MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Health and Human Services
Seventy-Second Session
March 3, 2003
The Committee on Health and Human Serviceswas called to order at 1:34 p.m., on Monday, March 3, 2003. Chairwoman Ellen Koivisto presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Chairwoman
Ms. Kathy McClain, Vice Chairwoman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. William Horne
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Garn Mabey
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marla McDade Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janelle Mulvenon, Program Manager, Community Connections, Department of Human Resources
Kathy Bartosz, Committee for the Protection of Children
Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, Committee to Aid Abused Women
May Shelton, Washoe County Social Services
Carol M. Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Laura Hale, Management Analyst II, Director’s Office, Department of Human Resources
Chairwoman Koivisto explained that there were two bills on the agenda and that the first bill was Assemblywoman Leslie’s.
Assembly Bill 201: Revises provisions relating to awards of money made by Committee for Protection of Children from Children’s Trust Account to certain agencies, organizations or institutions. (BDR 38-1041)
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District No. 27, explained that A.B. 201 embodied a very simple concept and one that she expected would be gladly received by many of the state’s non-profit agencies. The purpose of the bill was to increase the length of the award period for a grant, from a maximum of one year to a maximum of three years. She explained that it was sometimes difficult for new programs to get established with one-year awards due to the uncertainty of future funding. By allowing the Committee for the Protection of Children to make grant awards for multiple years, programs would be able to focus on program implementation rather than spending an inordinate amount of staff time developing annual grant proposals.
Ms. Leslie noted the bill’s language was permissive only and did not require multiple-year funding, but gave the Committee for the Protection of Children the option of awarding funds for up to three years. She reassured Committee members that the programs would be reviewed annually to be certain that the goals and objectives for ongoing program funding were being met. Ms. Leslie indicated that Assemblyman Williams, who was not present, had co-sponsored A.B. 201 because it would affect agencies in southern Nevada too.
Ms. Leslie provided Committee members with copies of an e-mail from Anne Cory (Exhibit C), Executive Director, United Way of Northern Nevada and the Sierra, which had recently converted to a three-year funding cycle. The e-mail outlined some of the advantages the United Way had discovered after their conversion.
Janelle Mulvenon, Administrator, Communications Unit, Director’s Office, Nevada Department of Human Resources (DHR), read from her prepared text (Exhibit D) and testified that DHR was in support of A.B. 201, saying that providing multiple-year awards would allow programs to focus on implementation rather than on preparing grant applications each year. Explaining that one of the grants administered by her office was the Children’s Trust Fund account, she added that it was difficult for new and innovative programs to get established with only one-year awards, due to the uncertainty of future funding.
Ms. Mulvenon elaborated that lengthening the grant period would give the Committee for the Protection of Children the option of awarding funds for up to three years. The performance of grantees, she noted, would continue to be reviewed annually to assure that the goals and objectives of the grant were being met and would also be a prerequisite for continued funding. At the end of the three-year cycle, a competitive request for proposals would again be solicited to make awards to community organizations for the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Ms. Mulvenon pointed out that there was no fiscal note attached to the bill.
Kathy Bartosz, a member of the Committee for the Protection of Children, thanked the Committee for considering A.B. 201 and added that she would be happy to answer any questions they might have about implementation of the three-year grant period, were it to be approved. She stressed the importance of the bill to the people in the field who were trying to implement programs to prevent child abuse and neglect. Ms. Bartosz emphasized that one year was not enough time to develop a good project, hire staff willing to work for only one year, and then implement and evaluate the project.
Assemblywoman McClain inquired where the funding for the Children’s Trust Fund originated.
Ms. Mulvenon replied that it came from birth and death certificates.
Ms. McClain assumed that meant the funding was stable.
Ms. Mulvenon agreed that it was.
Ms. McClain asked whether, in awarding grants, there was language within the grant contract itself, that it was contingent upon the grantee meeting their goals each year.
Ms. Mulvenon affirmed that there was.
Assemblyman Hardy opined that passage of A.B. 201 would not commit the next Legislature to something they might not want to concur with.
Ms. Mulvenon agreed that it would not, and added that in statute, grants were awarded by the Committee for the Protection of Children.
Mr. Hardy inquired whether the Interim Finance Committee was currently making the yearly grants.
Ms. Mulvenon responded, “No,” and that it was a committee of seven people, who were appointed by the Governor and the Director of the Department of Human Resources.
Mr. Hardy wanted to know how many times there had been one-year grants that were not renewed.
Ms. Mulvenon replied that currently there was a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) on an annual basis.
Mr. Hardy repeated his question, asking whether there had been any grants not renewed because of the competitive annual renewal.
Ms. Mulvenon responded that some had not been renewed. She added that it was at the option of the community organization whether they wanted to submit a grant for consideration to the Committee for the Protection of Children to review and to determine whether it should be awarded funds. Ms. Mulvenon noted there was a limitation on how much funding was available.
Mr. Hardy inquired who bid for the grants and whether they were non-profit organizations or private organizations.
Ms. Mulvenon answered that they were non-profit organizations.
Mr. Hardy observed that they were competing for a small pool of money.
Ms. Mulvenon agreed and explained that about 30 grantees were competing for approximately $890,000.
Mr. Hardy asked whether the same organizations received grants over and over and if the Committee for the Protection of Children was familiar with them.
Ms. Mulvenon replied that some organizations did receive funds year after year, but also noted that many new organizations received funding as well.
Mr. Hardy inquired if there were a “track record” for any of the organizations. He acknowledged that it was difficult to establish the effectiveness of a grantee over such a short period of time.
Ms. Mulvenon volunteered to provide the Committee with a list of grantees who had received funds in the last fiscal year, 2002-2003. She also offered to search other prior years and provide the grantee, the amount, and the purpose of the grant.
Mr. Hardy thanked Ms. Mulvenon for her offer and added that he thought A.B. 201 “made sense and was appropriate.”
Ms. Mulvenon agreed to make the information available to Assemblyman Hardy.
Chairwoman Koivisto asked whether the funding received by the Committee for the Protection of Children was on a biennial basis, like the state budget.
Assemblywoman Leslie replied that the money was set aside every year and that the grants did not typically need legislative approval, but were handled within the Department.
Ms. Mulvenon explained that in statute, the Committee for the Protection of Children had the authority to award grants.
Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, stated that her client ran a program called Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW). The Executive Director of CAAW, Joni Kaiser, had been unable to be present at the hearing and had requested Ms. Berkley deliver a letter to the Committee members in support of A.B. 201 (Exhibit E). CAAW had for many years been a recipient of grants from the Committee for the Protection of Children to provide parental training programs. Ms. Kaiser wrote that CAAW would welcome the longer funding cycle, which she indicated would be cost-effective for both state employees and private, non-profit staff.
May Shelton, representing Washoe County Social Services, added her support for A.B. 201. She testified that she had served for several years on the Committee for the Protection of Children and believed it would save time for both the Committee members and the state agencies. It would allow the agencies to focus more on the people they serve rather than spending so much time writing grants, she advised.
Assemblywoman Weber asked how many grantees were served by the Children’s Trust Fund account, adding that the account was new to her.
Ms. Mulvenon requested a few moments to get the information Ms. Weber had requested.
Chairwoman Koivisto also asked that Ms. Mulvenon provide the information Assemblyman Hardy had requested to the entire Committee.
Ms. Mulvenon, in answer to Ms. Weber’s question, replied that there were 37 grantees and that all the accompanying information would be made available to Committee members.
Ms. Weber, mentioning that she had worked with a selection committee for the United Way, stressed that it took a lot of time to visit agencies and evaluate RFPs for grants. She asserted if passage of the bill would help speed the process, she was in favor of it.
Chairwoman Koivisto asked whether Committee members wanted to wait for the information they had requested before processing the bill, but no one wanted to wait.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 201.
ASSEMBLYMAN HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.)
Senate Bill 32: Makes various changes regarding Task Force for the Fund for a Healthy Nevada. (BDR 40-258)
Chairwoman Koivisto noted that S.B. 32 was on behalf of the Task Force for the Fund for a Healthy Nevada.
Carol Stonefield, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained that she was the policy analyst for the Task Force for the Fund for a Healthy Nevada. In that capacity, Ms. Stonefield presented S.B. 32 to the Committee, but cautioned that she neither advocated nor opposed any of its provisions and was simply trying to explain it.
Ms. Stonefield stated that the task force had been established to oversee some of the funds from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement that Nevada had entered into. The money from the master settlement was divided into three “pots”: 40 percent to the Millennium Scholarship, 10 percent to the Trust Fund for Public Health, and 50 percent to the Task Force for the Fund for a Healthy Nevada. Ms. Stonefield testified that of the money the Task Force received, 30 percent went to grants for independent living within the Aging Services Division, 30 percent went to the Senior Rx program, 20 percent was to be distributed on a competitive grant basis to tobacco treatment and cessation programs and projects, and 20 percent went to children’s health and/or services to persons with disabilities.
Ms. Stonefield mentioned that the statute also gave the Task Force the prerogative of establishing its own procedures for grant distributions, which were made on a competitive basis. She noted that after two cycles of grants, the Task Force was requesting changes in the statute governing those provisions. The Task Force was required to conduct an annual, or fiscal, round of competitive grants, but the grant process was quite lengthy and the staff and Task Force members themselves dedicated a great deal of time to the whole grant process.
Ms. Stonefield reviewed the steps in the grant process beginning with an RFP being published and grant proposals being received. Then, she continued, all paperwork must be submitted and reviewed, and the proposals must be rated. Finally, the Task Force distributed the money, and then all grantees were evaluated periodically. The Task Force had developed a procedure to distribute monies by conducting a round of grant applications in a biennium. She noted it distributed the first round of money knowing how much money it would have, because the state treasurer received the funds from the tobacco companies in mid-April. However, Ms. Stonefield cautioned, the second year of the biennium became a tentative award, as all grantees were told that their grant amount might be revised, depending upon the amount of money received by the state. Ms. Stonefield commented that sometimes the tobacco companies had found reasons to make payments “under protest,” and in those cases, funds were not released to the state until any questions were settled.
Ms. Stonefield pointed out another provision in S.B. 32 would clarify the legal instrument for conveying the grant award to a grantee. The Attorney General’s Office had advised the Department of Human Resources to use the state contract, she explained; however, that contract was designed for the state to contract with a vendor who delivered a service or a product. Ms. Stonefield pointed out that as the Task Force was concerned with awarding money to different entities that then delivered a service to the citizens of Nevada, it had not been appropriate in some instances.
Laura Hale, Management Analyst, Director’s Office, Department of Human Resources, explained that she was the grants administrator for the Fund for a Healthy Nevada. She mentioned that the Department supported passage of S.B. 32 (Exhibit F). Ms. Hale noted it took more time to process contracts and that it generally added about six or eight weeks time to the usual process. She pointed out that processing contracts added a huge amount of time and paperwork to staff and that on occasion, temps had been hired. It would also get monies out into the communities more quickly, she stressed.
Ms. Hale noted that there were currently 32 grants, related to both tobacco and disability services. Most grants were to non-profit organizations, she noted; however, grants had also been made to government agencies and the University and Community College System. Ms. Hale emphasized that the programs were monitored routinely and that an auditor audited every one of them. She said the Department also received quarterly progress reports for programmatic purposes and that they reported the outcomes to the Task Force on a regular basis. Ms. Hale also explained that they were implementing a major evaluation program to tie local programs to statewide objectives. In summation, she repeated that there were a number of checks and balances to assure that the monies were well spent.
Assemblywoman Leslie, noting language in S.B. 32 that read “by contract or grant,” inquired why the word “contract” was still in the bill and whether that was to provide flexibility.
Ms. Hale acknowledged that Ms. Leslie was correct and that there were occasions when the Department would want to write a contract. As an example, the Task Force had requested a small amount of funds to contract with an evaluator, as well as for some needs assessments, and those would be written as contracts.
Chairwoman Koivisto asked whether the addition of the contract and grant language was a change from requesting proposals every year to requesting them biennially.
Ms. Stonefield replied that they had always conducted biennial rounds of RFPs and on the advice of the Legal Division the Task Force had been urged to bring the statute into conformity with what had developed into a practice of the Task Force.
Chairwoman Koivisto asked what the Committee’s pleasure on the bill was.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 32.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Koivisto read a BDR awaiting Committee introduction:
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40-1048.
ASSEMBLYMAN HORNE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.)
Chairwoman Koivisto requested that Assemblywoman Leslie defend her bill, A.B. 201, and that Assemblywoman McClain defend S.B. 32.
With no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:03 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Terry Horgan
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Chairwoman
DATE: