawson noted that in the past vacancy savings had been 5 to 10 percent in agencies and he was wondering if this was a practical budget to complete that in.  Mr. Abba explained that due to the size of the budget this would be a practical one to have the larger vacancy savings.  He noted that the eligibility worker positions were budgeted at a journeyman level.  In the past when the division hired eligibility workers, they would be hired at a trainee level, which was a 15 percent pay difference.  There was a built-in surplus in the hiring practice.  This would lend itself to a slight increase in the vacancy savings if this practice was continued. 

 

Senator Rawson inquired as to how the committee would feel about an increase in the vacancy savings from 2.4 percent to 3 percent.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that this would allow increased flexibility for the pilot program for the quality assurance positions.  She noted that there were no objections to that recommendation. 

 

The Chair recognized Michael Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division.  Mr. Willden stated that Mr. Abba was correct in regard to the hiring process for eligibility workers.  The eligibility workers were usually hired at the grade 28 level and would go through a one-year training period.  When first hired the employees would spend 48 days in a training academy.  The hiring process was held until a training academy would be available.  Mr. Willden said that he would prefer to have the requested positions with a vacancy savings adjustment than to not have the positions. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested that the eligibility workers be included in the motion.  She explained that it appeared to be time to follow the Governor’s recommendation of eliminating the CHAP assets test and expediting eligibility, but the committee could still consider the implementation delay until July 2002, which would provide the caseload information.  She noted that in decision unit E-477 there were decisions that needed to be made.  The committee could approve the five requested positions, or three of the positions as a pilot project, or could increase the vacancy savings.

 

Senator Rawson recommended that the committee increase the vacancy savings and provide the division with the flexibility. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that decision unit E-805 appeared to be a reasonable request, but the committee would need to be assured that an internal salary and equity problem was not created. 

 

Ms. Sandra Tiffany asked what the difference was between a grade 23 and a grade 27.  Mr. Willden said he believed a grade 23, Management Assistant I was approximately $25,000 per year, and with a 30 percent increase that would be raised to approximately $30,000 per year. 

 

MS. TIFFANY MOVED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH:

·        APPROVAL OF THE SIX NEW ELIGIBILITY WORKER POSITIONS.

·        ELIMINATION OF THE CHAP ASSETS TEST, EXPEDITE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, AND IMPLEMENT IN JULY 2002.

·        AN INCREASE IN THE VACANCY SAVINGS.

·        APPROVAL OF THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE FRONT DESK POSITIONS.

 

MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Senator Coffin asked if the yearly salary discussed included benefits.  Senator Rawson clarified that at $10 per hour the yearly salary was approximately $20,000 per year.  Mr. Willden stated that there was approximately a $4,000 to $5,000 difference in salary per employee. 

 

Mr. Abba stated that the division was attempting to create a career ladder for clerical workers.  The clerical workers could be promoted up through the ranks.  He reiterated that reclassifications were contingent on the Department of Personnel.  The employees may not be grade 27 but rather grade 25.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that the career ladder made sense to lower turnover rates.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Senator Raggio, Mr. Arberry, Mrs. Cegavske, and Mr. Goldwater were absent.)

 

********

 

WELFARE TANF – BUDGET PAGE WELFARE-21

 

Mr. Abba stated the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), federal welfare reform legislation, required that states maintained a maintenance of effort (MOE).  The state of Nevada’s MOE was $27.2 million.  He explained that this money was a state funding requirement and could not be reduced unless work participation rates were met on a “continues bases.”  There had been a slight change in how the MOE had been budgeted; $24.6 million of the MOE funding was now located in the Welfare/TANF budget, the other $2.6 million was in the Employment and Training budget.  When the committee examined the budget there would be a significant increase in the General Fund appropriation due to the isolation of the MOE within the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) budget.

 

Mr. Abba said that the federal funding to the TANF budget had not been budgeted in its full amount.  The reason behind that was that when the division was completing their budget, Congress had been deliberating whether or not to reduce the TANF budget by 10 percent.  This looked as though it would occur, so the division had not budgeted the full TANF amount.  The TANF grants had been allocated to the states at the full amount, so in the closing adjustments there would be an increase to decision unit M-200 of $3,498,255 for FY2002 and $4,397,673 for FY 2003. 

 

Mr. Abba stated that in previous years Nevada had received supplemental funding for population growth.  The money had been received since the TANF block grant was placed in a block grant form.  The population modifier money was not in The Executive Budget because the budget presented to Congress by President Bush did not include the population modifier allocation.  Congress was deliberating about whether or not to reappropriate the funds.  Mr. Abba indicated that he had had discussions with the National Conference of State Legislators’ (NCSL) staff in Washington D.C., and it appeared that the money would be reappropriated for federal FY2002.  If the money was appropriated it would include an additional $4.7 million in TANF funding.  Staff recommendation was that if the committee chose to budget the additional funding, that it be placed in reserve until the division had a plan on how the money would be spent. 

 

Mr. Abba explained that the Welfare Division had received notification that Nevada would be awarded a second TANF High Performance Bonus in the amount of $2.2 million for federal FY2000.  The division had previously spent that money for infrastructure needs in the information services area.  The division had provided information indicating their desire to use the funds to restart the On-line Automated Self-Sufficiency Information system (OASIS) project.  This would be discussed when the subcommittee would review the Welfare Administration budget. 

 

Mr. Abba noted that the projections for caseloads were increasing, and the division had been averaging over 17,500 recipients per month for the previous seven months.  In addition, the caseload mix that was receiving cash assistance payments was more expensive, due to the increase of non-needy caretakers that received a higher grant payment than other TANF caseloads.  On the closing documents, for the additional caseload, staff had increased the TANF cash assistance category by $2,430,755 for FY2002 and by $2,588,758 for FY2003 using TANF funds.  This would provide for an increase of 1,126 recipients per month for FY2002, and 1,719 for FY2003.  Mr. Abba indicated that if the increasing caseload trend continued the division would need to augment their cash assistance category during the interim. 

 

Decision unit E-475 was a proposal to increase the cash grant level for families with ill, incapacitated, or disabled members who could not participate in work-related activities, noted Mr. Abba.  The cash grant increase would be $187 and would increase the cash grant payment to $535.  The increase would be implemented over two periods of time effective in January of each year.  The decision unit in the budget indicated that the cost for the proposal was $2,475,000.  Based upon a re-projection of the caseload the actual cost would be significantly less.  Mr. Abba explained that the budget had been predicated on approximately 1,100 recipients per month and the new projections indicated there were 525 recipients eligible for the increase.  The revised cost was $1,222,812 for a difference of $1,252,188.  The funding for the enhancement would be TANF funds, and the full effect of the increase would not be felt until the next biennium because the effective dates for the increases were January of each year. 

 

Mr. Abba stated that the Assembly Ways and Means Committee had heard testimony on A.B. 15, which proposed to establish a Kinship Care program.  This would allow for another option for non-needy caretakers to receive TANF cash assistance if they established guardianship for their relative child.  Currently the non-needy caretakers in the budget received an allotment of up to $535 per month.  The program was designed to enable the non-needy caretaker to establish guardianship and a permanent relationship with the child.  The payment would be elevated to 90 percent of the foster care payment.  The cost for the program was approximately $860,153 for FY2002 and $2,291,232 for FY2003.  The program would be funded completely with TANF monies.  Mr. Abba stated that with the adjustments recommended to the budget there would be sufficient monies to cover the increase without having to access the reserves.  In addition, there was a projected savings in the Child Welfare budget of approximately $678,000 over the biennium because certain non-needy caretakers would reduce the role of the Child Welfare budget.  There was an anticipated 91 children to transition from foster care to the Kinship Care program.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked why there was a large increase in the second year of the biennium for the funding of the Kinship Care program.  Mr. Abba stated that this was a transition program.  The first year costs were for the immediate transition of the 91 children moving from Child Welfare to the program, and then there would be the transition of non-needy caretakers receiving cash assistance having to establish guardianship to be eligible for the higher rate of funding.  Ms. Tiffany asked if the higher funding had been based on actuals.  Mr. Abba explained that this was a fiscal note developed by the department based upon information provided by the Welfare Division on non-needy caretakers and information the Department of Family Services had on foster care payments and foster care children who may have a non-needy caretaker that would establish guardianship.

 

Mr. Willden explained that the fiscal note related to the Kinship Care program was attached to A.B. 15 and it addressed an October 1 start-up date.  This partially explained why costs for the start-up year were less than the full year following.  Mr. Willden reiterated that there would be an almost immediate conversion of 91 cases from the Child Welfare system to the Kinship Care program.  Based on the division’s information of cases migrating from the non‑needy caretaker program to the Kinship Care program there would be an increase of about 33 cases per month.  The full cost of the program was shown in the second year.  Included in the fiscal note was dollars to support paying for the guardianship, to support fingerprinting and background checks, and a small contract with a non-profit agency to provide for supportive services to caregivers in the Kinship Care program. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that within the bill, because the ultimate fiscal impact was unknown, the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had indicated the desire to have language that said that if the budget received more dollars the 90 percent match could be moved to the full 100 percent match.  The committee had also inserted an age restriction, but if more monies were received the age restriction could be lowered.  She noted that in some states this program had been costly, and the committee had wanted to use some caution because the long-term financial impact was unknown.

 

Mr. Abba continued outlining the budget.  He noted there were a number of new initiatives recommended in the TANF budget.  The first was under decision unit E-351.  This initiative was not new, but was rather the reappropriation of TANF monies for the Emergency Diversion Program, which had been previously approved by the legislature.  The program had not been able to be implemented because the OASIS system had been placed on hold, and the division needed a tracking mechanism to track families that needed one-time payments.  Based on past approval of the program, staff would recommend approving the funding for the program, but would recommend that the funding be approved only for FY2003.  The reason for that being that the OASIS project would not be implemented until FY2003, so the division would not have the tracking mechanism to follow families receiving the payments. 

 

Decision unit E-450 was the decision unit that included $330,000 each year of the biennium in TANF funding to place 36 TANF recipients into clerical positions within the Department of Human Resources.  It would also provide the TANF recipients a subsidy payment while they were being trained in the clerical field.  Mr. Abba noted that the subsidy program would help meet PRWORA requirements for work participation. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if the 36 people were hired full time or whether they were work experience.  Mr. Abba stated that the division planned on having 36 slots.  There would be a four-month training period, and the division would rotate 12 individuals through the training period at a salary of $9-$10 per hour for a 40‑hour workweek.  During that period of time the individual would be working with an agency that would actively market the individual for a position that would provide full-time employment within the state. 

 

Mr. Willden explained that the concept behind the program was that the division would contract with an employer of record.  The employer would not be a state agency, but could be a non-profit or temp agency.  There had been interest from Nevada Works.  The client would be the employee of the independent company, and the company would pay the client between $9-$10, and the agency would pay the employer of record approximately $14.50 per hour and the company would provide the necessary supportive services and complete the payroll.  The client would go through a four-month training period to receive office skills, and then would be marketed to any employer interested in clerical services. 

 

Ms. Tiffany asked if the clients were currently receiving cash assistance.  Mr. Willden answered in the affirmative and stated that the idea was that the program would eliminate the clients’ dependency.  The client would be certified to work through the welfare system when the program was completed.  Ms. Tiffany confirmed that the $14.50 the division paid the employer handled the FICA, Workers’ Compensation, but not health insurance.  Mr. Willden stated that the client would continue to be on Medicaid. 

 

Mr. Abba stated that decision unit E-476 was a new initiative that provided $2 million in TANF monies to meet PRWORA goals to reduce out-of-wedlock birth, and to encourage the formation of two-parent families.  Mr. Abba explained that with the $2 million the division planned to contract with up to ten different agencies such as for-profit, non-profit, faith-based, and community-based organizations to carry out fatherhood initiatives, family planning initiatives, and pregnancy prevention initiatives.  The division felt that if the decision unit was funded it would give the division an advantage in applying for the annual $20 million high performance allotment. 

 

Decision unit E-479 was the decision unit that recommended transferring TANF block grant funds to various agencies within the Department of Human Resources.  Mr. Abba noted that during the interim there had been an undertaking to identify programs within the various divisions that could qualify for TANF funding.  A number of programs within the Mental Heath and Developmental Services area did qualify for TANF and staff was working with the division on the services that would be provided, as well as the required disaggregated data reporting.  Based on a reconciliation on the amounts that were to be transferred out and the amounts that were budgeted, there was an overstatement in the amount of $1,177,734 in FY2002 and $927,983 in FY2003.  These monies would help to support the Kinship Care program.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested that staff augment the TANF block grant, and agreed with the recommendation to reserve the population growth money in anticipation that it would be available in the second year.  She noted that there was no substantial objection to the restarting of the OASIS project.  She suggested that the cash assistance be increased.  She suggested that decision unit E-475 be approved, as well as the Kinship Care program.  Decision unit E‑351 was recommended to be started in the second year based on OASIS start-up.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that decision unit E-450 appeared reasonable.  With decision unit E-476, Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested that the committee place $1 million in reserve for caseload increases, and provide the division with $1 million to complete the programming through a Request For Proposal, so that the division could report back to the committee. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said that the money in decision unit E-476 would be used for workshops on self-esteem, skills training, family life education, and other similar subjects, and indicated her disapproval.  She opined that these workshops would not stop out-of-wedlock or teen pregnancy.  She stated she had a problem with the $2 million and did not understand the purpose behind the funding.  She said that she believed it would only provide counseling and employment for a few people. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that that was why she was suggesting the reduced funding, but if the division could start up the program then they could meet the requirements for the $20 million TANF incentive.

 

Senator Coffin disagreed with Ms. Tiffany’s opinion.  He stated that the workshops could have a beneficial effect on the behavior of the people becoming pregnant. 

 

Ms. Tiffany explained that this was a philosophical discussion, and said that a person’s behavior would not change through a few counseling sessions.  Ms. Tiffany asked how the results of the program could be tracked. 

 

Senator Coffin noted that frequently people would say that one or two counseling sessions would be sufficient to prevent a person from receiving an abortion. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said that in her experience in working with an at-risk population she did not have that experience.  She re-asked how performance indicators could be tracked.

 

Senator Rawson said that there had been a bill heard in the Senate Committee on Human Resources that set up a pregnancy prevention program, and asked if the monies being discussed were going to fund that program.  Mr. Willden said that this decision unit was the funding source for the prevention program.  Senator Rawson asked what level of funding was needed to make the program operational.  Mr. Willden said the bill had a half million dollar fiscal note over the biennium.  The bill only addressed the teen pregnancy issue, and Mr. Willden reminded the committee that the TANF program was mandated to address the PRWORA goals to reduce out-of-wedlock births, and to encourage the formation of two-parent families.  In regard to performance indicators, he said that the ultimate performance indicator was that the division would attempt to reduce the out-of-wedlock birthrate to below 35 per thousand.  Currently the state level was at 49 or 50 per thousand and had been higher in past years.  Senator Rawson said that if the committee placed a million dollars of the requested funding into the reserve the division could approach the IFC with the reduction plan, and inquired as to whether that would be workable for the division.  Mr. Willden said that that was an option.  The division would like to progress with some initiative.  He noted that most parties were satisfied with the teen pregnancy prevention bill, but the division needed to address all out-of-wedlock births.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said that the million dollars in funding and having the division report to the IFC as to what programs were beginning was reasonable.  She confirmed that that would fund the teen pregnancy bill, allow funding for adult population, and keep the division in compliance with the mandates, but allowed the legislature to have input into what types of programs were being created.  The other million dollars could be used for caseload changes.

 

SENATOR RAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH:

·                    APPROVAL OF AUGMENTATION OF THE TANF BLOCK GRANT.

·                    PLACEMENT OF THE ANTICIPATED SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR HIGH POPULATION GROWTH STATES IN RESERVE.

·                    APPROVAL OF THE INCREASE OF THE CASH ASSISTANCE CATEGORY.

·                    APPROVAL OF DECISION UNIT E-475, WHICH ADDRESSED THE CASH GRANT INCREASE FOR FAMILIES WITH ILL, INCAPACITATED, OR DISABLED MEMBERS.

·                    APPROVAL OF THE KINSHIP PROGRAM.

·                    APPROVAL OF DECISION UNIT E-351, WHICH ADDRESSED THE EMERGENCY DIVERSION PROGRAM, WITH A START DATE OF FY2003.

·                    APPROVAL OF DECISION UNIT E-450, WHICH ADDRESSED THE SUBSIDY FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF TANF RECIPIENTS.

·                    APPROVAL OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS FUNDING FOR DECISION UNIT E-476 AND PLACE THE OTHER REQUESTED MILLION DOLLARS IN RESERVE.

 

MS. LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  (Senator Raggio, Mr. Arberry, Mrs. Cegavske, and Mr. Goldwater were absent.)

 

********

 

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting was recessed at 8:55 and due to time constraints was not reconvened. 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Andrea Carothers

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: