MINUTES OF THE meeting of the

joint subcommittee on human resources / k-12

of the

senate committee on finance

and the assembly committee on ways and means

 

Seventy-First Session

March 9, 2001

 

 

The Joint Subcommittee on Human Resources/K-12of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson at 7:36 a.m., on Friday, March 9, 2001, in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

Senator Bob Coffin

Senator Bernice Mathews

 

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

Mrs. Barbara K. Cegavske

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Mr. David E. Goldwater

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Sandra J. Tiffany

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark W. Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Bob Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Steven J. Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Larry L. Peri, Senior Program Analyst

Bob Williston, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Marybel Batjer, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor

Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Human Resources

Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources

Michael J. Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human             Resources

Gary Stagliano, Deputy Administrator, Information Systems, Welfare Division,             Department of Human Resources

Michael D. Davidson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County

Richard Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County

Mark Jenness, Private Citizen

Ashley Canfield, Private Citizen

Gail Krolick, Private Citizen

Damaris Smith, Private Citizen

Diana Eadington-Reed, Private Citizen

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

Linda L. Sheldon, Lobbyist, Great Basin Primary Care Association

 

Marybel Batjer, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor, said she was present to testify on an appropriation that the Governor is requesting for an office that is presently titled Family Resource Coordinator in the Office of the Governor. She explained that the title does not capture what the Governor intended this office to be, and she asked the committee’s help in giving it a better title.

 

Ms. Batjer said the Governor is very concerned because he has seen that, though the state does have programs to support families and children, the programs at the state and county levels, and programs run by community-based organizations and faith-based organizations are not well coordinated. She stated that there are people in need for whom these programs are intended, yet the programs are either not reaching the people in need or are not being maximized to the degree they are intended to be. She cited a case in a methadone clinic in Las Vegas where a young woman was struggling and doing well in the clinic, but clinic staff were concerned about her success. When the Governor inquired about their concern, he was told that the woman has no childcare. The Governor was reportedly stunned that someone running a clinic like that would not be aware of the array of programs in the state and at the county level.

 

Ms. Batjer said the Governor also feels strongly that almost anything negative that happens to the family or an individual in a family impacts the family. The question, she stated, is, “Who is there to help the children and to coordinate the known programs that exist that can help that family get back up on their feet or get them through a difficult time?” This, she noted, is true of cases of drug addiction and teenage pregnancy. She said the Governor wants to provide a high level, high profile office that reports directly to him, has cabinet level authority and can act as a coordinator of the various resources within the state to ensure that they are going to the people intended. Ms. Batjer said the position would also identify gaps so the government can better plan for them, and make sure the state’s resources are going into areas where there are gaps.

 

Ms. Batjer said the Office of the Governor would like to name the position the Office of Family and Children, but she would prefer to work with the committee because she does not want the name to deter from the importance of the intent. She said the budget was allocated between the position in the Governor’s office, and operating money that was placed in the Department of Human Resources director’s office. She said that was an administrative budget decision. The Governor, she explained, was concerned about the appearance of the personnel and operating money being in his office. She stated that the Governor very much wants to work with the committee if the committee will work with the Office of the Governor to decide where best that should be placed.

 

Ms. Batjer explained that the request is only for 1 position and 1 support person, but the money may need to be used for grant opportunities. This, she stated, is not intended to be just grant writing, but the Governor is concerned that there are grants that the state is not receiving because there is no person and no dedicated efforts toward that end.

 

Senator Rawson said the committee will work on that and coordinate with Ms. Batjer. He said he believes he understands what it is Ms. Batjer and the Governor are asking for.

 

HR, Purchase of Social Services – Budget Page HR ADMIN-13 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3237

 

Senator Rawson noted that on the performance indicators there are a number of areas that are indicated to be “not applicable.” He indicated the committee would like to know what is happening on that matter.

 

Debbra J. King, Administrative Services Officer IV, Department of Human Resources, said the “N/A” designation means “not available” rather than “not applicable.” She said those performance measures were not tracked in the previous years.

 

Ms. King explained that these are new performance indicators from the past biennium, so the information was not tracked in 2000 and 2001. She said they will be tracked in 2002 and 2003.

 

Senator Rawson said he sees a trend in a lot of the budgets the committee is looking at. He explained that the committee changed the budget accounting process from the specific line item to the present method a few sessions back, and said that performance indicators were a fundamental part of that from the very beginning. He said they do not know how to deal with that, but if the performance indicators are not provided, at some point the committee will not hear or go ahead on some of the budgets.

 

Senator Rawson said that 2 years from now he and most of the members of the committee will still be here and they are not going to just “blow past” these again. He pointed out that this is a notice to everyone involved.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani echoed Senator Rawson’s concern, and added there had been a shifting of what some federal programs called for in terms of performance indicators. She explained that because of this the committee does not have a picture of the situation, and they are fearful that next time around there will be changes again and there will be nothing over a 4-year period to measure against. She suggested that what the department ought to provide is at least a summary of what was accomplished over the biennium, versus just what was changed. This, she noted, would give a picture of what the department did over the last few years.

 

Ms. King said these performance indicators provide the department’s attempt to move toward the information the committee is requesting. She pointed out that indicators one through four were in place for the previous biennium and tell how many grants were done, but they do not give any information as to how well the staff in this account succeeded in monitoring the account and meeting grant requirements. She said that the new performance indicators six through nine will show whether the state’s staff are monitoring successfully. She said the department is hopefully working in the direction the committee is requesting them to move.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani drew attention to performance indicator number four and noted that grants were awarded to a number of non-state agencies. She said that does not give a proper picture because it does not tell the number of agencies that did not receive grants. She suggested that it is “comparisons” the committee is trying to get a picture of.

 

Senator Rawson referred to performance indicator number seven, and noted that it is not a new performance indicator. He noted that it was in the last biennium, and said he will instruct his staff to communicate with Ms. King to get the specifics on that item. He said he does not believe the committee will close this budget until it has those figures.

 

Senator Rawson said that in Social Services Block Grant funds (Title XX of the Social Security Act), the latest estimates the committee has show the potential for Nevada to receive about $11 million each year of the biennium. He pointed out the budget indicates only $9.95 million in each year. He said this would theoretically allow TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) transfers to be reduced by approximately $1 million each year, and there are plenty of places for that TANF money to be allocated. Senator Rawson asked Ms. King whether she had any more accurate estimate of what the committee might be able to budget.

 

Ms. King said that, as indicated in Attachment 9 of the handout entitled Budget Presentation to the Senate Finance and Assembly Ways and Means Joint subcommittee (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.), the Title XX allocation for the last 5 years has decreased. She said that in the federal fiscal year 2001 the state allocation was approximately equal to what had been received in federal fiscal year 2000. She said the department is at the mercy of the federal government with respect to what they actually allocate for Title XX. She explained that the department budgeted a 5 percent decrease, which is the average decrease over the last 5 years, and the department “backfilled” the 5 percent with TANF money.

 

Ms. King stated that in prior years when the amount of Title XX money decreased, the department had to cut state services or try to “backfill” with TANF funds when possible, as was done in federal fiscal year 2000. This, she explained, was done to make sure the state’s services would continue.

 

Senator Rawson said the committee has estimates that are seemingly indicating more will be received, not less. He indicated that, if the money comes in and the department approaches the Interim Finance Committee (IFC), then the committee as a whole cannot all look at the allocation, and there are good places for the money to be allocated now. However, he said, the committee does not want to budget the money if it is not going be realized. He asked that Ms. King work with the committee staff as closely as possible on that budget item and “cut it as close” as possible.

 

Senator Rawson said there are similar questions to be asked about cost allocations.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what the urban enterprise grant is.

 

Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said he cannot speak specifically to the definition, but he noted it is a grant the department has had for several years. He said he believes there is an extension planned for that, but he does not believe it is shown in the budget. He said when the department receives a new grant award for coming years it will have to request approval by IFC.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that program had been rolled into the rest of the grants. Mr. Peri said it is a “total pass-through” and does not affect any of the state accounts. That, he explained, is why there is no attention given to it.

 

HR, Community Svcs Block Grant – Budget Page HR ADMIN-18 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-4864

 

E-250 Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page HR ADMIN-20

 

Senator Rawson said this budget is scheduled to be phased out or eliminated and moved into the grants management unit. He said it is his feeling the subcommittee is not convinced that is the way it wants to go. He said he will ask the committee staff to prepare the budgets with all of the budget changes “backed out” so the committee can look at it and decide which way to go. He said he understands the decision has not been made, but there has been a lot of discussion about it.

 

Senator Rawson indicated that a number of the performance indicators in this budget also do not track between the biennia and that needs to be worked out as well.

 

Senator Rawson said he did not think cost allocations in this budget needed to be discussed.

 

HR, Grants Management Unit – Budget Page HR ADMIN-31 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3195

 

Senator Rawson stated that the question in the committee’s mind is whether this unit really saves anything. He noted that there are 15 positions presently, 11 of them to be eliminated and 4 of them to be transferred.

 

Ms. King said the grants management unit was proposed as a result of the Governor’s fundamental review process. She said it is hoped it will achieve two things: that it will standardize grant award and management and administration practices for those grants in this unit, and that it will establish a grant tracking unit. She noted that 3 of the 16 positions being recommended are to track, monitor, and analyze the grants awarded to the department. She said the department has had questions it cannot answer – one of them being the number of grants the department awards. Those 3 positions, she explained, would analyze that function.

 

Ms. King said the other 13 positions would administer the current grants. She confirmed that there are currently only 11 positions doing that. She explained that the administration for several of the grants is being paid for by the General Fund or one grant funded position is administering a different grant. This, she said, is inconsistent with federal cost management rules.

 

Ms. King said it is the department’s belief that this grant unit would be more effective and efficient and would also provide for the proper funding stream funding the administration of the grants. Currently, she explained, these grants have administrative costs allocated to them up to 15 percent. Under the department’s proposal the administrative allocation would be less than 5 percent across the board, she added.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the varying rates being used now are because of something in the grant language, and if it is really allowable to use a standard rate for all of these grants. He also said he is curious whether there have been audit exceptions or any problems with the way it has been done to this point.

 

Ms. King said it is not allowable under federal cost principles to use money from one grant to administer another grant. Although in these particular grants there has not been an audit exception, there has been an exception in another grant within the department where one federal grant is funding two positions that work on things other than that federal grant.

 

Senator Rawson said that if a standard administrative rate is accepted there is the possibility the department will run into violations with some of the grants. Some of them may specify the amount that can be used for administration.

 

Ms. King said that federal grant administration allowances have been between 5 and 10 percent. She stated that, in putting together this project, the department was compliant with the administrative cost allocation and with federal cost principles. Senator Rawson remarked that it is a shame the state has let some grants go with no administrative costs in them.

 

Senator Rawson noted that the Governor’s fundamental review task force indicated there would be a $30 million savings resulting from this fundamental review. He said the committee has not been able to track any of those savings in this budget, and he asked whether there is something the committee has been overlooking.

 

Ms. King said that truly recognizing the administrative costs of the grants and charging them back to the funding source releases the staff, who were paid to do something else and were administering these grants, to do what they were authorized to do. She said she would no longer need to explain that a given position is spending a certain percentage of time administering a grant.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether there is any saving in any of those positions if they are freed up from their grants management functions. Ms. King replied that there are not. She explained that agencies justify a need for a position, and then a grant is authorized and there are no administrative costs. So, she said, the cost of administering the grant is added to the cost of department staff, and other things the staff should be working on are not getting done.

 

Senator Rawson commented that one of the ways we “grow state employees” is through grants. He said often, through IFC, new grants come in and there will be staff associated with them. Ms. King replied that the point being made with the proposed grants management unit is that the department frequently “grows” direct service staff through grants, but no administrative staff. She said that whether there is a $5,000 grant or a $5 million grant, the grant still has to be written and administered, including all the other activities involved. She notes that this grant management unit recognizes the administration.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani stated that the committee staff has asked for a funding map. She said it would help the committee get a handle on this. She said she believed part of the fundamental review recommendations was that consistent factors for administrative costs were to be created. She stated that it appears from the budget document that there is still no consistent factor for what is to be charged for administrative costs. In that case, she asked what the sense is of merging those grants together, reducing the actual direct services in some cases, and then using more General Fund to cover administrative costs. She said it looks as if there is a possibility that the General Fund will be charged a disproportionate amount.

 

Ms. King said three of the positions in the budget are 100 percent General Fund because they are state benefit management positions and not cost allocated to the grants. Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether that is the grants tracking and analysis section, and Ms. King replied that it is. Ms. Giunchigliani said she is still not sure why a separate funding source is needed for them.

 

Ms. King said they would be General Fund positions because they are not doing anything regarding administering of the grants. Ms. Giunchigliani asked why, then, were they needed. Ms. King said they are needed to get a handle on and standardize what the department is doing with the grants. She said the positions would get information together on the grants that are awarded, learn whom they are being awarded to, and track the outcomes of the $31 million the department gives out. She said they want to learn if the department is accomplishing anything or if there is any impact on what the grants are awarded for.

 

Assemblywoman Tiffany said she had asked about how the Desert Research Institute handles their grants management, noting that institution is driven by grants. She said it appears to her that when a grant is received employees working on the grant know they are temporary, not permanent state employees, and not included in PERS (Public Employees’ Retirement System). She asked whether the department has looked at outsourcing the centralization of these grants because the employees involved should be contractors and should not be permanent state employees. She insisted they should only be attached to the grant in question.

 

Ms. Tiffany expressed concern that there are real complications with how the administration part of these grants is funded. She pointed out that if this administration is left under the state agency then the employees all become state employees. Then, she explained, they are all funded differently and the General Fund picks up more that it should of the administrative costs. She said outsourcing this administration would separate that from the General Fund.

 

Ms. King explained that the problem with outsourcing is that the state still retains the liability if the outsource contract manager, the grant administrator, or the subrecipient does not properly administer the grant.

 

Ms. Tiffany pointed out that the state does that now in health care, and acknowledged that, although the health care is outsourced, the state is still responsible for it. She said she does not believe the department has considered this option. She asked whether the department’s present practice is to bring all the grant-administering employees in as state employees. Ms. King said they are currently state employees.

 

Ms. Tiffany said she thinks centralizing the grants administration does make a lot of sense if it is done correctly. She pointed out that it would allow for the best practices and for professional people to do the job. She also expressed agreement that a formula for tracking the budget and managing of the money and how people are allocated to each resource is a positive idea. She asked Ms. King how many contractors the department has that have multiple grants.

 

Ms. King replied that the department has just looked at the domestic violence area and there are a number of contractors. She said there are 6 domestic violence funding streams just within the department, and 5 of the 43 contractors receive funds from all 6 funding streams.

 

Ms. Tiffany pointed out that, if that kind of situation exists, the department can send one auditor to manage and review all of the contractors and to make sure they have the best practices for case management. This makes sense, she noted.

 

Senator Rawson said the subcommittee finds this a difficult budget. He pointed out that there are a lot of different agencies and rates involved, and the assessments to the various agencies are all assessed differently. He noted that the Children’s Trust Fund is assessed 5 percent, the Title XX Purchase of Social Services grant is 1.2 percent, and Healthy Nevada grants are 1.7 percent. He explained that is because there had been heavy discussion of the Healthy Nevada grants in the interim and the IFC had demanded that the assessment not exceed 1.7 percent. He pointed out that the Family to Family Connection program and the Family Resource Centers are assessed at 24.7 percent, and said it appears that no consistent factor is applied.

 

Senator Rawson said the committee does not want to balance the overall administration on some particular programs that may be more vulnerable, and asked how the department had arrived at these assessments.

 

Ms. King said that on Monday, March 26, 2001, the committee’s staff will be receiving the funding map that will specify how that is done.

 

Senator Rawson explained that in reviewing the budget the committee looks at some of the pass-through grant funding, such as the Children’s Trust Fund. He pointed out that the committee does not see a reserve this year. He asked Ms. King to speak about that.

 

Ms. King said the Children’s Trust Fund is an excellent example of why the proposed grant program is needed. She explained that as the budget for the Children’s Trust Fund account, found on budget page DCFS-40, was prepared by the Division of Child and Family Services, the reserve was approximately 50 percent of the annual revenue. That was rather high, she noted, and said it was done because the division did not have permanent staff for that grant. She indicated that the annual revenue was projected at approximately $700,000 a year, and their expenditures in fiscal year 2000 were $482,000.

 

Ms. King continued, explaining that as the budget was presented the division had requested a reserve of over $1 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 and expenditures of about $482,000. She said a good grants management unit would be able to project both the expenditures and the revenues and keep an appropriate level of reserve. Depending on the income source, she said, that could be 3 or 4 months to protect the cash flows.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the Children’s Trust Fund is actually managed by the Committee for the Protection of Children. Ms. King responded that the Committee for the Protection of Children makes the grant awards. She explained that preparation and release of the request for proposals (RFP), receiving the proposals, evaluating, monitoring, and administering are all done by a part-time person who has that job as one of the “other duties as assigned.” She said the Committee for the Protection of Children does make grant awards, but no members of that committee sign vouchers.

 

Senator Rawson asked how many people are on the Committee for the Protection of Children, and Ms. King replied that there were seven. Senator Rawson asked what staff is allocated to that committee. Ms. King said that committee had approximately a one-quarter-time management analyst or grants analyst from Community Connections who actually spent approximately three quarters of her time on that activity. This, she pointed out, is a good example of how that position is actually funded out of the Title XX grant but much of the money for her position was spent on the Children’s Trust Fund activities.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the upshot of this new grants unit is a net increase of four positions. Ms. King replied that there is a net increase of two positions. She noted that there is the grant management unit, which is 3 positions and is a new function. She said it is not related to the proposal the department is making to bring in the grants administration and standardization of that function. She noted that for the grants administration there is a net growth of 2 positions. Those 2 new positions, she pointed out, are necessary in recognition of the fact that the department has grants such as the Children’s Trust Fund where the funding stream is not supporting the administration of the grant.

 

Senator Rawson said he thinks that with the funding map and with answers to the other questions that were asked, the committee will be able to make a decision on this budget.

 

Ms. Tiffany restated her approval of centralizing the grants, but she expressed concern that the right number of “tracking” people are added, and that the right people are hired to assure best practices. She said the committee must also be sure that the positions are not funded out of the General Fund, particularly on the back of the resource centers. She indicated that some individuals had been in her office to protest that it is not acceptable if their positions are cut because the department is establishing the grants management unit.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie asked whether the committee will be able to track the positions that will do the grants administration by grant source using the funding map Ms. King will provide to the committee. Ms. King said the department can provide that information. Ms. Leslie expressed her need to see the map so she can better understand this issue.

 

Ms. Leslie asked what the relationship will be between the Block Grant Commission and all the other boards, such as the Children’s Trust Fund committee and other advisory boards. Ms. King responded that, basically, for the next biennium, the department will be following along with the current Block Grant Commission in its same role. The department will be looking at how it can better organize that function during the next biennium.

 

Charlotte Crawford, Director, Department of Human Resources, said the advisory committees to each of the specific granting areas will also continue, and there will be a communication flow between the specific advisory committees and the Block Grant Commission in terms of decision making. She pointed out that the Block Grant Commission will not be substituted for the separate advisory committees and their functions, but would be incorporated into those functions. This, she explained, is to broaden the Block Grant Commission’s perspective of the broader array of services, but not take away the advisory functions of those advisory committees.

 

Ms. Leslie suggested there would not be any efficiency in doing this because there will still be all the commissions and the shift in staffing will come from the grants management unit, which will staff all the advisory boards.

 

Ms. Crawford pointed out the department is only adding one area in the grants management unit that is not already managed in the director’s office for community connections. That new area, she explained, is the funding stream for domestic violence. Ms. Leslie asked whether there is anyone managing the domestic violence grants now. Ms. Crawford replied that was so.

 

Ms. Crawford explained that is the point Ms. King has been making. She explained that there are staff managing and administering the grants. The issue, she pointed out, is that those operations are not clearly being funded and identified as managing and administering those grants.

 

Ms. Crawford said the funding map will also show that there are individuals who are not funded who are performing that function. She repeated that the only new area is domestic violence, and she believes that currently involves two advisory committees that the department would be working with. Ms. Leslie asked whether there is a way to incorporate that information into the funding map as well.

 

Ms. Crawford said she believes at least one of those advisory committees is under the Office of the Attorney General in domestic violence. She pointed out that what is involved in this change is the domestic violence programs that are funded through the Department of Human Resources, not those in the Office of the Attorney General. She indicated that she would not be speaking to those committees that are advisory to the Attorney General.

 

Ms. Leslie said she had not been talking about just domestic violence, but about all the things that are going into the grants management functions. Ms. King pointed out that there is a chart under tab “Attachment 7” in Exhibit C that shows that the staff assigned to the various functional areas will be dealing directly with those advisory boards. Ms. Leslie said she would like it to be more specific than that, noting that she would like to see values indicating how many staff and how much of their time is involved. Ms. King said the committee will be provided with the existing staff that is doing that now, and the exhibit has the proposed staff. One position, she pointed out as an example, would work on Title XX and Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) who works with the Block Grant Commission.

Senator Rawson said the committee has not seen the related bill draft requests (BDRs) yet, so they do not know what the department is specifically requesting. He noted that on the funding stream for the marriage license fee there is an administrative figure of 2 percent, which is $93,000. He indicated that there is rumored to be a move to change that to 5 percent. He said the committee needs to know precisely what the department actually needs for a funding stream. Ms. King said the department will provide that information for the committee with the funding map on March 12, 2001. She said the department is asking whether the committee conceptually agrees with the policy decision that the funding stream should support the administration of the program.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether there is currently an advisory committee to the domestic violence board. Ms. King said there is. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who that is, and Ms. King said there is an advisory board.

 

Senator Rawson asked if there should be a discussion about whether all of the domestic violence programs should be administered through human resources versus the Office of the Attorney General. Ms. King said that is something that can be looked into over the upcoming biennium. She said the grants awarded in the Office of the Attorney General relate a great deal to law enforcement training, judicial training, prosecutorial training, and that may be the more appropriate place for those programs. She said the Department of Human Resources should probably be more involved in victim services. That, she added, is one of the things the grant analysis unit, in working with these advocacy groups, will help the department to determine in the upcoming biennium.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani said it is her understanding that there is no current advisory committee for domestic violence, but that there are experts that are relied on. Ms. Crawford said there are others who are more expert on the advisory committees than her, but she said she believes there have been 3 entities, 2 of them still in existence, but neither of them is specific to the Department of Human Resources. She said she does not believe the Department of Human Resources is staffing those committees. She said the department will give the legislative subcommittee that information.

 

Ms. Crawford pointed out that there are two questions involved in this issue. One, she said, is the organizational structure. The only new grants program being added, other than how they are structured, is the funding streams for domestic violence. She said the department has, over time through community connections, brought those types of activities together that are basically community pass-through funds. This, she explained, is not new, and pointed out that what is new is the addition of domestic violence. She restated the policy decision question as being, “Do you want to integrate domestic violence or do we want to leave six different funding streams administered through 3 different divisions who were doing 6 different processes for funding of domestic violence that ends up many times in the same agency?”

 

Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged that is a worthy discussion. She said part of the concern is whether the marriage license fees should be diverted to fund domestic violence and then have direct services taken away. She asked whether it is known how much money will be granted over the biennium for the Children’s Trust Account.

 

Ms. King replied that if the revenue projections in this account are correct, depending upon how much reserve the board wants to keep, there could probably be a grant of about $700,000 a year. She said the reserve has grown and is projected to grow. She pointed out that can be reduced slowly by granting out more than the $700,000 a year that comes in, or it can be granted out in one year for one-shot type expenditures such as equipment. Ms. Giunchigliani said the committee would like something in writing on that.

 

HR, State and Community Collaborations – Budget Page HR ADMIN-34 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3276

 

Senator Rawson stated that he had no questions on this account, and no questions were forthcoming.

 

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

Budget Account 101-3228

 

Senator Rawson noted that The Executive Budget recommends $31.8 million for the Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems (NOMADS) project, spread over two years. He said he understands this will provide for 45,000 hours of programming support and 17 contract staff. He said he does not think the legislators or their staff have a good picture of where NOMADS is headed. He suggested that they need more of a long view of NOMADS and what it will accomplish. He also said they need to know whether the program is really meeting the state’s needs, and if not, what needs to be done about it.

 

Michael J. Willden, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, said NOMADS is not just a system that supports the state Welfare Division and the eligibility programs that the division administers, but it is also the tool that the district attorneys’ offices use to enforce child support obligations and to locate absent parents.

 

Mr. Willden distributed a Budget Presentation (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.) and referred to the section behind the “NOMADS” tab. He also distributed a volume entitled Measurement Indicators (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.) that he indicated may be used later.

 

Mr. Willden referred to page 1 of 5 under the “NOMADS” tab in the Budget Presentation (Exhibit D). He pointed out that it is important for the committee to understand that on January 18, 2001, the Welfare Division was notified there had been a recommendation from the federal reviewers that the division had reached the first certification plateau. For this reason, he noted, there are no existing work items related to getting or finishing the certification project. He said the division has been notified that it will be receiving a refund check for penalties in the amount of $6.3 million, which is scheduled to be reverted to the General Fund.

 

Mr. Willden said NOMADS is operating and is the tool the division is using. He stated that they are no longer using the Legacy systems. He said the division is processing high volumes of data, and noted that caseload statistics indicate 175,000 cases had been converted to the NOMADS system, and said there are now over 273,000 cases in the system.

 

Mr. Willden explained that NOMADS is a complex system serving over 1,100 users simultaneously, and restated that it is now operating. Senator Rawson noted that the important point is that there are 750,000 transactions a day on the system. Mr. Willden confirmed that it is a huge system with many interfaces with other systems such as banks, the federal government, the Internal Revenue Service, and many other systems. He said the division brings information into the system to create alerts and collection information for employees to process.

 

Mr. Willden referred to page 2 of 5 under the “NOMADS” tab of Exhibit D. He indicated that NOMADS is a mainframe-operated system and is written on a code called Cross System Product (CSP). That code, he explained, will no longer be supported by International Business Machines (IBM) in about a year. This, he explained, does not mean it will no longer work, but rather that it will not be supported. He noted that the first issue they are facing is the need to migrate the CSP code to some other operating software. He said there is one plan in place within the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) budget to migrate to software called Visual Age. He said that plan has not been finally decided.

 

Mr. Willden said there may be other options forthcoming. He stated that the division has a technical committee that is looking at what the mainframe software must migrate to in order to be supported into the future.

 

Mr. Willden said the other major issue the division has is that they know they cannot continue to operate the system long term in the mainframe environment. He said that is not the cheapest or most efficient way to go, and the division needs to move to a server-based environment. He drew the committee’s attention to the first chart on page 1 of 4 under the “NOMADS” tab in Exhibit D, and explained it represents the current configuration of NOMADS. He then indicated that on page 2 of 4 is the network plan the division’s technical team is working on to migrate in a pilot project to move some of the NOMADS program onto a server-based environment and do some pilot testing and queries on the database to extract information using the servers. Dependant on how that pilot project works and what is learned from that experience, the Welfare Division plans to move to the configuration displayed on page 3 of 4 in the same group of charts.

 

In the setup shown on page 3 of 4, Mr. Willden explained, the mainframe will be maintained, but the division will move to a host server-based environment where information can be entered through servers and be cleansed and processed. In this way, he explained, queries would be able to be done more efficiently and more cost effectively, but information will still upload and there will be conversation and data moving back and forth between the servers and the mainframe.

 

Mr. Willden pointed out that page 4 of 4 in this same section shows what the configuration will be when the division has completed its plan. He explained that the division has not had a long time to work on this plan. He said full time attention for the past two years has been given to reaching certification status.

 

Mr. Willden said there is another chart on page 1 of 1. He noted that there was mention made in the Governor’s budget of web-based applications, including the ability to apply for benefits on-line through the web. He said the Welfare Division wants to ensure that NOMADS is positioned to operate in that environment.

 

Mr. Willden then directed attention to page 4 of 5 in the handout under the “NOMADS” tab (Exhibit D). He indicated that what appears on that page is a high level breakout of what is in the Governor’s recommended budget. This, he said, includes all the money in the base and maintenance modules. He pointed out that there is $15.9 million in FY 2002 and $15.8 million in FY 2003 indicated in the budget for the project. He pointed out that he needs to be clear that, even though the division has met certification, NOMADS work is not done. He described the present situation as the plateau of meeting the federal certification criteria, and said a lot of work remains to be done.

 

Mr. Willden explained that these resources will be dedicated to accomplishing three things. One goal, he said, is to continue to do the maintenance and operation on NOMADS. He noted that about 48 percent of staff time now is spent on maintenance and operation of the system. He pointed out that it is a 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week operation. He pointed out that the budget supports 29 staff assigned to the project from DoIT. He said there are about 45,000 staff-hours associated with those 29 programmers, and they will work on maintaining the system.

 

The second thing Mr. Willden said the staff will be doing is making “fixes” to the mainframe as needed, as well as additional code development.

 

Mr. Willden said the third objective is to reinvest savings realized from the mainframe environment into the server migration plan. He pointed out the budget also supports about 17 highly-technical contract programmers with about $2.7 million per year. He explained that they bring specific expertise in various areas and will help the division with the migration plan.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether savings were expected in the mainframe processing time, and, if so, whether there are other agencies that can use that. Mr. Willden said he expects there will be mainframe savings. He said there are already contractors signed up that will continue to tune the code and get efficiencies on the mainframe. He said he has been told that efficiencies will really come as the division can migrate to the server-based environment. He explained that the servers process data more efficiently and will do the work at a cheaper cost and only upload cleansed data to the mainframe. This, he explained, makes it so the mainframe does not work as hard and makes it less expensive per transaction.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the division is looking at a 5-year or a 10-year transition.  Mr. Willden replied that he did not have that time frame. He explained that the pilot project the division just started is in a “less-than-6-months window,” but he expects they will be working on the project for at least 2 years.

 

Gary Stagliano, Deputy Administrator, Information Systems, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, said the division is starting a new step now in which the division, in partnership with DoIT and some counties, look at what the best path is. He said they want to arrange for a demonstration project in which different pieces of software and different applications are tested to see what will be best in the long term. That step, he stated, is to be completed by June 2001.

 

Senator Rawson asked where the pilot program will be and whose server will be used. Mr. Stagliano replied there is still some conversation about that, but they are currently planning to use the DoIT server. He explained that DoIT has a server-based environment that the Welfare Division can tap into for a minimal or no-cost demonstration.

 

Senator Rawson noted there is no estimate at this point of what will be spent over the next decade on this project. Mr. Stagliano replied that would depend on what the selected solution is. He explained that the division hopes to demonstrate the software, come back with a recommendation, and have some open conversations. Then, he added, they will be able to determine those amounts.

 

Senator Rawson explained that the difficulty the committee has is that this is a $30 million project, and will probably cost another $100 million.  He suggested the committee have its staff bring in a consulting firm to reevaluate this issue. He said he understands the Executive Branch is driving this, but the Legislature must keep ratifying a budget for it. He noted that he does not have the expertise to evaluate this project, and he is not sure the legislative staff does. He asked the other committee members for their feelings on this.

 

Ms. Tiffany said she agreed with the concept. She pointed out that NOMADS has been around at least for the 5 terms she has served. She explained that when one takes old software with integrated applications there will be a time when one must change off that technology, that hardware, and that software. She expressed concern that the committee should watch this project very carefully.

 

Senator Rawson noted that Ms. Tiffany told the committee that when they had started into the integrated software. Ms. Tiffany acknowledged that she thought it should have been scrapped 6 years ago, and added that it probably would have been the right thing to do. Ms. Tiffany recalled that when the systems in the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety were not run in parallel, the result was a Windows-based system when it should not have been. She warned that care should be taken to prevent that in this case.

 

Ms. Tiffany noted that there are 29 staff members now working on the mainframe. She asked whether that number will remain the same. Mr. Stagliano said the division is already planning for that. Ms. Tiffany asked whether that is in the budget. Mr. Stagliano said that in the budget there are 27 DoIT positions and approximately 17 contractors.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the division is planning to use contractors as opposed to staff. She noted that once mainframe programmers are hired they are not necessarily transitional. Mr. Stagliano said that has been addressed. Ms. Tiffany asked whether the present staffing is right. Mr. Stagliano said the staff on board is partially correct. He said the division has maintained 4 DoIT vacancies that were required in anticipation of going in a different direction, but they are not yet filled. He said the division wants to make sure it hires people with the right skills. He added that the contractors are interchangeable.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the division plans to use the mainframe for a repository. Mr. Stagliano said the very long-term plan is to keep the mainframe for a data repository. He said they also plan to run the read-and-write jobs against the mainframe and move everything off through a partial or a full migration to the server.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether any study had been made of what other states are doing in complementary situations. Mr. Willden replied that the division does study that. He explained that there is an Administration for Children and Families (ACF) users group that deals with these certified systems and with human services systems. He said division employees are present at all those meetings and participate and share information.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the division knows what it wants to do on a web base. Mr. Willden said they do not know “down to the details,” but in conceptual terms they do.

 

Mr. Willden stated that the division has had a consultant on this project. He said they were required to have an Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) contractor, which was Logicon. He stated that one of the contractor’s task was to provide the deliverable to the division as to what should happen next. He said the plan, as presented, reflects the Logicon recommendations. Mr. Willden also added that the division’s county partners have resources to bear in this area.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the division is using someone else’s software for this project, or whether it is being developed in-house. Mr. Willden replied that what the division is looking for initially on the pilot project is a testing of 3 software applications, Oracle, Sequel, and DB (DataBase). Ms. Tiffany commented that they are just tools. Mr. Willden agreed. He explained that the division is not actually trying to move the application process off, but rather the NOMADS database off to the server and make it available for 2 principal purposes. The first one, he stated, is to make it available for easy access for reporting and gathering statistical information. The second is to look at the feasibility of moving the division’s read-only batch jobs.

 

Senator Rawson complimented Mr. Willden on his record as an administrator, but suggested that it is not a good thing for legislators to be involved in “ratifying with the check book,” as has been the case. He noted that there are a lot of questions that arise from the level of information that is given to the committee for the legislative staff to analyze. He pointed out that enhancements are requested and a potential migration is in the plan, but the committee does not have any specifics on that. He remarked that DoIT will probably still have the same cost base used to allocate costs to the other agencies. He expressed concern that the suggested savings will not translate into savings for any of the other agencies.

 

Senator Rawson stated the committee’s staff needs to discuss with the division what enhancements are really being discussed, what specific projects are being dealt with, and what the costs are.  He expressed hesitancy to bring in an outside firm that will give a different result than where the division is headed. He said in other such projects the committee and the division end up at cross purposes. He said the committee needs to better understand the direction the Welfare Division is taking with the local district attorneys and counties because it is the Legislature that writes a good portion of the check for it.

 

Senator Rawson continued, suggesting that if resources are needed to have this issue thoroughly studied now and planned, the resources should be spent to do that so the state will not continue on another 10 years of writing the check and not being able to say what it is for. He noted that people come to legislators and say how much was spent and ask “what we got for it,” and he explained that they cannot always answer that question.

 

Michael D. Davidson, Assistant District Attorney, Clark County, said he was speaking not only on behalf of Clark County, but also on behalf of Washoe County. He explained that in a real sense he and his counterparts in Washoe County “are where the rubber meets the road.” He noted that, between the 2 counties, they service probably 90 percent of the 100,000 families that are dependent on this program.

 

Senator Rawson noted that Clark County was not brought into the process “until they had a product.” Mr. Davidson agreed that his county had not been brought in until late in the process, and added that the product was “a piece of crap.” He recalled that Mr. Gammick, Ms. Tiffany, and Senator O’Donnell were among those who considered throwing out the whole system and starting anew. He said that could unfortunately not be done because the federal government had invested a lot of money.

 

Mr. Davidson said that a steering committee has been formed, and he and Mr. Gammick sit on that committee with state government people and the whole environment has changed quite a bit. Initially, he said, the state “knew all, did all, and had all the answers, and they were all the wrong answers.” He said the counties had not been asked how they thought the system ought to be designed. He said that has changed substantially.

 

Mr. Davidson said the county is pleased that the state has been very cooperative and receptive to the counties’ ideas. He pointed out that he has had four staff members devoted to that project full time for several years. He said the statewide disbursement unit, which is federally mandated, was originally his collections unit. He pointed out that the task of the steering committee has been to do exactly what Senator Rawson suggested.

 

Mr. Davidson said that he has been preaching for months that the state needs to be asking what the system needs to be and what it needs to do. He stated that was recognized early on, and pointed out that is why the committee has been presented with the planning process that the state is undertaking. He said it is known now, as it was known before, that the system is not what it needs to be. He noted that it will do what the federal government requires of it, but it will not do what the 300 caseworkers in Washoe County and Clark County need it to do.

 

Mr. Davidson said the system is not unsupportable because it is “ancient language” and technology, but because it is “down” for substantial portions of the day and substantial portions of the year. He said success in the business community is measured by a computer system being up and operational all the time. He noted that his employees frequently report that they cannot access NOMADS. That, he stated, is unacceptable because business cannot be done that way.

 

Mr. Davidson noted that major changes have been made, but the system is still not satisfactory. He reiterated that his message to the committee from the counties is a plea not to “orphan” the system. He also reminded the committee that just because it has been certified and that it is a working system does not mean that it works right. He said the county officials will continue to work with the state. He acknowledged that the subcommittee has been skeptical of the system and of the people who told them how much it would cost to make it work. He pointed out that county officials had the same skepticism because they had to work with it.

 

He agreed that the Legislature should be involved because they write the checks, but said he is speaking to the same concerns the committee has. He pointed out that there are 1,100 work items queued up right now that employees say need to be done to make the system work so that governments can do all the things they need to do.

 

Mr. Davidson said he asked the Governor a couple of months ago to keep the money that is coming back from the certification process earmarked for what needs to be done to the system. He said he recognizes that the money returns to the General Fund, but the Governor was true to his word and has given support for the system with the federal government. He said it is critically important to everyone who works in the system to know that the money is there so the state resources, together with the resources the counties are devoting, can get the system to a present day technology and to a format that will actually work. He noted that it was just the previous week that the county got a screen that a case worker can actually open and get the information he needs instead of going through 12 different screens while someone is on the telephone asking questions. He also noted that it was just in the prior week that a voice response unit became available on-line where people can call in and get the information they need, instead of getting a caseworker’s mailbox.

 

Richard Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County, reminded the committee that he had come to them once before and asked them to “junk” the system. He recalled that the committee had decided not to do that, so the counties accepted that and went to work. He said he now appreciates that the system has been certified, but reminded the committee that the system is still not totally functional. To explain the situation, he suggested that the committee members consider how it would be if they all needed a copy of a document today and asked their staff to get it for them, and the staff went back to the old blue mimeograph sheet and started typing it out so they can crank it off on the drum. That, he stated, is the kind of system they are working with today. He said the system is archaic, and it needs to be modernized.

 

Mr. Gammick said the relationship the counties have now with the state and with Mr. Willden and others on his staff is tremendous.  He said they all work together every day. They have a common goal, they want to modernize the system, and they are all aimed at serving the people who need to be served, the children and custodial parents. He said he does not believe the prior contractor had that goal in mind and it was evident when they left. He recognized that the funding is a bit high for what the committee would normally fund, but he assured the committee that the funds are needed to modernize the system and to make it work, and everyone is ready to proceed with the plans if given the committee’s support.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani noted that the assurances she had been looking for appeared to have been addressed by both Mr. Gammick and Mr. Davidson. She said it must be assured that the system will be user friendly. She suggested that, at some point, the committee will have to find out from DoIT what impact there will be on the cost allocation plan. She also asked whether that is something that needs to be addressed in this biennium or in the next biennium. Mr. Willden said he is happy to work with his staff and DoIT to provide that information.

Senator Rawson asked that Mr. Willden have something prepared for the committee’s consideration. He said that is what they have to do as legislators to be invested in this system and to be comfortable with the decisions that are being made. He said what he does not want to do is bring in a third party that is going to take everyone in another direction, and noted that no one needs that kind of disruption.

 

Ms. Leslie asked Mr. Willden whether there is money in the budget for training. She also asked Mr. Gammick whether, from Washoe County’s perspective, there are enough training resources at the local level, and whether the people at the local level are able to understand the automatic functions of NOMADS.

 

Mr. Gammick responded that there are some very knowledgeable people in NOMADS. He pointed out that a few months earlier the people in his office went to work putting together a training program and built step-by-step books, working with the state staff to put together a complete training program. He said he believes that if the funding is approved they have everything they need for a comprehensive training program. He also explained that, if funding is approved and they can proceed with their planned improvements, the staff will be using other new technologies with which they are already familiar.

 

Mr. Willden assured Ms. Leslie that there are training resources in the budget.

 

M-586  Disaggregated Data – Page WELFARE-6

 

Senator Rawson pointed out that there is a request in M-586 for 1 Management Analyst II position. He said that, although that may be really needed, the committee does not know how critical it is. He said the committee is unclear whether there has been any budget exceptions or problems that have led to this, of whether it is just a matter of workload.

 

Mr. Willden said the M-586 module deals with an issue called “disaggregated data collection.” He explained that the federal government requires the state to collect about 130 data elements on every case that they work with and transmit that to the federal government on a monthly basis. He said the federal government uses that information to evaluate the state’s performance in meeting several performance indicators.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether they have been doing that, and Mr. Willden replied that they have been doing that with a struggle. Mr. Willden said his office does not have its own software and they have to rely on some less than satisfactory software provided by the federal government. He said that is what the new file server is for, and the management analyst will be able to manage this data. He explained that it has to be collected from various data systems, put into “this warehouse”, and transmitted to the federal government.

 

Mr. Willden pointed out that Nevada is 1 of only 5 states in the nation that use the federal software rather than developing their own. The difficulty, he explained, is that when the federal software is used they are “running blind” because no reports are returned from transmissions, and no queries can be made of the federal database. He said his office wants to create its own database and manage its own information, and be able to be in control of its own destiny before the federal government issues reports a year later that the state has not been compliant and can be penalized up to 5 percent of the state’s TANF grant.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the OASIS (On-line Automated Self-Sufficience Information System) program is for data collection from the various offices around the state. She asked whether this is information that is already available in the mainframe and needs to be put together in the same format and reported out.

 

Mr. Willden explained that OASIS is not part of the Disaggregated Data unit. He said it is a different project. It is a system put up to be the employment and training case management system for the state. He pointed out that the state’s employment and training programs are not in NOMADS. He noted the OASIS project has been suspended.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether the data is statewide, and where it is “sitting.” Mr. Willden said the Disaggregated Data system now collects data from NOMADS, from the childcare systems, and from the employment and training systems. He said it is not an upload process from the field offices, but it collects data out of various systems in the division. He noted that some of the data needs to be collected manually because it cannot be collected in an automated fashion.

 

M-584 Electronic Benefits Transfer – Page WELFARE-5

 

Senator Rawson indicated that this module covers the electronic benefits transfer system, which he believes will be a good thing. He recalled that during his first session in the Legislature he asked why the state was not considering that. He said he was told at that time that it couldn’t be done. He noted that it appears the cost of this system is increasing significantly. He asked how the division feels about the development of the program. He noted there is a request for 4 Management Analyst positions, and said the committee needs to know what system requirements support the need for those positions.

 

Mr. Willden directed attention to tab “EBT” (electronic benefits transfer) in Exhibit D and indicated 3 charts that the committee should consider. The first under the tab, he indicated, is the project timeline. He stated that this project is well underway, and a contract has been signed with Citibank. He said a quality assurance contractor has also been hired to provide quality assurance activities. He said the division is well on its way to “rolling this out.”

 

Mr. Willden stated that EBT is required for the food stamp program by October 2002. He said the division’s schedule is to go into pilot status in October 2001 and the program will be “rolled out” office by office over the next nine months.

 

Mr. Willden said the third chart under the tab is a pie chart that explains the cost per case. He noted that EBT is more expensive than the current paper transaction. He said the current process is that an electronic file is issued to a contractor in Las Vegas, which in turn hands out food coupons to the division’s clients. He said this is a cheap process that costs about 70 to 75 cents a transaction. He said that with EBT the cost per case per month goes up to about $4.50. He noted it is an expensive system to have the Welfare Division’s clients go to the store and use their debit cards instead of their food coupons. He said it will save retailers a tremendous amount of money, and it will save clients a tremendous amount of time and give them a much better experience than they are currently having. He noted that it will also save the federal government a tremendous amount of money in reconciliation. But, he explained, it will cost Nevada, as it does any other state, five times more to operate than the paper system.

 

Mr. Willden said the 4 positions requested in this budget are 1 project manager, 1 Management Analyst, 1 clerical position, and 1 Accountant to keep track of all the financial reconciliation issues. He added that there are also 6 customer service representatives requested so each of the division’s large offices will have a customer service representative to deal with the issuance of cards to the clients, card replacement, and such problems as lost pin numbers and additional training.

 

Mr. Willden pointed out that, in building this module, the division followed the Governor’s instructions and looked at cost neutrality within the programs. To fund the EBT positions, he said, they have cut 11 positions throughout their investigations and recovery services unit to fund the 10 new positions requested in EBT. This, he explained, was done to reallocate some of their resources to the higher-need projects rather than the projects that do not need as many resources.

 

Senator Rawson noted that in the 1997 Legislative Session, the Legislature approved a Management Analyst grade 37 position that was supposed to do the initial feasibility study. He asked whether that can substitute for one of these positions.

 

Mr. Willden said his division would prefer not to do that because that Management Analyst has been hired, is on board, and is doing the initial planning work. He said they would like to keep that Management Analyst position “in the mix” also. He pointed out that this is a very complex system with a lot of reconciliation issues that become the state’s responsibility and the division wants to keep the Management Analyst along with the 10 new positions as requested.

 

Mr. Willden said there is a lot of work to be done in EBT. He pointed out that the division patterned its staffing requests after the Idaho staffing pattern. He said the division took note of Idaho’s issues and volumes and have staffed accordingly.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked where the position is currently located and what the exact duties are. Mr. Willden said the 1 position the division has now is located in the Hot Springs Road office in Carson City in the NOMADS project office. He said that individual, David Johnson, is working on this project every day, as are other staff, trying to get through the planning issues that need to be done. He said the division will be anxious to get the new positions hired as soon as possible because there are a lot of people putting time on this project ramping up for next October’s “rollout.”

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether Mr. Willden feels comfortable that these positions are actually needed now for an immediate start-up rather than for a phase-in schedule. Mr. Willden said the positions all start in July 2001.

 

E-225 Reward More Efficient Operation – Page WELFARE-6

 

Senator Rawson pointed out the decision unit E-225 is a training module. He remarked that there is a significant increase in this module. He asked Mr. Willden to discuss the division’s training priorities and asked who he is expecting will benefit from that.

 

Mr. Willden said that E-225 is a training enhancement module. He stated that the division, with 980 employees, currently has a training budget of about $37,000 to train 980 employees. He said the division requested and the Governor approved a tripling of that amount for training funds. He said the division intends to target the new money to three areas. The first, he said, is project management. He pointed out that they have a number of major projects going, NOMADS, EBT, and Disaggregated Data among them, and the division does not have trained project managers. He said classes are available and people have been sent to them. He said the division wants to have 15 trained project managers who are trained at the same level as the contractors and DoIT staff they are assigned to work with. He said this would allow them to manage projects appropriately.

 

Mr. Willden said the second issue is succession planning. He noted that turnover in state government is going to happen, but people need to be trained to step up when leaders and managers leave. He said the division is requesting that 15 staff be targeted and given additional leadership and executive management training each year.

 

The third area, Mr. Willden said, is in technology training. He recalled that his division had come to the IFC in the past year and asked to use some of the high performance TANF money to buy new PCs (personal computers) so that every staff member in the Welfare Division has a PC on his or her desk rather than a “dumb terminal.” He said the training to utilize that equipment has already started. He added that several classes have been conducted and several more are planned, using the high performance bonus money. But, he added, that effort must be continued because of turnover and the need to develop staff on the new software and web-based applications continues. He said the division anticipates sending about 750 low-end users to one set of training and almost 200 high-end users to additional training.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether Mr. Willden expects this to “roll up in the future.” Mr. Willden said he does expect that.

 

E-250  Eliminate Duplicate Effort – Page WELFARE-7

 

Senator Rawson remarked that this module deals with a feasibility study regarding the elimination of duplicate application processing among state, local, and non-profit activities. The funding recommended does not include any kind of funding match that would be the responsibility of the local and non-profit entities, he noted. He asked whether Mr. Willden has surveyed any of the local and non-profit entities to determine their ability or willingness to participate in the study.

 

Mr. Willden responded that those discussions, to date, have been verbal. He said some interest has been indicated, and a letter has been sent to a host of non-profit agencies and county governments this week, asking them what their interest would be in participating in this feasibility study project. He stated that this feasibility study addresses an area for which many are collecting data. He said there is the possibility that a data warehouse could be created where common data would be collected and shared among organizations. He said this would allow an individual to do a query to the database, download information, and, starting with that basic information, only fill in the holes. He pointed out that in the present circumstances everyone in many organizations must keystroke the same data elements about their common clients. He acknowledged that there are a number of issues to be resolved, confidentiality being one of them; but he expressed his confidence that it will be favorably received. Senator Rawson asked whether Mr. Willden would also be looking at the cost effectiveness of this setup, and Mr. Willden replied that he would.

 

HR, Welfare/TANF – Budget Page WELFARE-21 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3230

 

E-476  Effectiveness of Family Service – Page WELFARE-24

 

Senator Rawson noted that the budget recommends $2 million over the upcoming biennium for a new initiative to prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock births and to encourage the formation of two parent families. He noted that is a lofty goal, but stated that he does not see any details on how that will happen. He said he wonders whether some of the funds could be used through the family resource centers, and whether that is a way of supporting those centers. He said that would appear to be a legitimate use of that money.

 

Mr. Willden said his initial reaction is that he does not see why those centers would be precluded from competing for the money. He pointed out that the TANF program has 4 basic goals; keeping children in their own homes, employing people in reaching self sufficiency, preventing teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births, and forming families. He said the division has spent a lot of effort on the first two goals in the past. He said they attempted a year ago to implement an RFP process to “dive into” the third and fourth goals, and there was only one response to the RFP. He said the division intends to go back out with a broad RFP to attract community-based, faith-based, for-profit, and not-for-profit organizations. They will be looking for pilot project initiatives to help reduce teen pregnancy and out‑of‑wedlock births and to address family formation issues. He said he does not think the centers would be precluded at all.

 

Senator Rawson said the committee has been able to see that the first 2 goals have been worked on. He said he wonders, if the effort is put into this, whether it can be a mechanism for supporting the Family to Family Connection Program and the Family Resource Centers. He said there is significant concern about something that has actually worked well and is slated to be cut back.

 

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, District 33, Elko, said he wanted to make his concerns known about the proposed reduction in the Family to Family Connection Program budget. He admitted that a few years ago he thought it was going to be a program that is a waste of money and would not accomplish very much. He stated that he has been pleasantly surprised that the Family to Family Connection is a great program, especially in Elko. He said he has had opportunity to visit the center in Elko and talk to some of its clients.

 

Mr. Carpenter said he understands the budget for the rural areas would be cut to about $100,000. Considering that there are about 8 of these centers in rural Nevada, he noted, there would be only $12,500 per center. He pointed out this amount would not allow them to do much. He noted that in the last budget cycle the program was also cut substantially. He stated that he wanted to impress the committee with his concerns, and said that if there is any way to restore the funding for this program he would support that. He restated he has observed that it is a program that works and people are taking advantage of it.

 

Mr. Carpenter pointed out that there are many people who are just left alone when they have children and there is no one to turn to. He explained that it is not as it used to be years ago when a mother and a grandmother were there to help. He said that is not always the case now. He urged the committee to restore the funds if there is any possibility to do that.

 

Ms. Leslie noted that the Family to Family Connection Program in Elko is collocated with the Family Resource Center. Mr. Carpenter said that is right. He noted that the facility in Elko houses many of these programs, and he believes there is efficiency because they are all located in one place.

 

Ms. Leslie noted that the justification given for the cutbacks in the program is that the department wants to target these services to at-risk families only. She said it is her understanding that what goes on in Elko is that the Family to Family Connection Center serves all families in that area. She asked Mr. Carpenter what his reaction is to trying to target this program only to at-risk families.

 

Mr. Carpenter replied with the question, “Who can say who’s at risk?” He said if people were able to know that, it would work. But, he said, it is his belief the people who go into that facility for help must be at risk. He said they may not have low incomes, but they are people who need these services and need the advice of the experts in the centers. He said he does not know any method to identify someone who is at risk without first talking to them and determining it that way. He said his own assessment of the situation is “when they come in they need some help.” He said he does not think they are there to have someone baby‑sit their children.

 

Mark Jenness, Private Citizen, said he was present to support the Family to Family center. Mr. Jenness pointed out that he is 40 years old and his wife is 39, and they have a son who is 2 months old. He stated that he and his wife do not “have a clue” what they are doing. Mr. Jenness said he lives in Incline Village and works in Reno, and his wife was working in commercial lending until a couple of months previous. He explained that they both have a fair amount of formal education, but no amount of schooling could prepare them for what they were facing right now. He described himself and his wife as “two ordinary people” who are trying to raise a baby.

 

Mr. Jenness said the Family to Family center is important to them. He said his wife tells him all she has learned at the facility. He acknowledged that the committee must make tough decisions about scarce resources, but he wanted the committee to know that he and his wife considered Family to Family Connection an important program. He pointed out that he and his wife have no family in Nevada and they use the program. He expressed his wish that the funding for the program be retained.

 

Mr. Jenness pointed out that children are Nevada’s future, and asked the committee to agree with him that having an environment where Nevada’s children can grow, develop, and prosper is important.

 

Ashley Canfield, Private Citizen, identified herself as a Nevada resident and a property owner in the state. She stated that she is married, the mother of a 13‑month-old daughter, and very middle class. She said she grew up in upper middle class, and would never have been considered a high-risk person. She explained that both her parents were “always there;” she had gone to college and had everything she ever needed in her life.

 

Then, Ms. Canfield explained, her daughter was born. She claimed she was completely unprepared for what being a mother entailed. She pointed out that she does not have much family in the Incline Village area; she has her husband and her mother in law, but she doesn’t get along all that well with her mother in law. She said she was overwhelmed at first and never got out of the house with her daughter. She considered it fortunate that she could stay home with her daughter, but said she does not have a network of friends and does not know many people in her community.

 

Ms. Canfield said was introduced to the Family to Family center by a woman who went to a childbirth class with her and recommended the program. She said that about 2 months after she began going to the center she began having postpartum depression, which became so severe that she had been hospitalized. She stated that if it had not been for the emotional support and education she received she would not have arrived at her present position with her daughter. She reiterated that she is not an “at-risk” person, but she was at a point, when her daughter was 6 months old, that something serious could have happened to both her and her daughter. She pointed out that, even with the support of her husband, she could not handle the situation of raising a child. She said a network of experienced people is necessary.

 

Ms. Canfield described the Family to Family resource center as “amazing” and said she has checked out books and breast pumps. She said a child development specialist and a pediatric nurse staff the Incline Village facility. She stated that the support received from all of these resources has been important to her and her daughter.

 

Ms. Canfield said she understands the committee is interested in targeting the “at risk” issues, but pointed out that her main motivation for coming to speak to the committee is to let committee members know that everyone is at risk regarding parenting. She stated that there is no one who can uphold all the pressures of parenting. She commented that Nevada does not have the best rates in teen pregnancy and other related issues, and said she believes that, if early intervention is provided and parents are involved, they will prosper.

 

Ms. Canfield pointed out that the program has only been around for 3 years, and observed that there are no statistics about its effectiveness. But, she noted, it will be effective. She said the positiveness of the program has helped her learn how to love, teach, and help her daughter grow the best.

 

Gail Krolick, Private Citizen, stated that she is a graduate of a Pennsylvania State University with a degree in hotel, restaurant, and institutional management. She said that with the degree she thought she “knew it all,” but noted that no one had given her a degree in being a first-time Mom. She said it is a most difficult but most rewarding job.

 

Ms. Krolick said she is currently the treasurer of the Incline Village General Improvement District, so she understands both operating and capital budgets. She said they are currently looking at their operating budget and are looking at programs that affect the community. She noted that they are investigating programs that are not being utilized as they should be, but noted that the Family to Family program has been nothing but a success and they “would not dream” of cutting the program.

 

Ms. Krolick stated that she is shocked and surprised that the Governor would recommend cuts in the program. She recalled that during the last campaign season she heard, “We will leave no child behind.” She said that by cutting this program the committee would be leaving children behind, and not just children that are at high risk. She noted that “high-risk” does not apply to identifiable socioeconomic and ethnic groups, and stated “Incline Village is a high-risk community.” She indicated that not everyone in Incline Village has an income of more than $50,000.

 

Ms. Krolick referred to an article that appeared in a local newspaper in December 1996 that described how isolated Incline Village is. She pointed out that Washoe County services could not even plow the community’s roads, and the community depended on local contractors for snow removal, just so they could drive to gas stations and get food.

 

Ms. Krolick said that she left her job because her daughter had become her first priority. That, she said, is how she believes it should be with everyone. She noted that she is fortunate because her husband earns money and she is able to stay at home with her daughter, but noted that not everyone is in that position. She stated that she learned about the baby center from a woman who used the services of the Family to Family center. She explained that the center helped her without investigating how much money she had, and noted that their only concern was for her daughter. She explained that all her family is on the East Coast, and she has no one other than her husband to depend on.

 

Ms. Krolick acknowledged that the budget is lean, but she urged the committee to not cut the Family to Family program. She suggested that all the committee members go to Incline Village or visit the centers in Galena or Elko and speak to the mothers and fathers who receive services in the centers. She suggested that if cuts were required that they be in such things as the size of the offices or the hours of operation instead of cutting programs. She described the proposed budget allotment for the Family to Family Connection at $647,000 for the whole state as “absurd and insulting.”

 

Damaris Smith, Private Citizen, said that she was present to represent, in a manner, the younger mothers in the state. She said she is 19 years old and is not married, although she lives with the baby’s father and they share a healthy, loving home. She said she wanted to share with the committee her belief in the phrase, “The first years last forever.” She noted that the way babies perceive the world is put into them from the day they are born. She stated that is what is encouraged at the baby center. She claimed that this philosophy develops healthy babies with good social abilities.

 

Ms. Smith noted that there is a lot of confusion and frustration in children of her generation. She said this can be helped and it should be helped from the younger ages. She said this should be developed from the beginning that the world is not a bad place. The Family to Family programs, she said, will help children to “better the future” so we will not have “these crazy kids in junior high running around with guns.” She said children should learn that they have someone to speak with, they can speak their mind, and they know it is okay to cry and to be mad.

 

Ms. Smith said the Family to Family program does equally supportive things for mothers. She stated this is especially true at Lake Tahoe where people feel isolated because it is not city life. She said postpartum depression happens with most women and at the Family to Family center there are no questions that go unanswered. She said she is very fortunate because her “significant other” works very hard so she can stay at home and raise their child and teach him good values. She pointed out that because she is only 19 she comes right from the generation of people who have never been taught the values of how to live in society.

 

Diana Eadington-Reed, Private Citizen, stated that she is a native Nevadan. She said she left Nevada for a long period of time and has just recently returned. She said her family has been in Crystal Bay for about 25 years. She said she recently began going to the Family to Family Connection program.

 

Ms. Eadington-Reed said she has a 5-week-old baby, and noted that she and her husband do not know people in the area, but are meeting people slowly. She stated she had come to speak to the committee about the parent to parent program from a community development standpoint. She noted that the program helps build a stronger fabric in the community by helping parents get to know other parents. She described it as a “proven program,” and pointed out that participation in the program in the last couple of years warrants its continuation over unproven programs that may be slated in the budget.

 

Ms. Eadington-Reed said there is a lot of education that comes with this program. She explained that she, too, is a college graduate and a working mother, but she is learning a lot about parenting from the program. She said these are things one does not learn in school or from peer groups who do not have children.

 

Ms. Eadington-Reed encouraged the committee to look at the Family to Family programs as model programs to be replicated throughout the state, rather than cut them back. She advised that it would be worth the committee’s time to visit the sites to see what they are all about.

 

Ms. Eadington-Reed said she read about the Family to Family program in the newspaper when there was a dispute about the funding, and that was what led her to the program. She urged the committee to give continued support to the program.

 

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), said many of the people who came to this hearing would be willing to pay on a sliding scale. She noted, though, that the hands of the Family to Family centers have been tied by not allowing them to charge. She pointed out that there are no services like this program, and she expressed a confidence that this aspect of the centers could be incorporated into the committee’s finding of additional money.

 

Ms. Gilbert said the centers certainly cannot function on $647,000 a year with the specialists they have had to hire to counsel and teach the classes. She pointed out that they could enrich their programs by charging, and many would be willing to pay for the service.

 

Ms. Gilbert recognized that the Governor has recommended to move the administration of the program to the governing boards in the local communities. She expressed concern about that. She explained that in the past she was on the Block Grant Commission, which has been overseeing the program, and she said it is a “shame” to move the administration at this point because of the knowledge gained over the 3 years the program has been operating. She stated she is not convinced it needs to be moved, and noted it is not a big job at this point. She said it may cause more problems than good because new knowledge would need to be acquired by a new advisory board. Even though the governing boards oversee the family resource centers, she stated that they do not know Family to Family programs, except for the two locations in the state where programs are collocated.

 

Ms. Gilbert pointed out there are many people in the state, besides in Incline Village, that would like to speak to the committee but are too far away to come to testify.

 

Linda L. Sheldon, Lobbyist, Great Basin Primary Care Association, urged the committee to not only look at what the Family to Family centers are doing as far as education and support for the parents, but also to note that they have been good contacts for the Vista Community Health advocates that are stationed throughout Nevada. That group, she explained, provides outreach and enrollment processes for families for Medicaid and Nevada Checkup. Ms. Sheldon said there needs to be a centralized location in these communities where parents who have young children can go for services, especially in rural Nevada.

 

HR, Welfare Field Services – Budget Page WELFARE-12 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3233

 

M-584 Electronic Benefits Transfer – Page WELFARE-15

 

Senator Rawson noted that a number of new positions were requested in this module. He asked whether this request would free up any eligibility workers. Mr. Willden asked whether Senator Rawson was referring to staff that currently work on the manual issuance of food stamps.  Senator Rawson said he was.

 

Mr. Willden said the staff will still be doing the same tasks they are already doing, such as determining eligibility and inputting into NOMADS. He pointed out there are some differences in issuing paper cards and issuing plastic debit cards, but there will not be a savings of field staff.

 

Senator Rawson noted that the division is planning to eliminate some investigative positions and asked why they were able to do that.

 

Mr. Willden responded that the request in EBT between this budget and the Welfare Administration budget is for 10 new positions. He explained that to create those new positions they have cut 11 staff from their investigations and recovery services unit. He said they have eliminated the investigative chief’s position, a couple of clerical positions, 6 investigators, and a couple of eligibility workers. He said they feel they can do that because the TANF caseload in the last 5 years has declined 60 percent and the food stamp caseload has declined 38 percent. He pointed out that, when there is a smaller caseload, there are fewer investigative referrals to the investigations unit. He explained that the division is basically trading in investigative services staff and asking for electronic benefit transfer staff, since that is their new top priority project.

 

E-433 Nevadans with Health Insurance – Page WELFARE-16

 

Senator Rawson asked Mr. Willden to explain the difference between presumptive eligibility and expedited eligibility.

 

Mr. Willden explained that the division would train community providers who would make a “presumptive” eligibility determination. Then the family, within a certain time period, would have to make a regular Medicaid application. This setup, he explained, makes it a two-system process. He stated the real objective in having the two eligibilities is getting a fast eligibility determination so the family can get approved for a payment source. He said the division is asking that the committee fund 7 positions in this budget, and noted that there would obviously be other impact in the Medicaid budget.

 

The idea, Mr. Willden reiterated, is to fast-track applications the division receives that have a pregnant woman involved in the case. He said the division will take these 7 positions and 5 positions that are being freed up in the existing group of eligibility workers and create 6 processing teams throughout the state. He said the division is working with the hospitals, the Covering Kids Coalition, and the federal qualified health centers. He said they will find the right places to outstation staff and take applications as fast as they can. He pointed out that the division is striving to process them in a 7-day timeframe. He said he believes this is the best recommended solution, and that it meets the goal that everyone is striving to accomplish, which is to get Medicaid coverage as quickly as possible. This, he explained, would eliminate the need for two systems, a presumptive and a regular system.

 

Regarding the outstationing of staff, Senator Rawson noted that some of the hospitals have actually charged the state when a client would reapply. He asked whether the difference in this proposal would be that staff would be located in the hospitals at no cost to the state.

 

Mr. Willden explained it was the check-up program for which the hospitals were charging. He indicated that this proposal is about the Medicaid Child Health Assurance Program (CHAP), for which the hospitals are not charging. He pointed out that in some places the hospitals are now involved in processing Child Health Assurance Program applications. He pointed out that it is just a paper process – the hospital takes the paper and mails it to a Welfare Division office. He explained that process takes 30 to 45 days. He said the goal is to get Welfare Division workers to the first point of contact where they would be working on the application as quickly as possible.

 

Mr. Willden pointed out that it is also recommended that the CHAP assets test be eliminated. He said that would allow the division to process cases in an expedited fashion, maintaining that if the CHAP assets test is not eliminated, expedited eligibility is not possible.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) clinics, the public hospitals, and the pregnancy centers are committed to the process. Mr. Willden replied that from the testimony he has heard he believes they are. He stated that all that is left to do is to work out the details as to where the best lines of commerce are to locate staff.

 

Senator Rawson asked that more work be done on the performance indicators. He noted that it was indicated that caseload is down and that has allowed the elimination of some staff. He added that it is projected that the caseload will increase in the next biennium. He asked Mr. Willden to comment.

 

Mr. Willden referred to tab “TANF” in Exhibit D and drew attention to the first chart after the narrative. He said this chart shows the caseload that was approved as part of The Executive Budget in the last legislative session. The other information on the chart, he explained, is the actual experience in caseloads. He pointed out that a sizeable decrease in the caseload had been anticipated in January 2000 because of the first time limit set by the 24-months-on, 12‑months‑sitout requirement. Then he indicated the large increase in January 2001, which represented the number of cases that could potentially return. He pointed out that the caseload actually lowered earlier than the division had projected and now there has been a bit of an increase in caseload. He indicated there has been more of a flattening of the growth rate for December, January, and February.

 

Mr. Willden pointed to the second chart and indicated the concern right now is that as The Executive Budget was built the caseloads from June 2000 were used. The expectation was that caseloads would remain at about 16,700 recipients per month on an annualized basis. Now, he pointed out, the projections for February 2001 would indicate the division is seeing a higher caseload trend than is in The Executive Budget. He said that is an issue the division will need to deal with in closing this budget, and indicated that he is currently reviewing options as to how the division will deal with the higher caseload.

 

Senator Rawson said the committee would like to see the March figures before they actually close the budget. Mr. Willden said he would be happy to provide that.

 

Senator Rawson asked that Mr. Willden discuss the population modifier and how the division will use the high performance money. He also asked whether the OASIS project will start up again, and if it does, when that would be.

 

Mr. Willden said the population modifier is part of the TANF block grant funding stream. He stated that Nevada receives a $44 million baseline block grant, and Nevada is one of several states that qualify because we are a high-growth state for the population modifier. He said the state has received as little as $900,000 when the additional funds first began in 1996. In the federal Fiscal Year 2001, he noted, the population modifier was $3.7 million. He said Congress did not make a decision about whether the states would get the 2001 modifier until December 2000. He said it is unknown whether the state will receive a population modifier in 2002 and 2003. He pointed out that future population modifiers are not included in The Executive Budget. He said the best information he could give the committee at this time is that he does not know whether Congress will continue that funding. He explained that the whole TANF block grant is up for reauthorization and much discussion is going on, but it is the division’s position to push to have that population modifier continued because Nevada is a high growth state.

Senator Rawson asked whether there is any indication that Congress will reauthorize the program. Mr. Willden said he has read things that would indicate both possibilities. He said the Nevada office in Washington, D.C., is working on that and a couple of the senators are working on it too.

 

Senator Rawson asked about budgeting that in, and suggested that, if the funds did not come, the reserve fund could probably deal with that. Mr. Willden agreed. Senator Rawson noted that if that is not done, the reserve fund will grow. He acknowledged that there may be some reason to have a reserve fund, but he noted it is now approaching $19 million.

 

Mr. Willden pointed out that the reserve fund had been reduced, rather than increased, to $19 million. He said The Executive Budget has the division using part of the reserve. He said that in the past there had been as much as $25 million in the reserve. He explained that a reserve of $19 million is recommended based on several things. He said there are organizations that recommend various levels for the reserve, and the division’s reserve fund is based on the need to be able to cover a 50 percent increase in cases over a 24-month period. That, he explained, would require a $19 million reserve.

 

Senator Rawson noted that a 50 percent increase is a big increase and would require a significant downturn in the economy. He said he is trying to “get a feel” for how much that reserve can be cut. He said it appears to be a decision that can be considered, in any case.

 

Senator Rawson noted that in 1995 there were approximately 43,000 clients in the system and that number has now been reduced to about 17,000. Mr. Willden agreed. Senator Rawson pointed out that adding half of that number would be to add another 8,000. Mr. Willden said the present reserve would allow the division to increase its caseload to 29,000 recipients.

 

Mr. Willden said the division received a first-year, high-performance bonus that allowed them to approach IFC last year for authority to spend it on data processing and technology improvements. He said that money has now mostly been spent, the computers have been put in place, and the training is being completed.

 

Mr. Willden said the division was notified in the last few months that they would be awarded a second-year, high-performance bonus. He indicated his agency has made recommendations for the use of that money. He said he and the Governor recommend that those funds not be used for ongoing programs because it is not known from year to year whether there will be a high-performance bonus. He said his present suggested plan relates directly to the OASIS project.

 

Mr. Willden explained that the OASIS project was initiated and then suspended. He pointed out that, if that project is restarted in the summer of 2001, the budget includes only about $225,000 a year because “it was planned to be a maintenance and operation situation.” Because the project was suspended, he explained, they will now have to restart the project and his recommendation is that the high performance bonus money be used for the restart.  Mr. Willden indicated the OASIS project will take the allocated 18 months. He reiterated that is a case management system for the division’s employment and training workers.

 

Senator Rawson stated that if there is $2 million available and Mr. Willden does not have a plan for it, the message is that the committee has places to put it. He suggested Mr. Willden work that plan out quickly.  He asked whether those funds could be used in relation to mental health case management.

 

Mr. Willden said high-performance bonus funds must be used under the same rules as any TANF funding. He explained that means it must be used for one of the four basic goals of TANF. That means for programs that help children stay or be maintained in their own homes or the homes of relatives, for employment and training related or self-sufficiency related programs, for pregnancy out-of-wedlock issues, or for family formation issues. He said the only exception to those four goals is that a program that was operating under the state plan and was in place in September 1995 can continue to operate. That, he pointed out, only involves child welfare programs at Washoe County Social Services, Clark County Family Court services, and the Division of Child and Family Services.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether a program that was able to keep someone out of a mental institution, thus preserving a family, and the income qualifies, could qualify for use of those funds.

 

Mr. Willden responded that it potentially could, but suggested that more definition would be needed. He noted that in decision module E-475 of the TANF budget there is a new category to transfer some TANF funds to sister agencies. The largest transfer of TANF funding in that budget is to mental health and developmental services for case management services, and for some payment programs that will allow them to support families that are keeping children in their own homes, rather than going to an institution. He noted that these transfers range from $130,000 to $730,000 in various budgets. The total of these transfers, he explained, is about $1.6 million a year.

 

Ms. Tiffany asked whether this funding can also be used for transitional housing. She noted that part of stabilizing a family unit can be housing. Mr. Willden asked whether she was referring to the mental health transfer funds, and Ms. Tiffany replied that she was referring to the new category he had talked about. Mr. Willden replied that he is not sure.

 

Ms. Tiffany noted that this is a pass-through from multiple federal grants through the Welfare Division to other state agencies, and stated she would expect him to know the requirements. Mr. Willden said payments are already made to help people pay their rent, and these funds could potentially be used that way as well.

 

Senator Rawson stated the legislative staff will have questions on the projections discussed. He noted that cash grants are increased by $185 to $535 for an estimated 1,100 families with ill, incapacitated, or disabled members who cannot participate in work. He said he does not know whether that will be realized until the end of the second year of the biennium. He said he will have the staff work with Mr. Willden directly so the committee can have a good picture of that.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the Nevada Check-up Program relates to the University Medical Center (UMC), Washoe Medical Center, and other facilities. She said it appears that UMC is performing eligibility determinations at a cost of $21 and asked whether other providers are going to be doing eligibility checks and whether the state will also be paying them.

Mr. Willden explained that contractual relationship is not in the Welfare Division’s administrative purview, nor in any of their budgets. He said that is a Nevada Check-up Program contractual obligation.

 

Senator Rawson asked Mr. Willden to explain the transfer involving the New Employees of Nevada (NEON) program. Mr. Willden responded that the current training programs and the childcare programs are in the same budget account 101‑3267, Employment and Training. He explained that for cost allocation reasons and to create a separate child care budget, a recommendation has been made to transfer all of the division’s employment and training related staff out of the employment and training/child care budget to the field services account or to the welfare administration account, depending on whether they are managers and supervisors or front line workers.

 

Mr. Willden said the division is also recommending that, for the client service accounts where the division contracts with local providers to pay for employment and training services those funds would also be transferred from that budget to the TANF budget. He said that more closely aligns with how the division is accounting for the expenditures. He noted that nothing will really change regarding how business is done at the front-line level. He pointed out that they will still be contracting for services and clients will still get all the services and more. This is simply an accounting transfer, he explained.

 

Senator Rawson asked whether there needs to be any adjustments made for NEON on the basis of the TANF caseloads. Mr. Willden replied that any time there is a TANF caseload adjustment there is a ripple effect through the budget, so the division will probably need to look at that also. Senator Rawson said the committee will need that as it closes the budget.

 

Senator Rawson also asked whether there will be a heavier work participation rate requirement that will affect this program. Mr. Willden replied that the federal work participation rates have been increasing since the TANF program was enacted. He noted that it began with a requirement that states have a 25 percent work participation rate. He said that as we enter the new biennium the all‑family’s rate will be 50 percent, and for the two-parent caseload the rate will be 90 percent. He said there is a decision unit that addresses that, asking for additional funds because of the increasing participation rate required.

 

Mr. Willden added that the division is working with more difficult families now as well. He pointed out that most of the families that had a lot of the basic skills to go to work have been moved off the rolls. He stated that many of the families they work with now have significant barriers and need more services than families they worked with earlier.

 

Because of time restrictions the following scheduled budgets were not heard.

 

HR, Child Support Enforcement Program - Budget Page WELFARE-27 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3238

 

HR, Child Support Federal Reimbursement – Budget Page WELFARE-33 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3239

 

 

HR, Assistance to Aged and Blind  - Budget Page WELFARE-36 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3232

 

HR, Employment and Training – Budget Page WELFARE-38 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-3267

 

HR, Energy Assistance – Welfare – Budget Page WELFARE-49 (Volume 2)

Budget Account 101-4862

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:22 a.m.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Bob Williston

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE:           

 

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman

 

 

DATE: