MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Sixty-eighth Session June 28, 1995 The Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, Chairman Vivian Freeman presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman Mrs. Jan Monaghan, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Dr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Vice Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Ms. Barbara E. Buckley Mr. David Goldwater Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Patricia A. Tripple Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Maurice E. Washington STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Myla Florence, Welfare Administrator George Cotton, Clark County Social Services May Shelton, Washoe County Social Services Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association Jim Pierce, Health Division Sherry Loncar, Nevada Parent Teacher Association Ronald Rentner, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Nevada Toney Ramey, Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters Jon Sasser, Nevada Legal Services Tina Nappe, Job Opportunities In Nevada Chairman Freeman announced the meeting would begin as a subcommittee and no votes would be taken until a quorum was present. SENATE BILL 560 - Increases opportunity for recapture of public assistance after death of recipient. Myla Florence, Administrator of the Welfare Division, presented testimony in support of S.B. 560 along with a bill summary and explanation of the reason for each of the proposed changes, (Exhibit C). She explained S.B. 560 related to the Medicaid Estate Recovery Program operated by the Welfare Division and authorized by the last legislative session. Passage of S.B. 560 would give the welfare division greater enforcement powers to better enable it to carry out estate recovery, which is now federally mandated. Ms. Florence also proposed an amendment to S.B. 560 that would correct an error in the bill language, (Exhibit D). She stated Nevada Legal Services, elder law attorneys and the Clark County Public Administrator's office were all in support of the bill. ********* SENATE BILL 550 - Revises provisions governing use of Uniform Plumbing Code and authorizes use of International Plumbing Code. James Pierce, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Nevada Division of Health, stated the Health Division supported S.B. 550 as amended. Chairman Freeman inquired why S.B. 550 had been introduced. Mr. Pierce explained passage of the bill would allow the current version of either the International Plumbing Code or the Uniform Plumbing Code to be used in Nevada. In the past, the statute read only the 1991 Uniform Plumbing Code could be used so the division has been using the old version for the past several years. The division offered amendments to the statute so they would not have to come back every few years to update which plumbing code to use. Mr. Pierce also indicated Clark County requested they be allowed to use the International Plumbing Code and stated the division has no problem with that. He said S.B. 550, as currently written, allows either code to be used. He also mentioned the Health Division would still be using the Uniform Plumbing Code because it best suits their needs. Assemblywoman Buckley inquired what the International Plumbing Code allowed that the Uniform Plumbing Code did not. Mr. Pierce testified there were differences between the two codes. The International Plumbing Code does not address sewage disposal systems which the Health Division frequently uses as the Uniform Plumbing Code does. Mr. Pierce also noted a chart in the International Plumbing Code allows septic systems to be within 25 to 50 feet of a well, which current Nevada regulations do not allow. He suggested there might be additional questions concerning connection control, but the division's review of the International Plumbing Code had only been cursory. Ms. Buckley asked if there were any letters of support from local governments. Mr. Pierce did not have any letters supporting S.B. 550. Ms. Buckley stated she wanted to be certain this legislation fit with their practice of approving plans and did not create any undue hardship or safety concerns. Mr. Pierce mentioned the division's original request for the statute had not mentioned the International Plumbing Code, Clark County had added that request. He agreed there were questions regarding language to be certain the Health Division could choose which plumbing code to use. Assemblywoman Evans maintained it was very hard to vote on S.B. 550 because it mentions a new, less restrictive code and she stated her uncertainty that it would be in the best interests of the people. Unless one could compare and contrast the two codes, she added, this might be a step backwards. She emphasized public health is exceedingly important and she did not feel informed at all and without more information could not support S.B. 550. Mr. Pierce asked what additional information she needed. Mrs. Evans stated she needed to know what the two codes contained. Assemblywoman Steel agreed she shared Mrs. Evans' concerns and was uncomfortable with the lack of any compelling reason for the proposed changes to statute. Assemblywoman Tripple indicated concern over the fact one county was requesting the change. Mr. Pierce reiterated the Health Division had only requested use of an updated version of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Ms. Tripple inquired if any other states use the International Plumbing Code. Mr. Pierce replied everyone he deals with out-of-state uses the Uniform Plumbing Code. Ms. Tripple agreed with other committee members that there was no basis for changing the code. Mrs. Freeman asked whether anyone from Las Vegas or Clark County were present to speak to the issue. No one responded. ASSEMBLYWOMAN JAN EVANS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 550. ASSEMBLYWOMAN DIANNE STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ********* As the committee was now complete, Mrs. Freeman indicated a desire to take a vote on S.B. 560. She mentioned another proposed amendment to the bill being offered by the committee and requested Pepper Sturm provide an explanation, (Exhibit E). Mr. Sturm explained the amendment would amend chapter 428 which concerns medical and financial assistance to indigent persons by the counties. It adds new language, ordinances and policies to establish eligibility and must specify allowable income, assets, other resources or potential resources of persons eligible for assistance. Ms. Buckley mentioned she had spoken with a former Washoe County Social Services employee who explained the proposed amendment was a tightening up of welfare statutes to assist Washoe County. She agreed the amendment was in order and merely clarified that people must cooperate in providing information. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BARBARA BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 560. THE AMENDMENTS WOULD INCLUDE THE CHANGE SUPPLIED BY MYLA FLORENCE AS WELL AS THE LANGUAGE SUGGESTED BY WASHOE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES. ASSEMBLYMAN DAVID GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ********* SENATE BILL 428 - Requires establishment of program for self-sufficiency of applicants for and recipients of aid to families with dependent children. Assemblywoman Monaghan, a Chairman of this committee, requested committee members' comments and questions as relates to S.B. 428 be recorded verbatim in the minutes. Mrs. Freeman: "O.K., we'll open the hearing on S.B. 428. First person I'm going to call up is Jon Sasser." Jon Sasser, Coordinator of Litigation and Training for Nevada Legal Services, presented his testimony in opposition to S.B. 428, (Exhibit F). Mr. Sasser would support the bill if his amendments, (Exhibit G), were adopted. He mentioned he had spent four hours with Senator Maurice Washington going over the amendments and that some of them were accepted by the senator. Commenting on statements made at Monday's hearing concerning the need to pass some form of welfare reform this session, Mr. Sasser agreed and noted a vote for the appropriations bill would accomplish that. The bill contains an extensive welfare reform plan hammered out by a welfare reform task force over the past 15 months. The provisions of that bill and the necessary funding to make those changes are in the welfare division's budget which has been closed by both money committees. The plan includes an increase in funding for the employment and training program, increased assessments, an increase in public/private partnerships and work incentive and eligibility changes as in S.B. 428. It also re-introduces case managers and social workers within the welfare division staff. Assemblyman Williams: "In reference to the discussion you had with Senator Washington on the education aspect of academic progress, did you come to any agreement in reference to academic progress. There was another bill we heard that dealt with the same subject matter and there was some discussion on it. My concern is children sometimes progress at different levels in their lives and there are some children who don't move as fast as others academically, there are some who move slow in the beginning and take off to be exceptional students later in life and I am real concerned about tieing this to receiving family benefits for children or for families on how well the student does. There are children who would probably not be in the welfare program who may be bad students and eventually be good students later. To single these kids out I think it's a tremendous burden to place upon a young child who understands that if I don't do this work even though I'm trying as hard as I can and I don't do it, my family may not get food, medicine if you will in many cases. And some parents who may not have had parenting skills or understand parenting skills, may actually become very, an unfair relationship may develop between the child and the parent because the child is not doing well in school and it may not be the fault of the child in many cases, it could be a bad teacher. It could be a number of things, it could be the fact that the child didn't have breakfast before he came to school nor dinner before he went to sleep the night before. Now because he didn't get the grade or can't stay awake because he didn't eat, and grades go down, we're going to penalize the whole family. Did the conversation get that extensive on that issue?" Mr. Sasser replied they did not have an extensive conversation because Senator Washington accepted his proposal fairly quickly. The definition of academic progress would be developed in consultation with Mary Peterson from the education department and not left up to a social worker to define. Should a child come home with a bad report card, the social worker would evaluate the problem and develop a plan of action which would go into the self-sufficiency plan so the family could not be sanctioned unless there had been an intentional violation of the self-sufficiency plan. Mr. Williams: "O. K. Just a personal opinion. I think the younger age is actually more crucial because actually the responsibility of being a breadwinner could be on the first grader in a family. You know, two students in a class, one is in this program and one isn't. One child says, `well, I can't go skating this weekend because of my grades' and the other one says, `I can't; we may not eat'. I just don't think education should be tied to this. I think if we're going to look at placing responsibilities on parents for children's progress we should do it across the board." Mr. Sasser admitted he would like to see the "academic progress" portion removed. He stated he was attempting to reach a compromise with the senator. The only information he would like to see provided by a recipient is that the children are enrolled and attending school. Mr. Williams: "Attendance I can see, but academic progress has no place in this bill." Assemblyman Goldwater: "If there was ever a time to vote for this bill, economically speaking, now would be the time. We're having stock markets at an all time high, we have record unemployment, record low unemployment, pardon me. Times are good, particularly in the state of Nevada but also on a national level. My question to you, Mr. Sasser, is did your analyses of this bill include possible economic downturns, times when the welfare rolls might increase and the probability and possibility of employment diminish. It seems to me that this would, it very well could put an incredible strain should economic times turn to the worse." Mr. Sasser pointed out his amendment number 4, which Senator Washington rejected, exempts eligible households during times of high unemployment. Mr. Goldwater: "That's a big concern of mine, I think, just not only on this end but the program as a whole wouldn't be elastic enough for people to make it in economic down times." Mrs. Freeman: "I think that's a legitimate concern. I know people in the Reno area who during the long winter months sometimes simply cannot get a job and there is just nothing available. I know some people who live in subsidized housing who are on food stamps and who are working who live in Reno. They don't make enough money, these are single people, they don't have children and they don't make enough to pay their housing and ride the bus, buy an occasional pair of shoes. They qualify for food stamps while they are working so just having a job is certainly no guarantee of an income that would provide for provision of food and shelter to children. I'd like to ask you, Jon, it seems to me I have heard that in the Riverside, California area that rather than focusing on job training, they find jobs for people rather than giving them training and that seems to have worked very well. Do you have any information on that sort of thing?" Mr. Sasser testified that was included in both the Governor's welfare proposal and Senator Washington's bill because of the increased earned income disregard. Currently an ADC (Aid to Dependent Children) family of three is told they need about $700 to pay for basic necessities. The welfare division only provides $348 and if the family tries to earn the difference, their grant is cut dollar for dollar for every dollar earned. Riverside experimented with allowing recipients to keep greater portions of their earnings. Mrs. Freeman: "I guess my question to you is rather than concentrating on job training, it'd be finding a job for somebody." Mr. Sasser explained one thing he liked about S.B. 428 was it is an individualized approach. Some people need training and some do not. Some need child care and some do not. Mrs. Freeman: "Well, I'm glad to hear that the Governor, if you remember correctly, Jon, we introduced that bill, what was it, two or three sessions ago and were unable to get the funding for it so it's certainly not a new idea here in these halls." Assemblywoman Krenzer: "Jon, is there funding in the current budget for these amendments that you've proposed?" Mr. Sasser replied there was not. He explained tempering the sanctions would lower the amount of money saved by sanctions so if the same level of services was retained, more money would be required. Mrs. Freeman: "That seems to be all the questions for you, Jon. I'd like at this time to call Jan Gilbert." Jan Gilbert, representing the League of Women Voters of Nevada, explained she was on the interim task force studying welfare. She noted the women who get off welfare have a very difficult time making it when they get their first job because the problem they face is the high cost of child care. The minute they go off welfare on a job, their grant level is cut dollar for dollar. Ms. Gilbert maintained welfare reform is in the Governor's budget, not as a bill, but as adoption of the interim committee's recommendations. The plan is a positive one that increases the amount of job training and adds more social workers to provide case management. Ms. Gilbert stated S.B. 428 is a punitive bill and that punitive measures do not work; incentives work. Mrs. Freeman: "You made a comment, you don't know what will happen to people. I see this as an unfunded mandate on the counties because what will happen is the people who fall through the cracks will end up on the county rolls and I think that's something we need to think of seriously in this committee." Ms. Krenzer: "I'm looking at welfare facts and I'm just interested in welfare history. We hear so much about `generational welfare' as I look at welfare history it says 11 percent received benefits before as a child and adult but is that the statistic on those who are second generation?" Ms. Gilbert stated she had not seen facts or figures that show this is a generational problem. She stated welfare division statistics show 48 percent have never received welfare before. Mrs. Freeman: "Are there any further questions? Thank you very much. Myla, could you come up and talk to us about implementation and do you have a copy of Jon Sasser's amendments there?" Ms. Krenzer: "I have a previous commitment and I'm going to have to leave. I'd like to say, and Senator Washington's not here, but just for the record, I couldn't support the bill unless he would consider accepting these amendments. I did want to state that for the record. I don't know if you're going to take a vote today or not and I have to apologize to Myla if I have to leave before your presentation's done because I looked forward to this all day." Myla Florence, Administrator of the state Welfare Division, presented testimony about the fiscal impact of S.B. 428, (Exhibit H). Additionally, Ms. Florence noted enhancements within the bill which she viewed as having very positive implications insofar as getting people to work and off public assistance. She also mentioned the spreadsheet, (Exhibit I), did not include the amendments agreed to by Senator Washington. She pointed out lines 38 and 39 on the spreadsheet had not been calculated. Ms. Florence emphasized welfare division staff need to understand fully the eligibility components associated with S.B. 428 and she was particularly concerned about some of the amendments allowing more discretion to eligibility staff. She was not certain that should be within the scope of their service. Mrs. Freeman: "Myla, what are the qualifications of an eligibility worker? Is this like a social worker?" Ms. Florence testified an eligibility worker only needed to possess a high school education or GED (General Equivalency Degree) and pass a written exam to qualify for an interview. Mrs. Freeman: "That could be quite a burden, making determinations for eligibility for someone who's untrained." Ms. Florence maintained they do an excellent job determining eligibility however she was not comfortable with eligibility workers assuring the health, safety and welfare of a family. Ms. Florence discussed the areas of concern within the bill, (Exhibit J). In addition she stated she believed there would be an impact on counties and community based organizations when individuals, not eligible for public assistance at the state level, apply to the counties. She recommended that, under any of the sanctions, the sanction only apply to the head of the household and not the entire family. Ms. Florence also commented on the lack of public input during drafting of S.B. 428. She stated her division spent 15 months debating this issue with a broad spectrum of interested parties but had no input in the amendments offered today nor any dialog in the crafting of S.B. 428. Mrs. Freeman: "Does the committee have any questions for Ms. Florence?" Mr. Williams: "Not a question. I share your obvious frustration on not being a part of the input. It's unthinkable that we would attempt such a major policy change that would affect your whole division and not include you as part of that. How are we to, as a committee, determine something as important as this and, not having the day-to-day expertise, knowledge and experience that your office has and you were not included. How are we to make a sound judgement on this? You probably can't answer for all of us individually but you mentioned public input. Would you suggest that that's the direction that we go? Inclusive of your office as well?" Ms. Florence replied at various points they were engaged in conversation however the recent discussion concerning amendments did not involve participation of the division. She reiterated the welfare reform task force was formulated to ensure the maximum level of public participation in the process. Mr. Williams: "Contrary to popular belief its not a generational type situation but a decision that we make here in the Legislature. We'll probably adjourn, I would be safe to say, by the end of the week. To be sort of asked to make a huge decision that will affect generations to come, is a little bit unfair and not having, I feel even more uncomfortable, not having more participation from your office." Ms. Florence stated she understood his concerns. She also had been asked to note, for the record, that "we were sent the proposed amendments by Nevada Legal Services and indicated we had no problem with those amendments. However, again in terms of what was agreed to and what was not agreed to, we were not present." Mrs. Freeman: "I sit on Government Affairs. I've been on that committee for five sessions and we hear repeatedly, over and over again, the need for notification, public input, hearings, posting. Before you change public policy in any way, before you do anything at this level that really seriously affects people's lives, but I have to tell you this committee feels a little bit overwhelmed getting this bill a week before we adjourn. We certainly heard about it and read about it in the paper, but we certainly have not gotten any of the particulars on it." Assemblywoman Tripple: "You've heard about welfare reform for as long as I can remember so it's not a new idea. I sit here and I hear that all these suggestions won't work. What will work?" Ms. Florence stated she had not said all the suggestions would not work because she believed a number of the components of the bill had merit. To expand employment opportunities for recipients is a positive objective and early research indicates some success. Development of individual case plans is also important. She questioned whether imposing a family cap would work. Ms. Florence pointed out the problem with welfare reform was that once the federal government began to relax their stringent requirements on granting waivers to states, states are still very early in the implementation of their reform packages and there is no good research yet to indicate what works. Ms. Tripple: "Thank you. You know I am a teacher too and I am very convinced that incentives work, enthusiasm works, penalty does not work. I always have believed that education was one thing that would help these people get out of poverty more than anything else and yet I am kind of hearing that maybe that isn't even good. We resist making the children go to school, and yet we know that education is important. I get very mixed messages." Ms. Florence commented everyone agrees the culture of the welfare offices across the nation must change. When eligibility workers only focus on eligibility, their best case is a case where the individual does not want to get a job, so there is no income in the household, who lives in public housing because it is easier to verify, so changing how they do business should be the division's first step. She stated the Governor's plan provides for that, for eligibility workers to be talking to people about why they are in a situation and what can be done to move them to independence. Mr. Williams: "Getting back to the education part a little bit, I guess, moving the same direction as Ms. Tripple. In reference to your remarks about the punitive parts versus the incentives, I think we are aware that pre-school, kindergarten, Head Start has proven to be effective and has shown some positive results. Those are the type of things I think we should be looking at when we talk about welfare reform. Even though we have laws on the books that say children up to the age of 16 must go to school, all children don't go to school. There are some children who don't go to school at all. What we're doing now is, instead of giving incentives like helping with child care, preschool and kindergarten so children can have a strong academic background where they will have academic progress, they don't have that, now we're going to penalize more because they missed that and if they don't succeed academically, even though they haven't had that, we're going to cut benefits. So a bad situation becomes worse under this because of the punitive aspects of, you know, someone who's placed in a situation who, I mean if a child doesn't have preschool or kindergarten they're going to go in and compete with children who have, obviously they won't be academically as strong so, again, they become the bread winner, so to speak, or not the bread winner because, and the obvious thing for a mother to do if she has children and they need medicine and they need food and clothes, not to be cut off the program or keep your kids out of school and we're back to the same old situation. "Again, I think we should balance this with some type of incentives that will encourage people to feel good enough to want to get up and do these things that we're going to force them into and I just know people who graduated from college who hadn't found a job in two years." Mrs. Freeman: "O.K., thank you both very much. Because the people who are opposed didn't have too much of a chance to speak the other day, I'll take one more person who is opposed and then start switching back and forth. Can I have Ronald Rentner, please?" Ronald Rentner, Director of Advocacy for Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Nevada, presented his testimony in opposition to S.B. 428, (Exhibit K). Toney Ramey, representing the Reno/Sparks Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of S.B. 428 because it would provide a support system and self-sufficiency which promotes self-worth. It provides an assessment of needs and provides a time for specific goals for success. Passage of S.B. 428 would provide a cutting edge program for individual economic success which is an essential ingredient to any business or community success. Mr. Ramey also applauded Senator Washington for tackling such a difficult task. Mrs. Freeman: "Have you seen the offered amendments, Mr. Ramey?" Mr. Ramey replied he had not. Mrs. Freeman: "I would suggest you take a look at them. If you are in support of the bill, you might want to take a look at the amendments, too." Mr. Williams: "I was just wondering, has the Chamber ever explored the possibility of, you know in support of this, providing some of those `fill-the-gap' opportunities that have been discussed for instance, with the strong support of welfare-to-work, maybe pitching in to allow those benefits to continue for a year once they leave the welfare rolls. I think that's probably an ideal partnership that the Chamber could partake in supporting this. When they leave the welfare rolls they'll lose the benefits of the medicine for children and support and child care and things like that, and maybe if the partnership is developed with even some of the Chamber participants or members hiring some of these individuals then maybe some of those services can continue." Mr. Ramey stated some of the issues just mentioned would have to be placed in committees for discussion. He also indicated the Chamber had supported a bill called "school to work" so he believed they would be looking into that issue. Mr. Williams: "Because the main problem with this situation is that usually when, because of the high cost of child care and the things that go along with all this and the medicine for children, once they get a job, obviously, we heard something about minimum wage today, the cost of child care alone basically takes the entire paycheck. Many times it is more advantageous for women to stay on just to get the medicine and the medical benefits for children and, if we as a community, really want to do something to help I think we all should pitch in and the huge number of chamber members I know in Las Vegas, and the businesses and job opportunities there, I think the answer to the fill-the-gap proposal that was attempted two years ago may be some partnerships should at least be discussed and pursued. I know you can't answer for them now, but I just, in support, I just think that you know, oftentimes we have to just support things a little bit more, and that's not an indication that there isn't support, you know that the chamber's not committed to doing that but it's an idea that's worth discussing sometimes." Mr. Ramey stated the Chamber had already made a commitment to A.B. 303 and was trying to set up a way to implement the work program. He believed the Chamber would be willing to help to get more employees who are better trained. Mrs. Freeman: "Mr. Ramey, for years I've been trying to get the businesses in Nevada involved in assisting their employees with child care. We've heard several times today that is the one thing that low income parents need almost the most. I did chair a study on the welfare system a few years ago and found the two biggest problems that low income working parents in the state have is the lack of health and child care for employees. And I've been trying for years to get the business community interested in the concept of helping their employees with child care. Now that is not saying you need to keep a child care center at your place of business because that is not your business. Maybe it would be worthwhile for the Chamber to work with the Children's Cabinet or one of the other non-profit groups in the Reno Sparks area helping with their child care. That keeps people off welfare if they have child care and health care. That would be a worthy project for the business community. Thank you very much." Sherry Loncar, representing Nevada Parent Teacher Association, wished to speak in opposition to section 23 of the bill which promotes school attendance and academic achievement. She commented local school districts are now autonomous as relates to school attendance and noted that could result in discriminatory programs in which a parent in one county could be sanctioned whereas a parent in a different county might not be. Debbie Cahill with the Nevada State Education Association expressed two technical concerns with section 23. She noted subsection 1 of that section required children of welfare recipients be enrolled in public or private school but there was no exemption for home schools. The other concern related to subsection 2 which mandates kindergarten however that is not state law. She believed mandatory attendance ages should be used rather than using the words "kindergarten through grade six". Regarding "academic progress", Ms. Cahill wanted to be on record as stating "we would not want to see that this section becomes technically a section where school districts have to provide more information than they are currently doing, more paperwork, or that teachers would, at any time, have to individually write reports on children who are welfare recipients." George Cotton, Clark County Affirmative Action Manager, read Denell Hahn's statement in support of S.B. 428, (Exhibit L). Denell Hahn, director of Clark County Social Services, was unable to attend today's meeting. Mr. Goldwater: "I don't know if it's right to address you with Ms. Hahn's testimony. What do you think, Mr. Cotton? I have such a hard time with some of the things she says in here. `AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) encourages families to split up and stay apart. AFDC encourages fathers or non- custodial parents from participating in the family in a meaningful way less the AFDC check be in jeopardy because maybe he is not really in or out of the household'. I don't know what to say. If we're basing, or she's basing her support for this bill on these kind of assumptions, on the assumption that, that this, we're in real bad shape. We're in real bad shape I think that that is a very weak argument. How much money are we talking about here between discouraging and encouraging the fatherhood. Not much, I know." Mr. Cotton stated Ms. Hahn talked about $348 per month. Mr. Goldwater: "That's not a whole heck of a lot of money, I'm certain and I'm certain that no one's encouraged or that's no incentive to not go out and get a job or to not participate in your child's life, $348 a month. I'm not sure. I guess my question to you, Mr. Cotton, is she's basing her support for this bill on these assumptions. Mr. Cotton indicated he had several discussions with Ms. Hahn regarding her support for the bill and she was encouraged about the aspects that would help people move from programs to being self supporting. Referring to passage of S.B. 428 possibly being a problem for the counties, Mr. Cotton agreed it would definitely be an unfunded mandate should a person be thrown off the welfare program however he noted since Clark County Social Services is in support of the bill, they must not be concerned with that aspect of it. Mr. Goldwater: "Do you think she would assume, or does your department assume that people on AFDC and people on welfare don't want to work? Don't want to make more than $348 a month?" Mr. Cotton emphasized the programs are set up not to help welfare recipients get off because for every dollar extra they earn, they lose a dollar from their welfare check. Assemblyman Harrington: "I just want to commend you for trying to bring forth a bill that does try to keep families together and takes away any incentive for families to dissolve. The single most important thing you can do for a child is to give him two loving parents who are together and care about their welfare. Nothing else compares to that and so this bill that attempts to do that, I think, has some very noble components to it so I do commend you for bringing that. And there are other components in the bill that deal with irresponsible behavior and, yes, we have to put up with irresponsible people but, no, we don't have to keep on paying for their irresponsible behavior indefinitely and yes, people can make mistakes and we do need to help them out temporarily as they recover from their mistakes but not indefinitely as they continue to make the mistakes and to be irresponsible. So I think this bill is an excellent bill and will serve as a good vehicle. Yes, there can be more perfecting things put in the bill and obviously some amendments have already come forward but I do support the bill particularly with the amendments that have been brought forward and I commend the effort to attempt to change what we're doing so we can make an improvement. I just want to let you know that I really appreciate what you've done here." May Shelton, Director of Washoe County Social Services, indicated she also supported S.B. 428, (Exhibit M). She stated everyone agrees welfare needs to be reformed but noted the details were what people could not agree upon. She liked the requirement for a self-sufficiency plan that would have goals, objectives and a time frame. In addition she liked the incentives to participate in the program that offer training and educational opportunities and case management. She noted there are 10 social workers in the approved welfare budget plus 13 more workers mentioned in a Senate hearing. Mrs. Freeman: "I think we all agree that case management is critical. But I'm confused as to the funding in this bill for case management and the role of social workers versus eligibility workers. Does Senator Washington's bill adequately fund those kinds of services?" Ms. Shelton explained a total of 23 social workers, case loads of no more than 50, would accommodate about 1,150 cases. Her understanding from previous testimony by Myla Florence was there are three layers of clients, those who are job ready without a lot of assistance, then the next layer who need some assistance, and finally the third layer of about 2,200 people. There would also be an experimental, control group so since half the third layer would be in the control group one would only be dealing with about 1,100 people which could be accommodated by the 23 workers. Mr. Harrington: "I also am somewhat concerned about the finances of this. I am a fiscal conservative and a social conservative as people know. Maybe that's an understatement. This is a program that, I think, has such critical value that it's one I would be willing to fund quite liberally and I think that many people who are of the conservative persuasion would because I think this is one that would work. It has three key components to it. One is that it is case work, individuals. That is why something coming out of Washington will never work because from Washington they cannot deal with individuals, so it has to be an individually based thing. Some of you know I was a bishop in the Mormon Church for awhile and one of the bishop's responsibilities is the temporal welfare of the people in the Ward and so I dealt with several families who were on welfare. I put a couple families on welfare and I took several off. So I've dealt with this and you have to have some real tough love when you take them off, particularly if they've been on for awhile. One of the families had been on church welfare for a couple of years before I came along and we finally got him off welfare and he finally got a job and things were better but he was angry for awhile that I'd taken him off but then eventually he came around and was quite happy that he'd taken back control of his life. I understand it takes a lot of tough love and sometimes you have to be public enemy number one when you do that and that's why I think the time limits are essential. We indeed want these case workers to be compassionate, loving people and its hard for that kind of a person who wants to give, give, give to actually ever stop the giving and yet sometimes that's essential so I think the time limits are the second key component to this. "The third one is the opportunities for improvement which are throughout this bill, the various incentives to get to work, to have the health insurance continue, the various training opportunities, so with those three components, I would be very much in favor of giving the amount of funding required to do this. Now it sounds like its going to start in January of 1997 so we'll be in session and we'll be able to give that kind of funding at that time. How much do you think this will really cost and how much will you be coming back to the next session to get? And frankly I'd be willing to give that, given this program." Mrs. Freeman: "You might take a look also, Mr. Harrington, at the Governor's proposal. See how it all fits together." Assemblywoman Braunlin: "Ms. Shelton, do you see this as an unfunded mandate to your county?" Ms. Shelton replied it would be hard to estimate what the impact might be. She emphasized Washoe County was willing to go along with it because they believe in the long run it will be better for families because it is offering opportunities not being offered AFDC families now. She noted families are only helped short term by the counties while their applications are being processed by state welfare. Ms. Shelton also noted it would be necessary for the client and the case manager to work with other state agencies to make this case plan work. Mr. Williams: "I've been living in Clark County for some time and whenever Clark County voluntarily accepts an unfunded mandate, one has to be suspect. What is happening here obviously is the county sees this as a hope and a prayer that this will work and those people who, there will be less people coming to you for assistance so if you hope that this works, then those people you won't have to fund and you won't have to help. However, those who don't make it in this program if we pass this, will come to you and you're hoping its a small amount. But if you look at the ones who don't make it in this program, if we implement this, when you get them, they're still pretty much in the raw, if you will, for lack of a better term. So if the county is really that concerned, why wait till those people don't make it in the program. Why not provide the assistance of the state at this point to fill the gap, to do whatever, to provide the child care now instead of waiting two years so these people fail? And obviously there's no other reason to accept an unfunded mandate so readily and come out and go on record supporting this bill other than the fact that, if this passes, you hope these people succeed and get jobs and get off welfare and don't come to you. But some of them will so why not take a positive step at this point and develop a plan to assist state welfare at this point and provide some of those services that maybe welfare is not providing and do some of those things now. Because nobody is going to believe that, I don't know about Washoe but Clark County is not going to come in here and convince anybody that they're willing to take an unfunded mandate for the people that don't make it in this program just because of the good of their hearts. Obviously its a political coin toss, hopefully it'll fall on heads and these people will make it under this bill and never get to you but obviously some of them will so why not just do the right thing and come in and propose some, even without this bill, propose something from a local government standpoint to help these people at this point before they even get to that point. Let's quit fooling ourselves." Mr. Cotton testified Clark County had worked with some of the state programs as relates to individuals who had been on assistance and assist them to come off welfare and get jobs in county government itself. The county also has a very strong employee assistance program to ensure that once people are on the job they stay there. Ms. Shelton agreed Washoe County had confidence that support and follow-up services and case management would work. She also noted the counties usually provide services for people who are not eligible for state or other services, such as the childless. Mrs. Freeman: "Thank you very much, both of you. Some of you have been waiting a long time. I'm trying my best to try to fit everybody in fairly here. The next person to speak against is Alicia Smalley." Alicia Smalley, representing the National Association of Social Workers, also stated she is a licensed social worker and certified rehabilitation counselor. She was also a participant in the interim task force and noted the program the Governor's task force developed added ten social workers who would be working with the pilot population of recipients not considered "work ready". She testified S.B. 428 has some excellent language and noted section 11 required all recipients to get a psychosocial assessment and develop a self-sufficiency plan. However, she believes the bill would require approximately 120 social workers, not just the ten in the fiscal note. Ms. Smalley proposed an amendment to S.B. 428, (Exhibit N). Mrs. Freeman: "As you all know, we are operating as a subcommittee now, but we will hear all of you. We'll stay until you all have a chance to testify." Carol Jackson, Director of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), stated her department neither supports nor opposes S.B. 428. Ms. Jackson noted she was never consulted about the bill even though her department has the major employment training and rehabilitation programs within Nevada. Ms. Jackson stated the $1.3 million appropriated in the hearing concerning the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) was due to individuals who had not been receiving treatment and not for S.B. 428. She also stated that DETR and BADA together have approximately a $10 million fiscal note on the bill. Ms. Jackson emphasized many state agencies had not developed any partnerships to help their clients and she believed those were essential to helping welfare recipients. She commented state agencies should help each other and not keep passing the buck or duplicating services. Liz Breshears, Chief of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, commended the awareness of substance abuse as a major issue in considering welfare reform. She indicated her division was asked to develop a fiscal note on section 22 and noted the way BADA accomplished that was first to ascertain the case load and then to determine what percentage of that case load needed drug and alcohol intervention. BADA determined welfare workers should administer onsite urinalysis tests as well as screening and those expenses were also included in the fiscal note. Dorothy North, Chairman of the Governor's Commission on Substance Abuse and Education, expressed her support for S.B. 428. She also indicated she was speaking on behalf of Kevin Quint who had to leave the hearing early. Mr. Quint is the President of the Nevada Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs. Ms. North explained both organizations support the concept of the bill because it attempts to recognize some of the underlying issues in the welfare population such as substance abuse. Ms. North noted treatment programs provide some case management services. She also stressed her belief that sanctions do work and might be the incentive someone needed to get drug or alcohol treatment. She commended both Senator Washington and the Governor for tackling this issue and stated Nevada must start somewhere. She emphasized welfare reform could not be accomplished painlessly nor without an infusion of money from some source. Mrs. Freeman: "Tell me, Dorothy, would Senator Washington's bill add funds on top of what the finance committee heard the other day? Is it in the budget here?" Ms. North replied it was her understanding that the bill would begin in January of 1997 but it would allow some people who her division cannot help now to be helped. Mrs. Freeman: "What in the Governor's program would deliver the same standard of care and provide the dollars, I'm trying to put the two together." Ms. North stated she did not know because she had not seen what was in the fiscal part of the bill. Stan Jones, Administrator of the Employment Security Division, stated his division developed a fiscal note to S.B. 428 based upon their experience working with welfare clients and finding jobs for them and case load projections supplied by the state welfare division. They estimated only 15 percent of the case load who would be referred to the division would be job ready. Mr. Jones mentioned a pilot program DETR was conducting in Sparks in conjunction with the welfare department that had been so successful they were implementing another one in Las Vegas. Ms. Jackson interjected she would send a short report to the committee members and Senator Washington outlining the success of the program. Mrs. Freeman: "Ray, you have been so patient, why don't you come up and Carole, would you like to come up now too, please? And Tina, I'm going to get to you right away." Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, presented testimony in support of S.B. 428, (Exhibit O). He emphasized that everyone recognizes something drastic needs to happen with welfare. He noted most manufacturing jobs are well paying and stable and people are able to progress up through the ranks and have a tendency to stay in those jobs. He stressed with adequate training there are jobs available. Carole Vilardo, representing the Nevada Taxpayers Association, also spoke in support of S.B. 428. From the taxpayers' perspective, she noted there is a limited pot of money available now and it is time to stop addressing our problems from the "back end". She maintained the bill is an excellent concept that attempts to assist people who at this point have become intergenerational welfare recipients. Bobbie Gang, representing the Nevada Women's Lobby and Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, spoke in opposition to S.B. 428. She stated the Nevada Women's Lobby supports positive welfare reform which would empower and uplift families. They support the positive programs in the bill but not the punitive aspects and believe S.B. 428 is not needed because of the passage of the Governor's welfare reforms already included in the executive budget. Dr. Harrington: "I appreciate your testimony and I understand that there are areas that we will agree and that we will disagree but I do resent your characterization of the chief sponsor of this bill as mean spirited. Since I have known Senator Washington, it doesn't seem like there is a mean spirit about him in any way, shape or form and I think that is typically what is said of conservatives anytime they present anything, that they are mean spirited. I think that's an unfair characterization just as it would be unfair for a conservative to label everything that a liberal brought forth as being air-headed. I think we need to refrain from trying to label persons, or attacking persons. Let's stick just to what the issues are and not try and imply somebody's character is insufficient." Ms. Gang disagreed that she had said Senator Washington was mean spirited; she believed his remarks to the committee were mean spirited. Tina Nappe, Director of JOIN (Job Opportunities In Nevada), a job training program covering northern Nevada, presented comments about the employment training part of S.B. 428, (Exhibit P). She stated JOIN is federally funded and by June 30 will have served approximately 200 welfare recipients in the 13 northern counties. Because Congress is set to further reduce funding it provides for social services, education and job training for welfare recipients, states and local governmental entities will be forced to develop criteria for providing those services. The system of rewards and sanctions proposed by S.B. 428 provides a rational method for defining needs. However, Ms. Nappe agreed the bill probably needed more discussion than was provided. Noting funding is provided for a pilot program and the implementation date is 18 months away, Ms. Nappe testified the next session would be able to modify the law based upon experience. She also indicated sympathy for the non-profit organizations testifying tonight because she recognized that as people are dropped from government assistance, those non-profits are the last resource. Ms. Nappe also said there is a misconception that welfare recipients are people who could work if not for welfare; however, she noted that is not altogether true. There are many people who are not appropriate for today's jobs. She also mentioned the jobs available with the skills some welfare recipients have do not necessarily cover the costs they have to bear and they would be foolish to leave welfare's safety net. Ms. Nappe emphasized she is in support of many elements of S.B. 428 because she believes sanctions of some sort as well as incentives are essential. She commented there are many welfare recipients who enjoy job training but are not really serious about getting a job and over time, society as a whole is going to have to focus resources on those people who are really going to make a difference. She noted state government currently has the luxury of choice however the federal government is proposing massive consolidation and funding reductions of all public assistance programs of up to 25-30 percent. She reiterated her support for S.B. 428 because it is a pilot program that anticipates some of the hard decisions local governments are going to have to face, which the Governor's program does not. Senator Washington, offered the opportunity to make closing remarks, mentioned he had not been invited to sit on the task force so S.B. 428 was crafted from his own personal experience. He also listened to "line workers", supervisors and welfare recipients in deciding what to incorporate in the bill. He noted the disincentives were included to motivate people and remind them that there is responsibility in life and choices have consequences. The welfare system should be used to help those who are "down and out" or who needed a helping hand and those people were taken care of in S.B. 428. Senator Washington emphasized federal block grants are coming and that S.B. 428 attempted to do something a little different and individualized. He indicated a "no" vote on S.B. 428 would lead one to believe the system will fix itself. That is just a dream; it will still be there and need to be addressed next session. He reiterated the group targeted in the bill was only a pilot group of 3,000 and the program would not start until January of 1997. If any shortcomings or problems are noted, then the legislature would be meeting and able to take action. Mr. Williams: "Senator, I appreciate your tenacity on this and the points you just made are real but again, we have to look at the problem, as you're doing, and the approach to solving the problem and as you said, it is a small group, a select group, 3,000. It's like they say, `If you're hunting rabbits in tiger country, you have to keep an eye out for the tigers. But if you're hunting tigers in rabbit country, you don't have to worry about the rabbits.' And that's sort of how it is. We are sort of hunting rabbits in tiger country. We are going to be going out here focusing on a few rabbits and the consequences, or the possible consequences, with some of the aspects of the bill, I think may cause the children and families to maybe be attacked by some of those tigers while we're focusing on those little rabbits. Maybe with some amendments, and we are pursuing amendments, maybe we could go after the big game and focus on the big game. I don't think anybody on this committee or anybody in this legislature doesn't understand and it's been echoed over and over again by everybody who comes up that there has to be something done and it's easy to say that and it takes something else to go and pursue that, which you are doing. Who knows what's going to happen with this but I think that, again, it's easy to say it but it takes a lot more to try to attempt to do it. I think that should be commended. "There are some strong concerns that are out there that hopefully we can get addressed before we get out of here this time because as you know one of the biggest setbacks we have in this state is we meet every two years, we're one of probably three states that do that. If we miss our chance, it's a long time between the next time around. Regardless of which side of the issue we're on, I think we all want the same thing and I hope the objections to some of the bill hopefully won't be a deterrent to the focus and determination by yourself as well as all of us." Senator Washington indicated a desire to have Mr. Williams speak with some of his parishioners who are young working women with children who had been on welfare. Their children are still taken care of and are so proud of their moms who now have a different attitude. He emphasized the bill is not trying to be hard and mean to children. Mr. Williams: "But those positive things that happened to the members of your church happened without this bill and I wonder how some of the cases would have been had the impact on some of those children under this bill such as academic progress and things like that. Some of those added pressures that were not there without having this bill." Senator Washington maintained academic progress was only a mechanism to ensure the children stayed in school because testimony given to him, in researching the bill, indicated that a lot of recipients take their children out of school to babysit siblings. Mr. Williams: "The attendance I totally agree with because with some of the report cards my son has brought home, if I was on welfare, I wouldn't have a dime. The times he had the bad report cards, if I was on welfare and the benefits were cut or the money was cut, who knows what would happen, probably assault and battery or murder or something would happen." Senator Washington objected that people who do not know or value the importance of an education will not push their children to achieve one. Mr. Williams: "You make my point. Even with a job and being involved in education, raising him as a single parent, it was still tough. I can imagine how it is with some folks who may not have an education." Mrs. Braunlin: "Senator Washington, I know the amount of work you have put into this and I want to commend you. I know it wasn't an easy thing to bring this piece of legislation together. I think that we can sit here and debate this piece of legislation, or any other similar piece of legislation like this, probably for years and all of us in this room would not agree. I think the public has had an opportunity to come before the committee, to bring amendments and, Madam Chairman, I would respectfully request of both you and Chairman Monaghan that this go into a work session tomorrow and let the committee members work on the amendments, decide what they want to do with the bill, and either vote it out of committee or decide not to vote it out of committee based on its merits." Mrs. Freeman: "I just don't know when we can do it. What time do we go into session? O.K. 10:00 a.m. Does anybody else have anything to say? We are adjourned." (The time was 9:45 p.m.) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services June 28, 1995 Page