MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY committee on Ways and Means

and senate committee on finance

joint subcommittee on human resources

 

Seventy-First Session

March 23, 2001

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources was called to order at 8:07 a.m. on Friday, March 23, 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.

Mr.                     David Goldwater

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Ms.                     Sandra Tiffany

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator William J. Raggio

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT

            None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mark Stevens, Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Assembly)

Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst (Senate)

Kathryn Fosnaugh, Committee Secretary

 

 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WELFARE, WELFARE/TANF– BUDGET PAGE WELFARE-21

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for testimony on Budget Account 3230. 

 

Michael J. Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, introduced himself.  He advised the committee that he had provided several handouts.  One handout was titled "Budget Presentation" (Exhibit C) dated March 9, 2001.  A second handout was titled "Measurement Indicators" (Exhibit D) and was also dated March 9, 2001.  He said that although there were only four or five indicators for each budget to be presented, the Welfare Division tracked hundreds of performance indicators and they were all listed in Exhibit D. 

 

Mr. Willden asked Chairwoman Giunchigliani how she would like him to proceed.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani instructed Mr. Willden to discuss the TANF dollars, the Rainy Day Reserve, the On-line Automated Self-Sufficiency Information system (OASIS) project, and then the decision units.

 

Mr. Willden referred the committee to Exhibit C and asked the subcommittee to turn to the tab that referred to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.  He said the last two pages under the TANF tab were charts that dealt with the TANF grant revenues.  He said the last page showed the revenues that had been budgeted in the four budgets within the Welfare Division that received the TANF revenue.  He said the assumption when the budget was built was that the state would not receive population modifier money, which it had previously received in years past.  The reason that assumption was made was because the TANF block grant was due for reauthorization in the United States Congress, and there had been a lot of discussion about changing the formulas, and how money would be distributed to the states.  He said it was the assumption that the population modifiers might not be available and the division had not wanted to budget revenues unless it was sure the money would be distributed to the states.  He said other discussions by the Congress had indicated that states might not receive their full block grants, so the budget was built under the assumption that the TANF block grant would be reduced by 10 percent.  Mr. Willden said that now, a year later, it was the division's understanding that the states would most likely receive their full TANF block grants.  The information on new revenues was included in Exhibit C.  Mr. Willden summarized and said there would probably be at least $3.2 million in FY2002, and $4.3 million in FY2003, of additional TANF revenue that was not included in The Executive Budget.

 

Mr. Willden referred the subcommittee to a spreadsheet (Exhibit E) that had been prepared for the subcommittee.  He reiterated that since the Governor's budget had been prepared approximately a year ago, the division had seen an increase in the TANF caseload, as well as changes to the caseload.  Mr. Willden explained the various categories of eligibles that received TANF benefits

 

• The regular TANF cases, which consisted of families that were able to work, and had no barriers.  The division worked with those families to place them in jobs, moving them to self-sufficiency. 

 

• The ill and incapacitated cases, where the caretaker was ill or incapacitated and/or caring for an incapacitated family member.

 

• The non-needy caretaker cases, which were, typically, grandparents, aunts and uncles, caring for their grandchildren or nephews and nieces. 

 

Mr. Willden said that there had been a tremendous growth over the past year in the non-needy caretaker caseload.  He said the growth in other TANF caseloads had remained flat.  He explained Exhibit E, on the left side of the spreadsheet, reflected caseload projections, which were projections that were made after the Governor's budget had been completed.  The projections were currently expected to be a little more than 1,100 new recipients for FY2002 and more than 1,700 in FY2003.  He said the right side of the spreadsheet (Exhibit E) listed the amounts of $29,722,879 and $31,361,130, which were the new projections for the need of TANF cash grant dollars.  Mr. Willden said that the division would need an additional $2.4 million in FY2002 and almost $2.6 million in FY2003 to cover the caseload increases and the change in the caseload mix.  He said those amounts would be covered with the additional TANF revenues of $3.2 million in FY2002 and $4.3 million in FY2003. 

 

Mr. Willden referred the subcommittee to the box on the far right of the spreadsheet (Exhibit E) that was titled "Kinship Care."  The box indicated that the division was reserving dollars within the budget for the Kinship Care program, which the Governor's Office had also supported. 

 

Mr. Willden referred to A. B. 15, which required establishment of a program to provide supportive assistance to certain persons who obtained legal guardianship of their grandchildren, and said the division had about $2.8 million set aside within the budget for that program, which was approximately $375,000 short of what had been estimated to implement the program.  With the new revenues that would be available, the division felt it could adequately cover the increase in caseload, the change in case mix, and the Kinship Care program.  The new revenue would mean the division would not have to take funds from the TANF Rainy Day Fund, which had been established at a little over $19 million.  He explained the $19 million reserve was established with the assumption that they would need to be prepared if the economy went "south" so they would be able to cover a 50 percent increase in the number of recipients accessing the TANF program.  He said that meant they could grow from the 18,000 recipients currently in the system to 29,000 recipients and still have enough in the reserve to cover the caseload. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what Mr. Willden felt was an appropriate amount of funds for the TANF Rainy Day Fund and if some of the money should be directed to cash grants.  Mr. Willden replied that earlier, when states were first receiving their TANF block grants, a recommendation had been made by the American Public Human Services Administration suggesting that states should reserve an amount to cover the difference between their high watermark caseload and their low watermark caseload.  He said if the division implemented that recommendation the state would have had to reserve over $40 million.  He explained that the $19 million was about half of the recommended amount.  He said the division had run four different scenarios of what the reserve should be and looked at the worst-case and best-case scenarios.  They settled on the $19 million, which was for a 50 percent return of cases, and would enable the division to pay those families for 24 months. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the OASIS project.  Mr. Willden said the OASIS project was not in the TANF budget.  He said the funding for the OASIS project was in the Welfare Administration Budget Account 3228, and was included within the automated systems category.  He said the Governor had recommended about $225,000 a year, which was anticipated for maintenance and operation costs.  He said the division had started building the OASIS program about a year ago.  He explained that development of the program had been suspended during the previous fall, but the plan was to restart the program in the upcoming summer months.  He said it was the division's recommendation that the current year's TANF high performance bonus, approximately $2.2 million, should be used to restart and complete the OASIS project.  Mr. Willden said the Governor's Office and the Welfare Division felt strongly that high performance bonus dollars should not be used to fund ongoing programs, because they could not be sure whether or not they would be receiving a high performance bonus each year.  He said the goal was to target the one-shot development of the OASIS system.  He explained the OASIS was an employment and training case management system.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the $2.2 million would cover the system and Mr. Willden said yes and added that the division was going to submit a project plan to Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst, on March 26, 2001. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the TANF caseloads.  She said it appeared that the projected increase of caseloads was 1,126 recipients per month, and up to 1,719 in the next biennium.  Mr. Willden said that was correct and explained the decision unit M-200 reflected the change in case mix, where the non-needy caretaker caseload was growing at approximately 35 new cases per month.  He said that amount had grown since the last legislative session.  He said at that time they had projected about 1,600 cases in that group, but in actuality it had been approaching 2,200 cases, and continued to grow.  He reiterated that the regular TANF caseload growth remained flat.  He said the division did a good job in providing those families with employment training services, and moving them through the system toward self-sufficiency, fairly quickly.  He referred to Exhibit E and said the spreadsheet displayed the need for the $2.4 million adjustment and the $2.6 million adjustment.  He reminded the subcommittee the amount was in addition to the amount requested under decision unit M-200. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why the amount of the non-needy caretaker caseload was growing.  Mr. Willden answered that there were many reasons.  One reason was the population growth, and a second reason was the trend in society as a whole.  He explained that grandparents were becoming more and more involved in the care of their grandchildren, or aunts and uncles in the care of their nieces and nephews.  He said it was possible that time limits on the regular TANF program might have had something to do with the shift on who was caring for the children.  He said he did not have good evidence for that assumption, but there were groups that did believe that might have been an issue.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what the time limits were and Mr. Willden answered 60 months total, but in Nevada it was 24 months on the program, then off the program for 12 months, and then 24 months on again.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested that tracking might need to be done to see if it was possible that a family who had received assistance might have been on the program for the first 24 months, and then, due to the 12-month cutoff, the children might have been placed in the custody of an extended family member and therefore qualified the extended family member to receive assistance.  Mr. Willden said that was a fear the division had and they would track that issue.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she would be interested in seeing the tracking report to help determine what had been working and what had not been working. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked if the families were placing their children with extended family members when their assistance was cut off, would there be a higher amount of welfare payment received by the extended family member.  Mr. Willden said yes, a grandparent caring for a grandchild received a higher payment than a parent caring for his or her own children.  He said they had processed two grant increases over the last biennium, $94 per month the first year and $93 per month the second year.  Ms. Leslie asked how long it had been since the basic welfare payment had been increased, and why the budget did not anticipate looking at that issue.  Mr. Willden said he could not remember exactly how long it had been since the payment had been increased but thought it had been approximately 10 years.  He said an increase had not been recommended because the division's philosophy was that a clear message had to be sent to the families showing that working paid.  He said they had built a good system where families who were able to work could use the TANF program and get the necessary training and employment services so that they could be quickly moved off welfare and toward self-sufficiency.  He explained the division had an excellent child care program, and had expanded the dollars in the child care program.  The program had grown from $6 million five years previously, to over $32 million currently.  He said they were currently serving most anyone who needed services.  He continued and said they had good employment and training contracts in place to help families, they had good job retention contractors for when a recipient left the TANF program, and the recipients had been able to receive up to 12 months of services from the job retention contractor which included job coaching, assistance in transportation, or other emergency needs.  Cash bonuses were paid for retaining employment.  He said the division had built a good system around the families who were able to go to work.  Mr. Willden said the division felt that the dollars they had should be targeted more towards families who could not go out and earn an income. 

 

Ms. Leslie said the basic welfare payment was just over $300, and although she agreed that the comprehensive package had made great strides forward, she said there would always be some people who, for one reason or another, had to go on welfare, even if just for a short time, and if the payment was so low, she was not sure how they could survive.  She said the goal was to keep families together, yet if the state was paying a higher payment for the non-needy, it could mean grandparents might take over the responsibility of children just to get the extra $200 for survival.  Ms. Leslie thought the issue of an increase should be looked at, especially with the numbers decreasing and with the large TANF Rainy Day Fund. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said along the same lines, maybe if not a cash increase, other stipends or services could be provided, possibly course work.  Mr. Willden said there were a number of things that TANF dollars could be used for and the division could look into those things and provide suggestions.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if, along with Ms. Leslie, they could have a discussion along those lines, at a later time. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani, in review of earlier testimony, said Mr. Willden would be meeting with Mr. Abba regarding the high performance bonus on Monday, March 26, 2001, in regard to restarting the OASIS project during the upcoming summer.  She said the amount of the bonus was $2.2 million and asked if Mr. Willden felt the projections regarding caseload were accurate and if there was enough money to deal with the increase.  Mr. Willden answered yes. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for testimony on decision unit E-351.  Mr. Willden said E-351 was an initiative that the division had in the budget for several years.  It was for the emergency diversion program.  The program had not been launched due to continuing automation issues.  The division was still requesting about a half-million dollars to be budgeted within the TANF budget for emergency diversion purposes.  They were struggling to find a way to track the money and to do the necessary federal reporting.  The division felt it was closer to a solution and asked that the subcommittee approve the requested budget amount, so that they would be able to get the program off the ground during the summer. 

 

Mr. Willden said decision unit E-450 was for a program that was a "two-edged sword."  He explained that during the next biennium, they were proposing to go start a job subsidy program.  E-450 would allow them to have 36 welfare clients per year placed through a temporary agency, or employer of record, to receive four months of general office training.  The division would pay the client a wage equal to a state employee at the Management Assistant I level.  The welfare recipient would get job training and the various state agencies, or non-profit organizations that hired them, would get the benefit of their services.  He said it was similar to the community work experience program, but the recipient had not been paid for a full time, 40-hours-a-week position.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the jobs would entail a 40-hour workweek, and if the program would be standardized at specific hourly rates of pay or would it depend on the agency where the client would be placed.  Mr. Willden said the initial discussions had indicated that the recipient would be placed through a temporary agency, or an employer of record.  The budget was built on a $14.36 an hour rate.  The client would take home around $10 or $9.50 an hour, which was comparable to a management assistant in state service, and the employer of record would retain the difference for acting as the employer of record.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there was support from sister agencies and Mr. Willden responded yes.  He said the 36 slots would be easily filled.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the client would continue in the position after the 4 months, if successful in the position.  Mr. Willden said it was a four-month job subsidy, which would provide training, and the client would then be marketable for a non-subsidized job.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if what was budgeted was enough and Mr. Willden replied yes. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why a net savings from the diversion program was not anticipated.  Mr. Willden said there actually was a net savings, theoretically, but he did not put it in the current budget because they had not been able to get the program off the ground.  He said he could not get a handle as to whether or not they would actually divert families long term.  He said on the short term they would see diversion, but a savings would only be recognized if the families did not access the rolls long term.  The way the program would work would be if a family received a diversion payment, they would be barred from coming onto the rolls until enough time had passed that the diversion payment would equal the regular payments they had received.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the diversion program was tied to the OASIS project and Mr. Willden said yes, the OASIS project was a tracking system for the group.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if when the OASIS program was up and running, would the diversion program be up and running as well and Mr. Willden answered yes.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the budget reflected the delayed start.  Mr. Willden said it would depend on the way the division went with the OASIS project, and they would be reviewing the different choices with Mr. Abba in their meeting on March 26, 2001.  He said the division's recommendation was to not bring in a contractor, but to deal with the program with in-house temporary staff.  He said the Welfare Division had a sour taste in regard to contractor services, due to past experiences.  He said until they had the OASIS project fully functional, the division would be able to contract with the Family Resource Centers (FRC), or other nonprofit agencies, who would act as a fiscal agent on behalf of the Welfare Division until the automated system was available. 

 

Mr. Willden explained that the TANF program had 4 goals. 

 

• Keeping children in their own homes or the homes of relatives.

 

• Providing employment and training-related services.

 

• Reducing out-of-wedlock births.

 

• Family formation initiatives.

 

Mr. Willden explained that decision unit E-476 was a new initiative that targeted the third and fourth goals.  Programs to address the two goals would be solicited through a Request for Proposal (RFP) to local nonprofit organizations and faith-based organizations.  He said the Welfare Division would be teaming up with the Health Division, who also had a major role in these areas.  The national goal would be to reduce the number of teen pregnancies to below 35 per 1,000 by 2005.  Mr. Willden explained the two goals had specific eligibility criteria like most Welfare programs, therefore mass marketing campaigns, and any kind of outreach could be performed.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the division would explore if TANF dollars could be used to offset the cuts in the Family-to-Family program, and explore if the Family-to-Family program could establish a sliding fee scale, so that people who would like to pay, because their income was a little higher, would be able to do so.  She said the program currently had barriers that did not allow payment.  She explained that the Governor had wanted a narrow focus, but if people wanted to pay a minimal fee, it might help offset some of the funding needed for the program, allowing a wider focus.  Mr. Willden said he would be happy to explore the issue of a sliding fee.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Willden to discuss decision unit E-479.  Mr. Willden explained decision unit E-479 was a new initiative within the division where they were trying to earmark some of the TANF dollars to be transferred to sister agencies within the Department of Human Resources to pay for new initiatives, within their budgets, to TANF eligible families.  He said $3.9 million per year had been set aside.  Mr. Willden said the Health Division would be receiving about $350,000 per year of those funds.  The Health Division would be implementing a nursing home visit program for family planning issues.  The Mental Health Division would receive about $1.8 million per year, for the family preservation program with the goal of keeping children in their own homes rather than institutions.  The Mental Health Division would also use a portion of the $1.8 million for case management and counseling programs for the TANF families.  Currently, these services were not charged to the TANF program, but would be in the future.  Approximately $300,000 for FY2002, and $500,000 for FY2003, would go to the Division of Child and Family Services, for child and family preservation and case management programs.  Mr. Willden said $2.8 million would be reserved for the Kinship Care program.  Mr. Willden recommended, if the Kinship Care program was approved, monies should be moved out of the current category and placed in a separate category earmarked for the Kinship Care program.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she felt that made good sense.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if E-479 was overstated or did it just appear so, due to the increase.  Mr. Willden replied the $3.9 million was what had been made available to other Department of Human Resources (DHR) agencies.  The other agencies did not need $2.7 million of the amount, so the division earmarked it for the Kinship Care program.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it would make sense to budget the amount for the Kinship Care program, and the subcommittee would look at setting up the program as a budget closing measure. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for testimony on decision units E-904 and E-907, which concerned the transfer of the New Employees of Nevada (NEON) program from the Employment and Training budget to the TANF budget.  Mr. Willden said the Employment and Training services had previously been budgeted in Budget Account 3267, which included both the Employment and Training and the Child Care programs.  The Welfare Division was requesting that Employment and Training services be transferred into the TANF budget, because the Employment and Training services were closer in line with the TANF budget, and would leave Budget Account 3267 as a Child Care only budget.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what services Mr. Willden felt were most beneficial to the people in the NEON program.  Mr. Willden said there were a lot of important services.  He explained the most important thing for people to be able to go to work was to assure them that child care coverage and medical care would not be lost.  He said the second most important issue had been that most employers were not looking for a particular skill set, rather they were looking for good attitudes, timely work ethics, and someone that the employer could work with.  Mr. Willden said the division made sure their clients understood that issue and worked with the clients to make them marketable to the community.  Most employers had told the division that what was needed was not skills training, rather training on life-skills, how to be polite, etc.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the division continued to do vocational assessments and if the information received from the assessments was given to employers so that the employer knew what skills the clients might have.  Mr. Willden answered the division did vocational assessments when necessary, as well as other assessments.  He said they also developed personal responsibility plans and also shared the information with employers when appropriate. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if there would be more onerous work participation coming in October 2001 and if that would have an impact on the budget.  Mr. Willden said yes, there would be more onerous work participation requirements, and the more work participation rates were reflected in the E-907 transfer module from the Employment and Training budget.  Mr. Willden said the work participation rates had been increasing each year since welfare reform had been established.  Beginning in 1996 they were required to have 25 percent of the families receiving TANF dollars in work programs.  A work program did not mean just showing up for an hour of work; currently the standard was 30 hours a week of work activities.  He said the percentage rate was currently at 40 percent and would be at 50 percent October 2001.  He explained that the division had to have approximately half of the TANF families in a work activity of more than 30 hours a week.  Not every family was ready to work 30 hours a week, some were at 10 to 15 hours a week and some were working full time.  The division tried to work with as many families as possible that were work-ready, so that they could reach the desired work participation rate.  In the two-parent families, where there were both a mom and dad in the home, the work participation rate was 90 percent.  The standard for the two-parent families was 35 work hours a week, or more under certain conditions.  Mr. Willden said the work participation rates were fairly stringent and the division was continually pressing the issue with staff.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the work participation rate increase was huge and asked Mr. Willden to keep the subcommittee apprised of the situation.  She said employers had been fairly supportive, but was not sure what might happen. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if schooling had been allowed as part of the work hours.  Mr. Willden said short-term vocational schooling had been allowed and some amendments had been made where there would be more flexibility regarding schooling.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that the schooling might help in some instances as a person could at least advance in a career, which could then turn into full-time employment.  Mr. Willden said the division had met its work participation rates each year since welfare reform had been in effect, except in FY1997, where it was met in the all-parent rate and just missed the two-parent rate, and ended up paying a $1,100 sanction.  He explained that there would always be a possibility of not meeting the rates because both the all-parent and the two-parent rates were measured. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said she was familiar with Welfare to Work, and she said the people were "life-skilled to death."  She said when she reviewed the NEON program she assumed the recipients were still on cash assistance, so they had not been released or certified for Welfare to Work.  Mr. Willden confirmed Ms. Tiffany's assumption.  Ms. Tiffany asked if the division had "really" talked to anyone who was doing the case management or to the job developers, because she had found that the clients needed three things; transportation, day-care, and housing, and a mental health and drug assessment.  She said most of the people she had worked with that had trouble getting and staying in a job was not because of a lack of skills, rather they had a mental health or drug problem.  She said she did not see anything in the programs that talked about this issue and felt that the state was "burying its head in the sand" because it was an expensive item.  She said when the planning went into Welfare to Work, there had to be a decision to decide if the money would be there for chronic problem with drugs and alcohol.  Ms. Tiffany said the "cherry picking" was easy and said people without felonies could be placed in call centers, the casinos, or an apprentice program, but the ones that had warrants, felonies, and drug problems were not addressed. 

 

Mr. Willden said that the division considered the drug and mental health issue.  He referred Ms. Tiffany to the TANF base budget in particular, and said there was a category called non-profit contracts.  Mr. Willden explained that NEON training dollars had not been used for drug and mental health issues, but the TANF funds for non-profit contracts were used to pay for drug testing and counseling.  The division had contracts with every licensed BADA provider in the state and they spent approximately $800,000 to $900,000 a year for drug and alcohol testing, as well as domestic violence counseling.  He said they had a protocol developed by the Mental Health Division for clients that had mental health problems.  Decision unit E-479 would expand the protocol, making more mental health services available to families when needed.  He said the division recognized the needs and said around 14 to 18 percent of the client workload had those issues. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said she had not found that to be true, because she had reviewed case management notes that were passed from the Welfare Division to the Welfare to Work program.  She explained she saw approximately 500 to 550 people who came through the community college and in reviewing their case notes she did not see that the people had gone through a BADA program, or put on medication.  She said the clients the Welfare to Work program received were the 70 percent who were hard-to-place individuals.  She asked, if once the people had been released from the Welfare Division, were they denied coming back for those services that they should have received before they were released.  Mr. Willden said he apologized if there was a miscommunication in the case notes.  He said the large issue with domestic violence and mental health issues was the strict confidentiality rules that governed what information from the social workers' case notes could be released from the division's case records. 

 

Ms. Tiffany explained the way the Welfare to Work program discovered the domestic violence problem was through arrest records.  She said most of the 70 percenters had arrest records that were very long, and they had domestic violence on all of them.  She said they could get employers to hire the clients, even with the domestic violence arrest records, but it did no good if the client got a job, then disappeared in a week, taking off with a new boyfriend who would buy them drugs.  She reiterated that drugs were a significant problem and asked how this could be addressed with the TANF budget, prerelease or after release.  Mr. Willden said he felt they were addressing the issue, but he would look to see if there were enough dollars in the budget to deal with that issue.  Ms. Tiffany said there probably were not enough dollars in the TANF budget.  Mr. Willden said again that he felt the division had addressed those issues and that maybe they should take a look again at the case staffings, etc., with the local providers who the division had been using to provide the needed services.  He said all the services were being provided, but he thought that Ms. Tiffany felt that the level of services was insufficient and he would have staff review the process.  Ms. Tiffany said that when the state talked about getting people jobs, the stabilization of the transportation, housing and day-care was basic, then the state tried to train the person in computers, or culinary arts, which would be around $10 an hour wage, which would be nice, but then the person only stayed in the job for two weeks because of their other problems.  She felt that the division needed to be very serious about drug rehabilitation and/or services whether in the NEON program or the Welfare to Work program.  Mr. Willden reiterated that he would review this issue with staff.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked, in regard to clients who had arrest records and the Welfare Division was trying to get employment for them, what was done if there were warrants for their arrest.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she had proposed legislation that would deal with the arrest issue. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if, once a person was released from the TANF program, could they still participate in the BADA programs if they had been enrolled, or was the money not available after they were released.  Mr. Willden said it was a complex process as to what services would be available to someone who was leaving the TANF program.  He said there were two ways a person could participate in a BADA program after leaving the TANF program.  The first was a certain amount of supportive services were available through the job retention contractors.  The second was to certify people to the Welfare to Work program.  He said that program was not funded by the TANF, but rather by the Department of Labor and was administered through local private industries, and they were able to provide services for the lifetime of a certified TANF/Welfare to Work recipient.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said maybe that was where the gap was occurring.  Mr. Willden said they did not have a smooth transition process and although they had been working on the issue for over two years, it was not as smooth as it should be.  He thought that maybe the focus should be in the Welfare to Work certification and transition process. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said she had previously spoken to Mr. Willden about giving recipients a 90-day transition from being off of the cash assistance and into the Welfare to Work program.  She said that Mr. Willden's concern had been that the recipient stayed within the hours needed for their work participation.  She said she had not heard back from Mr. Willden and that she felt the 90-day transition program could bridge the gap.  Mr. Willden said he had asked staff to meet with a person Ms. Tiffany had referred him to, located in southern Nevada.  He said the discussions were ongoing and they were working on the protocol. 

 

Ms. Leslie said she also had legislation that dealt with low-income mothers who wanted to further their education and become teachers.  She asked if any of the NEON dollars could be used for higher education, instead of the community college level.  Mr. Willden said the TANF money, in limited circumstances, could be used for up to 12 months of vocational education training, but the restriction involved whether or not a recipient could count the training in their work participation rate.  The struggle was, in allowing people to move into a four-year degree program, the time spent might not be countable in the work participation rates.  He said they tried, in public hearings, to find a balance, and be more flexible.  He said that the recipients could receive supportive services for child care and if their income qualified them, other services were available.  

 

 

Rota Rosaschi, Chief, Benefits and Support, Nevada State Welfare Division, introduced herself and said Mr. Willden had given a very clear explanation.  She said within the welfare reform rules, the state had to define what the work activities were.  She said the rules stated that all clients who received cash assistance must be within a work activity within 24 months.  She said what the Welfare Division had done was to make a separation, allowing a variety of activities, outside of the 12 activities that were allowed by federal law, that could count towards work.  Ms. Rosaschi said some of the activities included some of the issues mentioned by Ms. Tiffany, for example, they allowed clients to receive health services for issues like domestic violence, mental health, and substance abuse, and that became the client's work activity.  A distinction would have to be made to determine what were countable work activities and non-countable work activities.  Ms. Rosaschi explained that within the limitations of the 12 countable activities allowed by federal law, was vocational education.  She said the federal laws set a maximum limitation of 12 months of the vocational education that could be counted.  For clarification, Ms. Rosaschi explained that when the division became aware of individuals who were attending community or four-year colleges, only 12 months were countable, due to the federal restrictions.  She said, however, that as long as the client was going to school and maintaining 12 credits a semester, plus maintaining a 2.0 grade point average or better, they were required to maintain a balance of 75/25 percent, the 75 percent representing the 9-month school year and the 25 percent representing the 3 months off from school for summer.  The 75 percent would be considered work activity and the 25 percent would require full-time employment.  She said some clients might opt to work and go to school at the same time, because they wanted the income.  She said the division would also try to balance that as well. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked why there was a cap on vocational education.  She said maybe something should be done because to be that limited did not make sense.  She said a client could possibly push it to a liberal arts degree within the vocational education limitations.  Ms. Rosaschi said they had tried to get the community college to reduce some of their programs to a 12-month program.  For example, an 18-month nurse's assistant degree could possibly be reduced to a 12-month program.  She said they were pleased with the changes made by their education partners to help understand the welfare reform issue.  Ms. Leslie said with the teaching and nursing shortages Nevada was experiencing if there were low-income people who wanted to pursue the profession, there should be something that could be done for them, because it was the long-term answer to the client's problem as well as the state's problem.  She asked for clarification that the problem of the education limitations were federal, not state, and Mr. Willden said the federal regulations limited the 12 months, and the state could, and did, advocate changing the rules.  He said, also, considerations could be made to allow education, along with work activity, but realized that the people may not be counted the work participation rate.  He said that was the risk the division faced, and if they did not meet their work participation rates by a significant margin, the division would have to be less flexible.  Ms. Leslie offered her assistance to Mr. Willden, if it was needed, to help work the education issue out.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that the concern was in staying within the new rates that had to be met, without jeopardizing the program.  She said maybe a resolution or a letter advising the federal government that the state supported adding or modifying change should be discussed in the subcommittee. 

 

Ms. Tiffany said she was currently working with the Department of Prisons on a two-year early release for women inmates, which would take them from prisons and into the court system.  Part of the program would include education and work experience, so that when parole came up, the women could actually get paroled.  What she did not see happening, in identifying the women who would be released on the program, was a course being set for them.  For example, a course where they would be required to get their General Education Diploma (GED) by a certain time, and then get work experience at the community college, in conjunction with a Licensed Practical Nurse or Dental Assistant program, or other technical programs that might be available.  She said she did not see the Welfare Division doing that kind of program; rather they were just throwing life-skills training at the clients and then getting them into the casinos.  She said although the division might not be able to get people into the teaching program, there were technical programs that they could get them into.  She said the community college would work with the division in regard to getting the clients credits as well as work experience.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the prison issue would need to be taken up in a different area, and maybe the subcommittee on prisons could look at the work-release program. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that maybe someone from the Family-to-Family and FRC programs could work with Mr. Willden to use some of the TANF dollars for those programs.

 

 

HUMAN SERVICES, WELFARE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM – BUDGET PAGE WELFARE-27 and CHILD SUPPORT FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT, BUDGET PAGE WELFARE-33

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for testimony on Budget Account 101-3238 and 101-3239.  She said there was not any General Fund money involved in the budgets, and asked if the Executive Branch had a BDR for the $2 fee increase.  Mr. Willden agreed that there was no General Fund money in the Child Support budget.  He said it had been that way for many years.  He said the non-federal share for the Nevada's Child Support program came from retained collections.  He explained when individuals came into the TANF program they assigned their child support rights to the state.  The state then collected the money and the money was used to offset the TANF benefits being paid to the family.  He said when money was collected for someone on welfare, half was returned to the federal government for their involvement in funding the TANF and half was kept by the state to fund the child support program.  He said because the caseload had declined approximately 60 percent over the last five years, and because the United States Congress had made a number of changes in the legislation, redirecting more of the money to the families, there was less and less money available to the state to operate the Child Support program without General Fund support.  The decline in caseload had caused the division to downsize by 50 positions over the last 18 months.  They were down from 141 positions to 91 positions currently because the revenue did not support the size of the program.  He said to address the issue the division had been working with the District Attorney's Association to look at implementing fees.  The general feeling was no fee was acceptable if it was coming out of current support going to a family, and no one was proposing any fees to reduce current support.  He said what the division was looking at was to change the law so that the fee that employers were allowed to deduct when a wage assignment was processed would be raised from $3 to $5.  The extra $2 would go to the state and be split 50/50 between the state to help with the Child Support program and with the local district attorneys' offices to help them support their child support efforts. 

 

Mr. Willden apologized and said through a miscommunication on his part, a BDR had not been requested timely.  He said the Welfare Division thought that the District Attorney's Association was going to request a BDR and they thought the Welfare Division was going to request a BDR, so through miscommunication, it had not been done.  He said he believed the issue was being resolved, as Chairman Morse Arberry of the Ways and Means Subcommittee was working on one solution and Chairman Bernie Anderson, of the Judiciary Subcommittee, was working on another solution. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for information regarding the cost recovery fees.  Mr. Willden said there were three fees that were being proposed.  The first was the wage assignment fee, which required legislation for implementation under Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 31A.  He said the other two fees would be collected when they did one of two extraordinary collection remedies.  He said these were new tools that were available under new federal child support laws and were available because of Nevada Operations Multi-Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) interfaces.  One was called Financial Institution Data Match (FIDM) where the division had the ability to take arrearages that were owed to families and process them through Financial Institution Data Matching.  Mr. Willden explained they were able to go out and find people's bank accounts and if there was money in the accounts, the division could attach and obtain money in the accounts to offset the arrears.  When that extraordinary remedy was applied, the division would take a 5 percent fee for doing so, and the fee would be used to help support the Child Support budget.  The third fee was the Child Support Lien Registry.  When someone was in arrears with their child support payments, and were due to receive an insurance settlement of some kind, the division could notify the insurer that a child support debt was owed and before the settlement could be processed, the child support would have to be paid.  The division was also proposing a 5 percent fee for that extraordinary process.  Neither the Child Support Lien Registry nor the FIDM program would require law changes, only regulatory changes.

 

Senator Mathews asked what legal right allowed the division to look for bank accounts.  Mr. Willden replied it was not a legal right, rather a legal mandate.  He said the child support laws and the Welfare Reform Act mandate that states implement the Financial Institution Data Matching process.  Mr. Willden said it had taken hard work to implement the mandates. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if any of the fees collected went to the federal government for their federal child support program.  Mr. Willden answered the FIDM and the Child Support Lien Registry fees probably would have an offset with the federal government.  He explained the division was attempting to design legislation so that the wage-withholding fee would not be shared with the federal government.  He said that money would go into an account within the state General Fund treasury and periodically be distributed to the Child Support Enforcement Program and to the district attorneys through a cost allocation formula. 

 

Mr. Dini asked how much power the district attorneys (DA) had in regard to collections.  He discussed a case where an employer had been deducting money from an employee's check, but refused to turn the money over to the DA and said people owed him money so he was not going to give the DA the money until he was paid the money owed him.  Mr. Dini asked at what point a DA had to "get tough" and just go get the money.  Mr. Willden answered that he would have already gotten tough.  He said the child support collection process needed to be taken seriously.  He said he was not sure about the situation Mr. Dini mentioned, but that the DA had the remedies to enforce the collections.  Mr. Dini asked if it was all in the DA's hands and Mr. Willden said yes, and he said Mr. Dini could call him with specific details, and he would have his child support chief look into the matter, as the money was owed to the family, and should not be withheld by the employer. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani agreed that the DAs did have the authority to enforce collections and should be doing so quickly.  She said there might be some penalty the DAs would have to pay if they did not enforce the collections.  She then asked Mr. Willden to discuss the SCADU program. 

 

Mr. Willden explained that the State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCADU) was implemented because of another welfare reform mandate which said the states had to implement a centralized collection and disbursement process.  He said in August 1, 2000, Nevada implemented the SCADU.  The child support collections went through all 17 DAs in Nevada and they had to decide whether to send the money to the families or to the state of Nevada, or send the money to another state.  The idea of the legislation was that all money would be paid to one central collection point.  This required automation to exist to account for the money collected and to disburse the money within 48 hours.  Mr. Willden said the SCADU had been fully operational and had done well.  He said there was a rough start in August and September, which had been reported by the press.  He said they had a joint partnership with the Clark County DA's office in Las Vegas, where the Welfare Division staff and county staff operated the SCADU.  He said the SCADU handled a huge volume, over half-a-million dollars a day and 2,200 to 2,500 checks were written in a day.  Mr. Willden shared that they had peaked twice at over $1 million a day, about two weeks ago, and earlier in the current week.  He said he rarely received complaints anymore about delayed checks.  Mr. Willden explained that the Clark County support would be phased out, by the end of the next biennium, and then the SCADU would be state operated.  He commended Michael Davidson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County, and the Clark County Family Support Unit, in regard to the joint partnership.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the budget would need to be modified due to the contract change.  Mr. Willden said the division had been worried about that, but thought, after analyzing the situation, that the budget would be okay.  He said a modification had been made during the interim through the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), but because the size of the Clark County contract would be reduced July 1, 2001, from the current size, he thought the division was okay. 

 

HUMAN SERVICES, WELFARE, ASSISTANCE TO AGED AND BLIND, BUDGET PAGE – WELFARE-33

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked for testimony on Budget Account 101-3232.

She said the issue on this budget was that there was no state-funded increase or rate increase for the group-care operators recommended for the biennium. 

 

Mr. Willden explained the Aged and Blind budget was 100 percent General Fund and there were no federal dollars in the budget.  The way the budget operated was that the division contracted with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the SSA determined who was eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments.  He said the states had the choice to supplement those payments, or not.  He said Nevada supplemented the aged and blind and the group-care facilities that housed the aged and blind residents.  He said Nevada did not supplement the disabled.  He explained that the budget did not include a recommendation to increase any of the supplements.  He informed the subcommittee that the only increase that would be received in the next biennium would be whatever the federal SSI cost-of-living increases would be.  Mr. Willden explained, as directed by a Letter of Intent from the Seventieth Legislative Session, the division went before the IFC each year around October or November to propose to the subcommittee how to split the cost-of-living increases, in particular, how much would be given to group-care operators.  He said it was a semi-flat budget with just caseload growth and no rate changes. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the only issue was whether or not the subcommittee wanted to continue to require the Welfare Division to come before the IFC on a quarterly basis.  She said, there would be a federal increase every January, so the reporting to the IFC should continue.  Mr. Willden said he had no problem reporting to the IFC each year, and it gave the program a little cover.  He said when they did not meet with the IFC they would get letters from clients that said they wanted higher personal needs shares, and from the group-care operators that would say they wanted a higher share, so going before the IFC helped in that process.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said that the subcommittee would most likely leave things the way they were. 

 

 

HUMAN SERVICES, WELFARE, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,

BUDGET PAGE-38

 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani moved to testimony on Budget Account 101-3267, Employment and Training.  She asked Mr. Willden to go over the options for the additional child care funding that the division would be receiving and the pros and cons. 

 

Mr. Willden said within Budget Account 101-3267 there were several issues.  He said the first issue was the transfer of the Employment and Training related activities to the TANF budget, as mentioned earlier in testimony.  He said there was a significant expansion of child care dollars in the budget.  With the expansion of federal child care dollars, they had been able to increase the number of children being covered, with no increase to the General Fund.  He said they were currently covering approximately 9,600 children and with the expansion of federal funding, the goal was to move to 11,500 children covered per year.  He said the program had been augmented tremendously over the last five or six years.  He said child care was guaranteed to TANF recipients, and for those leaving TANF child care was guaranteed for 12 additional months.  He said there currently was no waiting list for the at-risk population.  He said they could probably develop huge waiting lists through advertising campaigns, but the division felt it was aggressively increasing already. 

 

Mr. Willden said another expansion option being considered at was directed at covering more children.  He said they were looking at changing the income eligibility limit.  Currently the limit was at 75 percent of the state median income, and the state could allow them to go as high as 85 percent of the median income.  He said, depending on enrollment and whether or not they were using all the available dollars, the division might look at an eligibility expansion. 

 

Mr. Willden explained the division had also proposed adjusting the sliding fee scale for at-risk families.  Currently the at-risk families paid for child care on a sliding scale, and the division was looking at adjusting the scale so that the at-risk families would pay a lower co-payment and the state would pay a larger percentage. 

 

Mr. Willden said another option was to increase the subsidy rates for some target groups, in particular, child care providers for infants.  He said there was an ongoing need for infant child care slots.  If there was an increase in the payments for infant child care providers, then there would be more slots available. 

 

Mr. Willden said the Governor was very interested in implementing a tiered reimbursement system.  This was a process for encouraging quality care through the tiered system, where a higher rate would be paid for higher quality child care.  He advised the subcommittee that several states, including North Carolina, had done pioneer work in this area.  He said the division had sent teams to North Carolina to review the process.  He said he was confident that this process would be implemented during the next biennium. 

 

Mr. Willden said that there had been some question as to whether or not there was enough certified match to meet all the match requirements and he advised the subcommittee that there was.  He said during the last legislative session, to maximize all the federal dollars that the division brought in, they were allowed to go out and seek certified match from their partners who also provided child care related services.  He said the division had a pool identified of about $4.2 million in certified match, and it was growing every day. 

 

Ms. Leslie said she thought the plans mentioned by Mr. Willden were worthy, but she said there was one thing that he had not mentioned.  She said she had gone to North Carolina and looked at their child care initiative.  She said North Carolina spent around $26 million a year on the program.  She explained North Carolina also subsidized the lowest end of child care workers, including training and wages.  Ms. Leslie assured Mr. Willden that anything that was being looked at in regard to the North Carolina programs would be a good way to go.  She said on the downside, an article in the New York Times indicated President Bush's budget would be cutting three programs that involved children.  The child care development block was one of those programs.  She said he had proposed cutting $200 million as part of the next budget.  She asked how that kind of cut would impact the programs Mr. Willden had mentioned.  Mr. Willden said he hoped that would not happen because child care was one of the most important components of welfare reform and for the self-sufficiency for families.  He said he did not know how that might impact the division's dollars.  He said he had not heard anything along those lines and anything he had seen from the child care administration people was for growth, with more discretionary dollars coming to the states that did not require match and expanded quality initiatives.  Ms. Leslie asked Mr. Willden to look at the New York Times article and to find out if the article was correct.  She said the subcommittee wanted to augment the budget, but they would need to be careful. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Willden to give parameters of what dollar amounts the division wanted to spend on the programs he had suggested.  She said she wasn’t sure if the subcommittee would want to tighten things up, or give more flexibility, and they needed a further explanation.  She said she thought Ms. Leslie's comments about training were important.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it was her understanding that the Culinary Union in southern Nevada wanted to expand to child care training, as did other groups.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said, unfortunately, child care workers were some of the lowest wage earners, and if more training was required, the state should also increase wages.  Mr. Willden said the division had prepared a high-level dollar estimate and said he would get the information to the subcommittee. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Willden to clarify the duties for the four positions transferred from the Family-to-Family program.  Mr. Willden said there were four positions that were proposed for decision unit E-250.  He said the four positions, two in Las Vegas, one in Reno, and one in Elko, had been working in the Family-to-Family budget, and were being transferred to do similar work in the Welfare Division.  He explained the transferred staff would basically be doing the same thing they had been doing, with possibly some exposure to the division's apprentice program along with being integrated into the Welfare Division.  Primarily the transferees had been responsible for child care provider training programs and in the past had provided training to over 2,000 providers.  They would continue to provide training as a large part of their job function.  He said the division had received a child care apprenticeship grant and the transferred staff would be used in that area.  He explained that the division had training initiatives through their two subcontractors, Economic Opportunity Board, and The Children's Cabinet.  Mr. Willden said the transfer of the four positions made sense, and would give the Welfare Division a more cohesive look at all the training and quality initiatives currently being undertaken.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked what funding source the division would be using, and Mr. Willden answered the Child Care Block Grant.  He said the Family-to-Family positions had previously been funded from the Child Care Block Grant. 

 

Ms. Leslie said she had received good feedback about the positions in question.  They provided an excellent service.  She asked if the money was found to restore the Family-to-Family program, how would that affect the positions that were to be transferred.  Mr. Willden said, as far as he knew, the positions would remain in the Child Care Budget.  He said he was mindful of the good work that had been done, and did not want to take any step backwards in that area.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it made good sense for them to remain in the Child Care budget.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked about decision unit E-477, which requested six positions be eliminated, and if that would jeopardize meeting the more stringent work participation rates.  Mr. Willden explained that E-477 proposed the elimination of six positions in the Employment and Training Services budget.  He said it was his hope that it did not jeopardize the work participation requirements.  He said the division had always said that the Employment and Training staff should and could handle about 60 cases individually per month.  He explained that since the TANF caseload had dropped the same number of Employment and Training staff was not needed.  He said under the Governor's direction of building a two times FY2001 budget, and to solve problems within their own budget accounts, they eliminated funding allocated to this decision unit to help fund other initiatives.  By eliminating the positions, they would be able to maintain the caseload at 60 to 65 per worker.  He said he did not feel the division was in significant danger of not meeting their work participation rates and the situation would be monitored closely.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if this was under TANF dollars, rather than General Fund dollars, and Mr. Willden said yes. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it appeared the division had requested an audit specialist position funded with child care funding.  Mr. Willden said the division had one quality control person currently working on the child care budget, and they had requested an additional position.  He said currently this budget was approaching $30 million to $32 million, and more money being spent on child care than was being spent in TANF cash assistance.  He said they did not have the type of internal control review process that they would like to have, and so they had requested the new position to strengthen the review process and to make sure they were not misspending child care dollars. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said at some point the subcommittee might ask him to talk to Stephen Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, and see if there were ways to save General Fund dollars in the DCFS budget.  She said that Mr. Willden was very good at coordinating and it was appreciated.  Mr. Willden said he had been talking with Mr. Shaw and advised the subcommittee that the Welfare Division had increased the amount of TANF dollars that went to DCFS, and they were happy to continue.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said she appreciated them working together. 

 

 

HUMAN SERVICES, WELFARE, ENERGY ASSISTANCE-WELFARE –

BUDGET PAGE WELFARE-49

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Willden to discuss Budget Account 101-4862.  Mr. Willden said the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEA) budget was built before they knew about the increase of federal dollars that had become available, or about several initiatives to increase the funding for low-income families.  He explained that the base budget included the elimination of one state employee position that would be converted into contract dollars.  He said the philosophy in the budget of having state employees work year round in the energy assistance area did not work well, because the major volume of heating assistance applications came in from September to March, during the winter period.  He said they needed more flexibility, such as having four or five year-round employees, and then having the ability to contract for support services during the high volume periods.  Mr. Willden said the budget only allowed for a $1.7 million per year LIHEA payment pool, which covered the payments that were made to utility providers on the client's behalf.  He said the division had just received the IFC's approval the previous week, increasing the current year's LIHEA payment pool to $3.1 million and setting up a reserve of roughly $2.2 million.  The division would use $2 million of the $2.2 million to augment the $1.7 million.  That would make the LIHEA payment category approximately $3.7 million next year.  In addition, Mr. Willden pointed out that the Governor had proposed a one-time appropriation in the amount of $5 million to support additional LIHEA services. 

 

Mr. Goldwater said the $5 million was very important for the short-term.  He said that it could be predicted that during the upcoming summer the division would have an unbelievable amount of caseload, and whatever had been estimated would be grossly underestimated in southern Nevada.  He asked Mr. Willden if the division was prepared for that, and if they had the budget, staff, and resources to deal with such a crisis for the LIHEA program.  Mr. Willden said he had heard there would be a summer cooling crisis.  He said the division was attempting to get ready for that, and part of the Governor's one-shot money would be used for some administrative dollars, and the plan was to hire more temporary contractors to process the applications.  There was no plan to ask for additional state staff.  The division was in the process of identifying new computer equipment that would be needed, as well as workspace for the contractors.  There were existing contracts in place so contract processors could be hired and contingent on the level of dollars that became available to the division, they were making plans to be ready for the influx of applications.  He said they would be going out soon, through the public hearing process, to change the program from an eight-month window for applications to a year-round window for applications.  He said they were not fully prepared, but would be ready when necessary. 

 

Mr. Goldwater said that the subcommittee wanted to be sure that everything was in place, and would like Mr. Willden to let them know what was needed.  He did not want to hear that there was a hitch while at an IFC meeting when it could have been handled during session.  Mr. Goldwater told Mr. Willden when he identified a need, not to be afraid to ask.  Mr. Willden thanked Mr. Goldwater for his comments. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani said it was sad that a lot of seniors, throughout Nevada, did not have air conditioning.  She said many apartments that were older had not been built with air conditioning.  She said the issue of weatherization assistance had been brought up during another budget hearing with discussion on whether or not to be more proactive with weatherization assistance instead of just constantly paying for items as they came up.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if the $5 million one-shot appropriation was intended for offset purposes due to the anticipation of the rising cost of utilities, or was it to enhance the budget.  Mr. Willden referred the subcommittee to a spreadsheet (Exhibit F).  He said the last several years, as displayed on the spreadsheet, when the state had not been in an energy crisis mode, the LIHEA program, received about $2 million annually, which would support approximately 10,000 applications a year.  They had served about 8,000 or 9,000 people a year, and the remaining applications were not served.  According to Mr. Willden, currently, due to rising energy costs, the situation would probably look like the 1990-1991 year and 1991-1992 year as reflected on the spreadsheet.  Mr. Willden told the subcommittee that over the last six weeks there was a 66 percent increase in the number of applications, and this was during what was usually a close out period.  That was due to adjustments in fuel bills over the last two or three months.  He said the division thought they might have 14,000 to 16,000 applications, and with any public outreach, it might go beyond that.  He explained the federal dollars that they would receive would only allow the division to serve around 10,000 to 11,000 applicants, so a new source of funding would be needed if they were to serve the 14,000 to 16,000 applications expected.  That was why the Governor had indicated he would like to have $5 million available, to spread over the next couple of years.  Projections indicated the energy crisis might be around for the next two years, so the Governor wanted to be prepared to serve the 16,000 applicants.

 

Mr. Goldwater asked what would be most effective, expanding the eligibility for the LIHEA program or "shoring up" under the current standards and offering increased assistance.  Mr. Willden said the current guideline for eligibility was 150 percent of poverty.  The census data the division had received indicated that there were about 147,000 households at below 150 percent of poverty.  The LIHEA program currently served 10,000 of the 147,000.  There would be a lot of growth with aggressive outreach and the money could be "eaten up" going to that lowest income group.  He referred to the spreadsheet (Exhibit F) and said there were a couple of target populations where he was disappointed that the division had not done a better job.  Mr. Willden said the spreadsheet showed that 31 percent of the clients served were SSI recipients.  He said there were many more SSI recipients in Nevada than had been served, and they were categorically eligible.  He said the division had served 462 TANF families, but there were 8,000 TANF families who were categorically eligible.  Because there was not enough money to go around, the division had not served enough TANF families.  Mr. Willden said the situation was the same for food stamp recipients.  Mr. Goldwater said he did not feel the division would have to do much outreach, as people would be reaching out to the division for assistance soon.  He said in the past, Nevada had fairly low utility bills, but the utility bills were going to be so big that it would be a huge problem and people would be reaching out.  He said he agreed with Mr. Willden that with the current eligibility standard, a lot more could be done for a lot more people if the program was enhanced.  Mr. Goldwater said the LIHEA program was a very limited benefit and any money added to the program would make it better than expanding it. 

 

Ms. Leslie said the spreadsheet (Exhibit F) was interesting and pointed out the number of TANF recipients who received the LIHEA were listed at 5.9 percent.  She asked if the TANF recipients were not told of the LIHEA benefits, and if not, was it because the division was afraid all the money would be spent on one eligible category.  She said she was worried about the summer energy costs for the Reno area.  She said her district was an older district and the people did not have air conditioning, so they plugged in fans.  She said that was usually okay, since there weren't that many hot nights in northern Nevada, but with the new money coming on-line, would there be consideration given to start a summer program in the north, if there was a hot summer.  Mr. Willden said yes, and explained that one of the Governor's goals was to have a year-round program, not just a winter heating or a summer cooling program.  Mr. Willden, in reference to Ms. Leslie's question about whether or not TANF recipients were told about the benefits available to them, said the division did not purposely withhold information, but he said any one of the categorical groups could use up all of the funds.  He said then the division would not be able to serve senior citizens, who received Social Security, if every dollar went to SSI and TANF recipients.  He said it was a matter of where the focus should go, and the focus had mainly gone to seniors age 62 or over.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani said the $5 million one-shot appropriation would not cover it, and it was a critical issue that needed to be dealt with.  She said households needed to be weatherized so that they did not have to keep going back and subsidizing year after year.  She said part of the problem could be fixed by offsetting the problem through weatherizing. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked if some of the money could be leveraged.  Mr. Willden responded the past leveraging formula for Nevada was for every $5 spent on energy assistance that was not from federal funds would generate about $1 of federal money.  He said the previous year what was reported to the LIHEA federal program resulted in about half-a-million dollars from the federal government to the division.  He added that if the state spent $2 million it might result in $200,000 from the federal government, so there was a leveraging formula.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that the one-shot apportionment would work, but if the TANF dollars were used, then the state would lose the ability to leverage additional federal funds.  She said she believed there would be a crisis across the state and as it was already reaching temperatures around 85 degrees in Las Vegas, there would be constituents that would be needing assistance.  She said the subcommittee would need to look at a variety of creative ways to come up with revenue for this problem.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Willden for his testimony and for the job he performed.  She then asked for public testimony.

 

Speaking in support of the Welfare Division Budget, Jon L. Sasser, Esq., Statewide Advocacy Coordinator, Washoe Legal Services, introduced himself and said he also represented three other civil legal services programs.  He explained that the Washoe Legal Services provided low-income legal services to Nevadans.  He said he was also representing the Nevada Statewide Covering Kids Coalition, as co-chairman.  He said the job of the coalition was to cover as many children as possible with an appropriate insurance program, through private insurance, Medicaid, or Nevada Check up.  He had a handout distributed to the subcommittee with his testimony, but did not read directly from the handout (Exhibit G).

 

He said there were three budget enhancements that were either in Welfare Division's budget, or crossed into the budget, that would make a great step forward for those he represented. 

 

• The elimination of the assets test for children and pregnant women applying for Medicaid under the Children's Health Assurance Program (CHAP).  He explained that this was in the Governor's budget and also included in Assembly Bill 196 which would prohibit the Department of Human Resources from considering assets of a child or pregnant woman or family of a child or pregnant woman to determine eligibility for the child health assurance program. 

 

• Expedited eligibility determinations for pregnant women applying for Medicaid.

 

• An interactive, Web-based application for Check Up/CHAP.

 

Mr. Sasser said the three items worked like a "three-legged stool," together as a unified system and said for the record, the Covering Kids Coalition supported the "three-legged stool." 

 

Mr. Sasser said 42 other states did not have the assets test, leaving Nevada in the minority.  He said when the CHAP program was first adopted the state did not have an assets test but it was imposed in 1992, during the interim, as part of the reaction to the budget crisis at that time, and had remained in place since then.  Mr. Sasser explained the assets test as follows: if a family had countable assets in excess of $2,000 for a single individual, or $3,000 for a couple, and an extra $150 per child, then they would not qualify for the CHAP program.  He said there were 28 pages in the state Eligibility and Payments Manual that dealt with the rules regarding the assets and whether they counted or did not count.  He said if an individual had a burial policy, the first $1,500 was exempt, and after that would be included as "countable" in the assets test.  He said it was a very complicated system, and took a great deal of staff time, and was a burden to everyone. 

 

Mr. Sasser said the time was ripe to eliminate the assets test because in 1997, as part of the Balanced Budget Act, the U.S. Congress authorized the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which became the Nevada Check Up program in Nevada.  He said at that time, states could have expanded the Medicaid program for children if they wished.  By adding extra children onto the Medicaid rolls and eliminating the assets test the additional caseload could be paid for with a 65/35 federal match.  As a result it would reduce pressure on the Nevada Check Up caseload, because the 2,200 children that would otherwise be on the Check Up program because the Nevada Check Up program did not have an assets test, would instead qualify to be on Nevada Medicaid.  Mr. Sasser said that would help eliminate red tape, because the 28-page test that had to be applied by the Welfare Division, and the Nevada Check Up referrals to Medicaid for assessment, would both be eliminated.  Mr. Sasser said of approximately 1,700 referrals that he had seen from Nevada Check Up to the Medicaid program, only 85 applicants were actually accepted.  He said although only 1 percent of people were eliminated because they failed the assets test, approximately 46 percent dropped out along the way because of the difficulty in dealing with applying for assistance with the assets test. 

 

Mr. Sasser explained other reform efforts that were underway would depend on eliminating the assets test.  For example, the expedited eligibility for pregnant women, which dealt with the effort to make an eligibility determination within seven days, could not be done within the seven days if the assets test had to be applied.  A second example was the interactive Web-based application; if someone had to deal with the verification of the value of assets, it would not work well.

 

Mr. Sasser advised the subcommittee that there had been some discussion of using the $5 million one-shot appropriation for uninsured families by administering it through the Nevada Check Up program, which received enhanced federal funding and would enable the inclusion of insurance coverage for the parents of the Check Up children.  For states to qualify for a waiver to do that type of thing, there was a five-prong test, and the states had to meet three of the five prongs as an initial threshold requirement, and one of the prongs would be that the state could not have an assets test.  Nevada could not meet the waiver requirements if it did not eliminate the assets test. 

 

Mr. Sasser reiterated that of all the things that had been heard as far as reforms, from the Covering Kids perspective, eliminating the assets test was the most important one and the foundation that all the other reforms had been built on, and it was a good time to make the change, due to the enhanced match. 

 

Mr. Sasser said the next "leg of the stool" was expedited eligibility for pregnant women.  He explained Nevada ranked 49^th out of 50 states in terms of women who received no prenatal care, or late prenatal care prior to delivery.  He advised the subcommittee that Mary E. Guinan, M.D., Ph.D., State Health Officer, Health Division, Department of Human Resources, in testimony to the Interim Committee on Health, had stressed the importance of getting early prenatal care.  The way the present system worked in Nevada, it had been impossible to get Medicaid to cover prenatal care in the first trimester.  He explained that a woman waited four to six weeks before she knew she was pregnant, then if she applied for Medicaid, she would have to wait another 30 to 45 days, and the first trimester was usually over before she found out if she was eligible.  Mr. Sasser said his understanding of how things would work with the program would be that Mr. Willden would take five existing eligibility workers, pair them with seven new eligibility workers to make six two-person teams to fast track the applications. 

 

Mrs. Cegavske said she had recently had a request from someone who was trying to help a young lady who was 17 years old, almost 18 years old, and was five months pregnant.  The young lady had tried to get services, but her parents had to sign for her because she was not 18.  Mrs. Cegavske asked for guidance to help the young lady, since she was five months along in her pregnancy and had not had any prenatal care.  Mr. Sasser said he would defer the question to Mr. Willden.  Mrs. Cegavske said Mr. Willden could reply after Mr. Sasser had completed his testimony.

 

Mr. Sasser continued his testimony and said that Assembly Bill 31, whichwould require the Department of Human Resources to include presumptive eligibility for certain persons in the state plan for Medicaid and children’s health insurance program, would be heard by the Ways and Means Committee on March 27, 2001.  Presumptive eligibility from the Covering Kids perspective was preferable to expedited eligibility because it would get people covered a week earlier and would give more incentive to providers to sign children up.  He said the bill covered three groups, pregnant women, Check Up kids, and Medicaid kids, so it was broader than the Governor's concept of expedited eligibility, but on the other hand, the Governor's concept was strong and a step in the right direction.  He said he would rather have expedited eligibility and the other two "legs of the stool" than presumptive eligibility standing alone. 

 

Mr. Sasser said the last "leg of the stool" was the interactive Web-based application.  He said he had discussed testifying before the subcommittee with a live demonstration of how the Web site would work and hoped he would be able to do so. 

 

Mr. Sasser said, moving on from the Covering Kids' issues, and to the Legal Services' perspective, he wanted to support the increased TANF benefits level for households where the primary caretakers were not able to work.  He said if the philosophy of welfare reform was to hold grant levels down low as an incentive for people to go to work and if those who could not go to work were punished for their inability to do so it would be cruel and counterproductive.  He said he would like to see some progress for the remaining 50 percent that were not covered by the enhancements.  He said, as it was pointed out earlier in testimony, women would often find themselves in a situation where they needed to get back on their feet, and the state continued to keep the grant low.  He said since it had been ten years since there had been an increase in benefits, how much longer would it be before the benefits would be increased, would it be another ten years, or when would the state say it was time for a 5 percent increase.  Mr. Sasser said that TANF was a wonderful source of funds, but unfortunately, because of its flexibility, the state was using the money to pay for other programs, and so there was not enough money for a grant increase.  He hoped that issue would be looked at in the future. 

 

Mr. Sasser concluded his testimony with a brief discussion on the Governor's $5 million one-shot appropriation for low-income energy assistance.  He said it was needed and he commended the Governor for putting it in the budget.  Mr. Sasser agreed that the amount would probably be inadequate for the upcoming summer's energy crisis, and hoped the subcommittee would look at other sources for supplementation.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Sasser for his testimony.

 

In support of the Welfare Division's budget, Jan Gilbert, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, spoke to the subcommittee.  She commended the Welfare Division.  She said the alliance had a wonderful working relationship with all of the people currently in the audience.  She affirmed that people could go to Mr. Willden when they had a problem.  She said the alliance had called him when there had been problems with some of the employment specialists and the problems had been taken care of.  She said her office was pleased about the grant increases, the child care dollars, and the changes to the state plan regarding higher education, all of which were done through the alliance's work with the Welfare Division.  Ms. Gilbert said, as Mr. Willden knew, she did question the setting aside of $19.2 million into the TANF Rainy Day account.  She said the calculation to decide how much should be in the TANF Rainy Day Fund consisted of using the high watermark and the low watermark, finding the average of the two watermarks, and then making the calculation at lower than the average, but, she explained, they would never meet the high watermark again.  The high watermark was extraordinarily high, and was achieved before the Welfare Reform Act had been in place, before the Welfare to Work proposals were in place, and before they had the Ten Job Searches plan in place, and would never again have a watermark level that was that high.  Ms. Gilbert said she questioned the need for setting aside so much money when people were living in poverty and only asking for assistance for a small amount of time.  The average grant per family was $287 a month and the maximum that a family of three received was $348 a month.  It had been ten years since the grant had been increased and it was an important and opportune time to use the TANF Rainy Day Fund to show the federal government that Nevada was using the dollars, not just setting them aside.  She said there were many advocates across the country who were looking at the TANF Rainy Day Funds and wondering if the federal government was going to say if a state did not use the dollars, why should they authorize the dollars again.  Ms. Gilbert said the state had done a good job of using the dollars, but still had a huge surplus.  She said they had done a good job of getting women back to work, but there were questions about what work, and if the women were still living in poverty.  Ms. Gilbert said the welfare Division had been doing a survey to see what happened to recipients after they left the welfare system, and she hoped the IFC would review the survey during the interim, because what happened to recipients after they left the Welfare program was crucial to the whole picture.  She said if families were going to be encouraged to stay together, the split grant was a problem.  She said some families would get the higher rate and some would get the lower rate, and a smart person would say they would give their child to their aunt or grandmother and then at least their child could be clothed and fed.  She hoped the subcommittee would analyze this before making final determinations. 

 

Ms. Gilbert concluded her statement saying that although it was good to have TANF funds transferred to other budgets, she found it questionable that the subcommittee would think that was a benefit, because if the TANF reauthorization did not come through, there would be a shortfall in multiple budgets.  Moving the money to DCFS, etc., maximized the use of General Fund dollars, but in the bigger picture it was not covering what needed to be covered with General Fund dollars.  She asked the subcommittee to take a careful look at that issue.  She said the alliance was very encouraged with the bills that were coming forward regarding the LIHEA program, conservation, weatherization, and low-income energy assistance. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Ms. Gilbert for her testimony and said that Ms. Gilbert's points about the TANF dollars being in other budgets was recognized by the subcommittee and she said it was a good reason to keep the reserve as high as possible, in order to offset any problems. 

 

Jeanette Hills, Deputy Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, introduced herself.  In answer to Mrs. Cegavske's earlier question regarding a constituent who was 17 years old and 5 months pregnant, she said when a minor was living with her parents, the Child Health Assurance Program and the TANF program, deemed a parent's income as available to the child in determining her eligibility.  In the TANF program, if the minor was not living with the parents, the division was required to seek an appropriate living arrangement for the child.  They would look to see if the parents' home was or was not an appropriate living arrangement, and either require the person to live with their parents or find another appropriate living arrangement for that person, whether in a second chance home or living with other adult relatives.  She said they did not require parents to sign applications, but they did look at the parents' income if the child was living with the parents.  Mrs. Cegavske thanked Ms. Hills and said one of the concerns was the girl had gone to Baby-Your-Baby and they wouldn't let her in unless there was a parental consent form signed and the parent had not been willing to sign.  Mrs. Cegavske said that was why she was trying to see if there was any assistance available, since she was five months along and had not had any check up.  Mrs. Cegavske was concerned about her and the baby and was hoping there was something she could do to help.  Ms. Hill said Medicaid might be of help to the girl.  Mr. Willden told Mrs. Cegavske that if she gave him the girl's name, the division would follow through to see what could be done. 

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Willden and said if there were barriers that were stumbled on, let the subcommittee know and maybe they could assist with the problems.

 

Being no further questions, the meeting was adjourned at 10:13 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

`

Kathryn Fosnaugh

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

                       

 

DATE: