MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WELFARE REFORM OF
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

	Sixty-eighth Session
	May 31, 1995


The Subcommittee on Welfare Reform of the Senate Committee on 
Finance was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 3:40 
p.m., on Wednesday, May 31, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative 
Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B 
is the Attendance Roster.


SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Bernice Mathews

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District 
No. 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steve Abba, Program Analyst
Cristin Buchanan, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of 
Human Resources
Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers, 
Nevada Chapter, and 	Nevada Association of School Boards
Ronald M. Rentner, Lobbyist, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry
Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Committee to Aid Abused Women
May S. Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services
Elizabeth A. Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby
Sherry C. Loncar, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association
Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator, Administrative Services, 
Welfare Division, 	Department of Human Resources


Senator Rawson petitioned Steve Abba, Program Analyst, Fiscal 
Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to summarize the 
proposed amendments to Senate Bill (S.B.) 428.

SENATE BILL 428:	Requires establishment of program for self-
sufficiency of applicants for and recipients 
of aid to families with dependent children.

Mr. Abba reviewed Exhibit C, outlining the most significant of the 
proposed amendments to S.B. 428.

Senator Mathews noted the services outlined in section 20 are 
offered by the community college in Washoe County.  She said 
applicants for AFDC benefits should be made aware there are high-
quality services available from this source.


Remarking there are similar sources of assistance in southern 
Nevada, Senator Rawson agreed such services should be noted and 
utilized.  Senator Mathews commented the rural counties probably 
lack sufficient resources of this type.

Mr. Abba continued highlighting the proposed amendments to S.B. 428 
as outlined in Exhibit C.  Senator Rawson then requested Mr. Abba 
to review the significant policy issues to be addressed.

Mr. Abba stated that based upon the modifications requested in the 
proposed amendments to the bill, the Welfare Division was asked to 
provide a revised fiscal note.  The four-page document provided by 
the division in response to the request (Exhibit D) summarizes the 
fiscal impact of S.B. 428, assuming the proposed modifications are 
made.

Mr. Abba explained the fiscal note reflects total costs of the 
proposal before taking into consideration the assumed 50 percent 
control and 50 percent test group, which was discussed in the first 
hearing on this proposal.  Making this assumption, the savings 
would be one-half the total costs, as reflected on the lower part 
of the summary page.  The costs of implementing S.B. 428 will be 
shared between the federal government and the state.  The state 
cost impact is still being calculated and will depend upon any 
final decisions that are made on the bill, Mr. Abba continued.

Senator Rawson said it appears the state's portion of the cost 
would be approximately one-quarter of the total amounts displayed 
on the summary page (page 1) of Exhibit D.

Mr. Abba surmised the state's cost may be slightly higher than one-
quarter of the current figures.  He stated, "It definitely is half, 
and maybe one-third of the next half."  He noted the revised fiscal 
note, based upon the proposed amendments, reduces the total cost of 
S.B. 428 from $22.3 million to $8.3 million for FY 1997 and from 
$20.1 million to $13 million for FY 1998.  He said delaying S.B. 
428's effective date to coincide with the implementation of NOMADS 
(Nevada Operations Multi-Automated Data System) will result in 
forgoing the anticipated savings from the time limitations until FY 
2000, in lieu of FY 1999.

Mr. Abba began reviewing the work session document (Exhibit E), 
which he noted was designed to highlight the major decision points 
involving fiscal implications as well as significant policy issues 
to be determined by the committee.  The policy issues are outlined 
and explained below.  Questioning and discussion ensued following 
Mr. Abba's summarization of each policy issue. 

POLICY ISSUE #1 - Mandatory Job Training Requirements (Section 27):

Regarding this policy issue, S.B. 428 requires all AFDC recipients 
to receive job training through the Welfare Division's Employment 
and Training Program unless the caretaker has a child under 6 
months old.  The current policy exempts caretakers if the youngest 
child is under 3 years old.  S.B. 428 would add a projected 2,856 
additional caretaker parents to the mandatory training rolls.  The 
fiscal impact is approximately $8.5 million, which includes 
additional staffing and Employment and Training funds) for FY 1997, 
$19 million for FY 1998, $16.4 million for FY 1999 and will reduce 
to $2.5 million for FY 2000.


Mr. Abba noted the fiscal impact is significant for two primary 
reasons.  First, the Welfare Division's Employment and Training 
budget does not include funding to provide employment and training 
services to all mandatory AFDC caretakers (funding only allows 
approximately 2,000 eligible caretakers to be served).  Second, 
S.B. 428 requires job training for all mandatory AFDC caretakers 
not currently receiving employment and training services and also 
lowers the exempt age group; this will further increase the number 
of cases to which the job training requirements apply.

The two committee policy options to be considered are: (1) The 
committee can approve the mandatory job training requirements 
policy as proposed; and (2) The committee can consider the 
following options which require mandatory job training, but provide 
for a phase-in of eligible AFDC caretakers:

OPTION 1:  Effective January 1997, lower the caretaker 
exemption to youngest child under age 1; effective January 
1998, lower the exemption to 6 months.

Fiscal Impact:  $6.9 million for FY 1997, $17.4 million for FY 
1998, $16.7 million for FY 1999 and $2.8 million for FY 2000.

OPTION 2: Effective January 1997, lower the caretaker 
exemption to youngest child under age 2.  Effective January 
1998, lower exemption to age 1.  Effective January 1999, lower 
exemption to age 6 months.

Fiscal Impact:  $6 million for FY 1997, $14.5 million for FY 
1998, $15 million for FY 1999 and $2.8 million for FY 2000.

OPTION 3:  Effective January 1997, retain current exemption 
child under 3 years old.  Effective January 1998, lower 
exemption to age 2.  Effective January 1999, lower exemption 
to age 1.  Effective January 2000, lower exemption to age 6 
months.

Fiscal Impact: $4.8 million for FY 1997, $12.2 million for FY 
1998, $12.4 million for FY 1999 and $2.2 million for FY 2000. 
 This option would immediately provide employment and training 
services to those mandatory JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic 
Skills training program) recipients who, due to budget 
constraints, do not receive services.

Senator Rawson asked whether the $4.8 million for FY 1997, as 
listed in option 3 (page 2, Exhibit E), is in addition to the 
figures budgeted by the Governor, and Mr. Abba responded in the 
affirmative.  The senator inquired whether a portion of the costs 
required to fund mandatory job training will be paid from federal 
funds.

Mr. Abba confirmed a portion of the costs of mandatory job training 
will be federally funded.  He said it will be necessary to work 
with the Welfare Division to determine the amount of the costs to 
be covered by federal funds.  Currently, the jobs program is 
operating under a federal cap, and the state can access a limited 
amount of funds for job training services.  The child care portion 
of the operating costs of the employment and training program would 
be reimbursed on a 50/50 state/federal basis.  Mr. Abba reiterated 
there will be some federal funds for the state's portion of the 
$4.8 million cost for FY 1997 ($2.4 million). 

Senator Rawson asked, "If we limited this to, say, $1.5 million, we 
could put a provision in this as far as the money goes, 
essentially?"


Mr. Abba replied, "If it would be limited to that amount, we would 
increase participation levels beyond what are currently budgeted." 
 He said this may not cover everyone under the current mandatory 
group that is not receiving services, but it would probably cover 
a substantial portion of them.

Senator Rawson commented the disadvantage of implementing a phase-
in plan is that the caseload will increase in the ensuing years. 
 Mr. Abba agreed that would be one disadvantage; however, he 
offered as an advantage of a phase-in plan the fact that it will 
enable the division to make the appropriate adjustments over a 
period of time.

Senator Mathews asked whether self-employment can be included 
within the job training program.  As an example of how programs to 
promote self-employment can be effective, she said the Reno Housing 
Authority (RHA) is assisting residents in establishing their own 
small enterprises by allowing them to remain in RHA housing until 
they become established.  She maintained the same desired effect of 
reducing the welfare rolls would be achieved through supporting 
self-employment as through a standard job training program.  She 
inquired again whether such a provision can be included in S.B. 
428.

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of 
Human Resources, responded that self-employment can be 
accommodated, and has been considered, within the existing program. 
 She verified S.B. 428 would not eliminate this component of the 
current program.

Senator Rawson inquired if anyone present would object to providing 
an "enhanced level of job training requirements" in the bill.  
Hearing no objection, the senator designated option 3, as outlined 
on page 1 of Exhibit E, as the most viable option.  He said it 
represents a significant improvement over the system, although it 
may not be the optimal solution.

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada, 
called attention to the fact the information under discussion had 
not been made available in printed form to members of the audience, 
and therefore they could not give an informed opinion of the 
options presented to the committee.  Senator Rawson requested staff 
to obtain copies of the pertinent information for distribution to 
interested participants.

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District 
No. 2, verified from Mr. Abba that implementation of option 3 will 
provide for initial savings, but will entail greater costs in the 
later years of the plan.

Senator Rawson remarked, "My only concern about that is I am not 
sure we have the capability to put everybody into it and it is 
going to take us some time to create the job training experience." 
 He further stated, "By the time you get to the year 2000, if this 
is left intact, then you would begin to look at the out years with 
what you've projected."

Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Nevada Legal Services, inquired how 
implementation of option 3 relates to the 2-year requirement 
(limiting AFDC benefits to 24 months in any 5-year period; policy 
issue #3) and to volunteers.

Senator Rawson clarified there will be exemptions for those 
participants who do not have any options, once the 2-year period 
expires.


Mr. Sasser clarified, "So the `2 years and out' would apply only to 
those who are in the program mandatorily.  How about those that 
volunteer?  Will we have volunteers any more?"

Senator Rawson responded yes.

Ms. Florence concurred with the point made by Mr. Sasser with 
regard to imposing a time limitation on individuals receiving AFDC 
benefits.  She stated that if a time limitation is to be imposed on 
AFDC recipients, those individuals must have had the opportunity to 
complete job training or education programs called for in their 
self-sufficiency plan before their benefits can be terminated.

Senator Rawson concurred, stating, "I don't think there is any 
question about that."

Ms. Florence stated her desire to ensure the above-stated concerns 
are reflected in the record.

Senator Mathews commented on the necessity of providing a 
definition of "self-sufficiency" in the bill for the sake of 
clarity.

Senator Rawson asked if there is explanatory language in the bill 
that addresses this concern.  Mr. Abba replied it appears the only 
applicable provision in S.B. 428 is in section 7, wherein the term 
"plan" is specified as the self-sufficiency plan.  He said there is 
no specific definition of "self-sufficiency," per se, in the bill. 
  The senator instructed Mr. Abba to make note of the need to 
define this term.

Senator Rawson commented that the policy issue is affected by the 
amount of funds that may be available.  He said it appears to him 
that option 1 probably brings more participants into the job 
training program than the state can accommodate at this time, in 
terms of funding, and is probably not very workable.  He asked 
whether Senator Washington will agree to option 3.

Senator Washington responded in the affirmative and advocated that 
the Legislature take a second look at this policy issue during the 
next legislative session for possible revisions to the program.

Senator Rawson agreed the 1997 legislative session would be the 
appropriate time for the Legislature to revisit this issue.  He 
commented, "The decision points are [probably] going to be on the 
out-numbered years."  He asked Senator Mathews to indicate her 
position on option 3.  Senator Mathews indicated that although she 
prefers option 2, she will agree to option 3.

Senator Rawson addressed the feasibility of implementing option 2 
and called upon Ms. Florence to state the position of the Welfare 
Division.

Ms. Florence stated that implementation of option 2 is feasible, 
assuming all of the resources are provided and the division is not 
required to achieve enormous vacancy savings or to meet similar 
requirements.  She further stated, "The services are dependent on 
the staff to provide those services."  She added there are always 
extenuating circumstances that arise.

Senator Rawson asked Senator Mathews to indicate which option she 
recommends.
Senator Mathews replied, "I can live with option 3."

Mr. Abba clarified for the record that for any of the options, the 
out-year costs when AFDC recipients "come off the rolls" would be 
altered.

Ms. Gilbert reminded the committee to consider that lowering the 
caretaker exemption to age 6 months for recipients required to 
participate in the job training program will entail higher child 
care costs (because of the greater cost of child care for very 
young children), and this should be factored in.  Senator Rawson 
responded, "I understand."

Mr. Abba clarified that child care costs have already been factored 
into the cost of each option.  He said the additional cost of child 
care for young children is a major driver of the child care costs.

POLICY ISSUE #2 - Self-sufficiency Plan and Periodic Review of 
Staffing Requirements (Sections 9, 10, 11 and 14):

S.B. 428 requires that all non-exempted households have self-
sufficiency plans developed and that they be reviewed every 3 
months.  The Welfare Division estimates 26 new positions will be 
needed to support these activities at a total cost of $985,000.  
The division assumes a self-sufficiency plan will require an 
average time of 1 hour to develop.  It is anticipated fewer staff 
will be required for self-sufficiency plan development and review 
beginning in FY 1998.

Senator Rawson asked whether the expected cost to support policy 
issue #2 can be reduced by one-half for the control group.  Mr. 
Abba replied yes.  The senator further inquired whether the funding 
can be reduced somewhat based upon implementation of option 3 in 
policy issue #1.  Mr. Abba responded he doubted this would be the 
case.  He explained there is an immediate requirement to develop 
self-sufficiency plans that will entail an intense effort.

Senator Rawson noted under policy issue #2, the division is 
estimating an additional 26 positions are needed to develop self-
sufficiency plans and asked whether five of the additional 
eligibility worker positions can be utilized as social workers, in 
place of the five social workers recommended in the Executive 
Budget.

Mr. Abba stated the 26 requested positions are in addition to the 
five positions recommended in the Executive Budget and the five 
positions which were added to the division, by the Legislature.  He 
deferred to the Welfare Division to respond further.

Ms. Florence testified there are 10 social workers allocated to the 
Welfare Division, so the additional five beyond the Governor's 
recommendation would only be able to handle families that are 
referred with significant problems.  She said the development of 
the self-sufficiency plan would need to be performed by the 
eligibility worker, under the current proposal.  She noted that 
proposal is under challenge by the Nevada Association of Social 
Workers (NASW), who believe this level of assessment should be 
conducted by a licensed social worker rather than an eligibility 
worker.

Ms. Florence further stated, "We have costed this out at a grade 31 
entry level eligibility worker."  She said the entry level social 
worker position would be at the grade 33 level, and the cost of 
utilizing social workers rather than eligibility workers to perform 
the assessments would therefore be approximately 10 percent higher 
than the cost in the current proposal.


Senator Rawson explained he is attempting to arrive at a realistic 
number in terms of what is actually needed.  He stated:

If we are taking half of our group through as a control 
group and half as the study [group], of that half in the 
study we know a certain percentage [of the participants] 
have the skills that enable them to become employed 
easily; another percentage, with some development, will 
have the skills, and then there is a certain percentage 
that will be very resistant to change.  Have those 
percentages been figured in this at all?

Ms. Florence responded, "Not in terms of staffing."  She said the 
assumption here is that all participants will require a self-
sufficiency plan, regardless of whether or not they are members of 
the control group.

Senator Rawson clarified that in actuality, half of the 
participants may not be required to have a self-sufficiency plan 
because they will be in the control group; of the remaining half, 
16-20 percent of the participants can probably be determined fairly 
early "not to be in this phase of the project," either because they 
do not have and cannot readily acquire the necessary skills to gain 
employment, or because they are disabled in some way that precludes 
them from entering the work place.  He said it is therefore 
possible to immediately cut the $985,000 in half, and then to 
further reduce that amount by some factor.

Asserting that "we are within the realm of possibility there," 
Senator Rawson solicited testimony from those objecting to the 
proposal for a self-sufficiency plan and a periodic review as 
presented in policy issue #2.

Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers, 
Nevada Chapter, voiced her objections to aspects of the proposal at 
hand.  She commented the 1-hour time allotment for developing a 
self-sufficiency plan is not enough time to perform the type of 
assessment originally indicated in the bill, noting that the job 
assessments she currently performs require approximately 2 hours of 
her time.  Stating she objects to the use of eligibility workers to 
perform that service, she said there may be two different kinds of 
assessments involved and this should be clarified.

Ms. Florence clarified the 1 hour development time is in addition 
to the existing 1 hour allotment for conducting initial interviews.

For clarification purposes, Senator Rawson stated the budgeted 
amount actually allows for a 2-hour interview/plan development 
period, to be provided by eligibility workers.  He said the cost 
would be 10 percent higher if a social worker is involved.

Ms. Smalley stated, "For the record, I have an objection to that." 
 

In response Senator Rawson indicated "for the record" that as a 
lobbyist for the NASW, Ms. Smalley naturally advocates in behalf of 
the social worker.

Senator Mathews expressed her support for the use of social workers 
to perform the duties outlined in policy issue #2.  She commented, 
"I will always go with the professional, because I think you get 
what you pay for."

Senator Rawson asked Senator Mathews if she supports policy issue 
#2, with its provisions for a self-sufficiency plan and a periodic 
review.  The senator replied yes.

Senator Washington took issue with the implication in Senator 
Mathews' remarks that an eligibility worker is not a professional. 
 Senator Mathews countered there is a specific definition with 
respect to what constitutes a professional.

Senator Rawson stated it is key, for the self-sufficiency proposal 
to work well, to have a quality assessment and a review mechanism 
to ensure follow-through with the plan.

POLICY ISSUE #3 - AFDC Benefit Time Limitations (Section 12):

S.B. 428 limits AFDC benefits to 24 months in any 5-year period. 
 The proposed amendments to S.B. 428 (Exhibit C) exempt persons who 
are disabled, ill, incapacitated, aged, too remote from a JOBS area 
(as defined by the division), or are children living with a non-
needy caretaker.  Significant AFDC savings will begin in FY 1997 
($14.7 million) and increase to $60.1 million by FY 2000.

Mr. Abba pointed out the above figures will need to be adjusted 
depending on the option chosen in policy issue #1.

Referencing remarks made earlier in Mr. Sasser's testimony, Mr. 
Abba stated that if the committee chooses an option other than 
option #1, which immediately lowers the caretaker exemption to age 
6 months, consideration should be given to exempting those 
individuals who cannot access job training until they are actually 
part of the job training component, so that the "2 years and out" 
provision of S.B. 428 would not apply to them until they actually 
enter the program.  Senator Rawson responded, "We know that will 
affect the out-year calculations for caseload decrease."

Senator Washington verified the estimated savings of $14.7 million 
beginning in FY 1999 will be somewhat less if option #2 is chosen. 
 Mr. Abba said significant savings should be realized by the end of 
the 5-year demonstration project, but the savings will be less 
depending upon the option chosen.

Senator Mathews sought clarification of the actual savings to be 
achieved through implementation of this plan.  Senator Mathews 
defined the anticipated savings as "money that we are projected to 
spend if we go on the way we are now" that probably would not have 
to be spent, taking into account growth and inflation.

Senator Rawson invited testimony from those objecting to the limit 
of AFDC benefits to 24 months in any 5-year period. 

Mr. Sasser spoke in opposition to the time limitation.  After 
calling attention to a critique of the proposed sanctions in S.B. 
428 provided by the Nevada Legal Services, Inc. (Exhibit F), Mr. 
Sasser commented, "The assumption here appears to be that every 
[AFDC] recipient who has access to a jobs program should be able to 
be self-sufficient within 24 months, or at most with a 6-month 
extension after that."

Senator Rawson disagreed.  He reasoned there will be exemptions 
based upon the assessment of the social worker who develops the 
self-sufficiency plan as to the ability of the participant to 
become self-sufficient within 24 months.  

Mr. Sasser countered:


If that is the intent, it is not what the bill says...The 
bill lists...people who are disabled, physically 
incapacitated..., children in a home of a non-needy 
caretaker; those were enumerated in the bill.  To my 
knowledge there have been no further exemptions 
enumerated.

Senator Rawson maintained one purpose of the hearings is to define 
the exemptions, and he said the final language in S.B. 428 will be 
prepared toward that end.

Senator Washington indicated that not listing all exemptions was an 
oversight on the part of the bill's sponsors.  He said it was not 
intended to include those AFDC recipients for whom an exemption is 
appropriate.

Mr. Sasser clarified his concern arises from the fact that some 
AFDC recipients, who would not qualify for the exemptions outlined 
in the proposed amendments to S.B. 428 and itemized above by 
Senator Rawson, will be unable to achieve self-sufficiency within 
24 months or even 30 months despite their very best good faith 
efforts .  He explained that some participants will have much 
further to go than others to meet the requirements and therefore 
may require considerably more time than 24 months.

Senator Rawson replied the concerns expressed by Mr. Sasser are the 
reason he advocates investing more in the assessment component of 
the self-sufficiency plan, to enable an accurate assessment of the 
participants' situation, and in follow-through of the plan.  He 
stated, "It makes it very complicated in the assumptions for 
calculating the savings, but this plan is not just about savings; 
it is about trying to change the lives of people."

Mr. Sasser responded that if Senator Rawson is indicating the AFDC 
benefits will not be summarily terminated upon expiration of the 2-
year time limit for those participants who are complying in good 
faith with their self-sufficiency plan, but who nevertheless may be 
unable to become self-sufficient within the required time period, 
he is more inclined to support policy issue 3.  He asserted the 
bill as written does not comport with this interpretation.

Senator Washington interjected:

I want to say for the record, we are not vultures or 
mean-hearted....  The intent is, once we define self-
sufficiency, to get people self-sufficient in the work 
force, taking care of their own responsibilities as 
opposed to having the taxpayers do it.  If the 24-month 
assessment [indicates] they fall short of that, I am sure 
we are not going to be so punitive that we will just cut 
off [their benefits].

Senator Rawson said it is understood the circumstances under which 
benefits may be extended beyond the 2-year period must be clearly 
indicated in the bill.  Senator Washington agreed, but he insisted 
a specified time limit is essential.

Mr. Sasser stated he is confused regarding whether or not a time 
limit is to be specified, and under what circumstances it is to be 
imposed.  He observed that all of the savings upon which the fiscal 
note is constructed are based on the assumption the time limit 
provision will be "a fairly hard and fast rule," with the exception 
of the exemptions proposed in Senator Washington's amendment.  


Senator Rawson suggested that within the limits of first "halving 
the group" and then considering the funding for those participants 
possessing, or able to acquire, the capabilities to gain self-
sufficiency, the assumptions of the fiscal analysis staff for the 
first years of the plan are probably fairly realistic.  He further 
stated:

But as you go on in this, you tend to get deeper into the 
program and into those that have fewer skills or less 
ability, and I can see it becoming more complicated the 
further program goes.

The senator said staff will be requested to adjust the fiscal notes 
accordingly.  He then called upon Senator Mathews to make a motion 
on S.B. 428. 

Senator Mathews stated she is concerned about the state of the 
current welfare system.  She said she has several concerns 
regarding S.B. 428, as well.  She agreed with the need for a time 
limit provision in the bill, although she indicated uncertainty as 
to what the time frame should be and whether exceptions should be 
allowed.  She suggested the Senate Committee on Finance, as a 
whole, should decide what time limitation to impose.

Senator Rawson agreed the subcommittee should recommend leaving the 
time limitation issue to the full committee to decide.  Senator 
Mathews voiced the opinion a time line provision is essential.  
Senator Rawson said the subcommittee should still recommend that 
reasonable exemptions be defined for those participants who cannot 
meet the time line.  Senator Mathews concurred.

Senator Washington advised the subcommittee that across the nation, 
other welfare reform measures with a 24-month period time 
limitation are also being considered.  He said President Clinton, 
in his welfare reform address to the nation, indicated the 24-month 
cap is sufficient.

Senator Rawson stated he is willing to return to the full committee 
with the recommendation the committee address the issue of the time 
limitation.  Senator Mathews indicated support of the proposal to 
have the committee as a whole specify both a definite time frame 
and allowable exceptions (to the required termination of benefits 
after 24 months).

Ms. Gilbert came forward to speak in opposition to the 24-month 
time limit.  She noted the welfare reform task force spent an 
entire year in the interim discussing this issue.  She stated, "I 
am really sorry that you did not participate, because then we would 
have all come up with the same proposal."  She said the task force 
committee studied the issue and determined it would be very 
difficult to impose a time limit without the subsidization of child 
care for participants in the plan.

Continuing, Ms. Gilbert pointed out the majority of people leaving 
the welfare rolls are being employed in minimum wage jobs, 
averaging an estimated $721 per month.  The task force discovered 
that adequate child care is lacking because the cost is 
prohibitive; as a result, what is occurring again and again is that 
welfare recipients who leave the system eventually return to the 
system.  She said while it is easy to say, "Two years and you're 
out," it does not work because there are not enough jobs in the 
community that offer adequate income to support these families.  


Ms. Gilbert drew attention to an article from Time magazine 
(Exhibit G) supporting her contention that many of the welfare 
recipients who leave the system will be returning to the abusive 
homes from which they came.  She said it has been proven that many 
of the women on welfare come from such homes.  She questioned the 
benefits of the 2-year time limitation to Nevada's women and 
children.

Senator Rawson stated his intention to leave the meeting for a 
short time to meet with the Governor and passed the gavel to 
Senator Mathews.  Prior to departing, he noted there are other 
features in S.B. 428 that attempt to address the issues raised by 
Ms. Gilbert.  He expressed the hope that offense would not be taken 
because the committee has chosen to go beyond the recommendations 
of the task force, and that the committee's actions would not be 
regarded as punitive and opposed to the task force.

Ms. Gilbert averred the time limitation is, indeed, punitive and 
had been thoroughly examined by the task force committee, which she 
noted was composed of a very broad-based group of people.  She 
remarked, "It is disturbing to see punitive reforms coming up when 
we all discovered that those jobs are not out there available for 
people to go out and work."  She suggested the anticipated savings 
would be achieved at the expense of women and children in Nevada.

Ronald M. Rentner, Lobbyist, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry, came 
forward to testify.  He stated his intention to amplify on Ms. 
Gilbert's testimony.

Mr. Rentner argued the subcommittee has focused on personal 
responsibility as the driving force behind welfare reform efforts 
rather than on the real issue, which is a structural, economic 
problem. 

Mr. Rentner said there are many reasons why people may need to look 
to AFDC or some other source of support more often than once every 
5 years for a 2-year period, such as being in an area of high 
unemployment or seasonal employment.  He stated, "That is a real 
concern for me, [because] those people are going to show up on 
somebody's doorstep, and it is likely to be mine."  He indicated 
charitable institutions do not have adequate resources to provide 
for all of those in need.

Regarding the time limitations, Ms. Florence questioned whether 
consideration has been given that the counties will be pressured 
into providing the social services which have been cut off at the 
state level.

Senator Washington averred the intent of the bill is to help 
recipients become self-sufficient, not to shift them from the state 
rolls to county rolls or charitable institutions.  He suggested 
S.B. 428 represents an optimistic approach to welfare reform 
because it promotes self-sufficiency and assumes AFDC recipients 
will succeed in their efforts to become self-sufficient.

Senator Mathews characterized S.B. 428 as a "sink or swim" approach 
to promoting self-sufficiency.  However, she said that while she 
does not agree with the time line proposed in the bill, she tends 
to agree with Senator Washington's philosophy of helping people to 
help themselves.  She stated, "I do think that if you are going to 
help a person get to their feet, you have to...turn them loose and 
let them walk."


Ms. Florence responded the agency's concern lies with the fact that 
during difficult economic times, AFDC caretakers who have lost 
their period of eligibility and become unemployed, even after 
having been a productive member of society, will have needs  and 
"will show up at somebody's door step."  She maintained this is not 
pessimistic but realistic about the situations that are encountered 
every day.  She emphasized that she agrees with the objective of 
self-sufficiency for everyone.

Continuing, Ms. Florence stated, "The highest point in my life 
would be to work myself out of a job....  In reality, I do not 
think that is going to happen."

Mr. Abba continued his review of the policy issues outlined in 
Exhibit E.

POLICY ISSUE #4 - Family Cap (Section 13):

S.B. 428 prohibits AFDC benefits being paid to a household on 
behalf of a child born more than 10 months after application.  
Savings are estimated at $695,000 for FY 1997, $2.8 million for FY 
1998, $2.5 million for FY 1999 and $870,000 for FY 2000.

Senator Mathews commented the proposed family cap has been a 
contentious issue.  She said the message being conveyed is that 
abortion is wrong, but financial assistance will not be provided to 
girls or women choosing to give birth rather than abort.

Ms. Gilbert voiced her opposition to the family cap provision.  She 
distributed a copy of a newspaper article from the New York Times 
 (Exhibit H) and discussed the contents thereof.  She said the 
article reports that in New Jersey, where a family cap provision 
was part of the state's welfare reform proposal, abortions have 
increased.  She stated:

I know that is a problem for many people here.  It more 
is a problem for me that it means that children and women 
will not be helped by welfare.  I continue to say that we 
have to care for those who are needy in our society, 
regardless if they are young or old.  I feel very 
strongly about this, and this also was not included in 
the welfare reform task force recommendations.

Joni A. Kaiser, Lobbyist, Committee to Aid Abused Women (CAAW), 
said the family cap provision is another example of the punitive 
tone of S.B. 428 because it is not directed at the fathers who sire 
the babies, but only the mothers. She said there is no penalization 
for the fathers of the children.  She emphasized the limited access 
that poor women have to birth control.  She elaborated:

If you are going to tell them that they cannot have the 
kids and not provide them with a way not to have those 
children, and then penalize the child when the child is 
born, it seems like a backward philosophy, and it is 
certainly a backward message.  And there is no message 
being sent to the fathers here.

Senator Mathews concurred with Ms. Kaiser's remarks.

Senator Washington disagreed, stating the bill does contain 
provisions concerning the fathers of children born to the women 
receiving the benefits.  He claimed the fathers are not being 
absolved of their responsibility, and the bill seeks to include 
them in the process.  He pointed out:


The other thing that...is important here is that we are 
not talking about the children, we are talking about 
behavior patterns and illegitimacy.  That is what we are 
trying to work on with this.  We are saying, `We are not 
going to reward you again for having another child just 
because you are on AFDC....  That is unfair to taxpayers 
[and] to those people that are trying to support their 
own families.'  If I have an additional baby...my wife 
and I still have to take care of it.  Our salaries do not 
go up.  Someway, somehow we have to provide means for it.

We are not trying to be punitive.  We are just trying to 
say, `If you make that decision and that choice to 
continue the lifestyle that you have and you spawn 
another child, then you are responsible for it, not the 
state, and you have to find means by which to take care 
of it.

Refuting Senator Washington's comment that a recipient is 
"rewarded" when she has another child, Mr. Sasser indicated the 
allocation is raised only $59 per month when another child is born. 
 He said the cost of raising that child, as testified during 
hearings on a proposal to increase foster care payments, is about 
$599 per month.  He characterized the small offset as "a major 
losing proposition" and discounted the assumption that a person 
would purposefully decide to have a child in order to receive an 
additional $59 per month.  He further testified:

Since it [welfare reform] will not impact people's 
behavior in any way, since they are not making the choice 
to have a child in order to get the $59 a month, I do not 
believe this will change behavior.  All it will do is add 
one extra mouth to feed with no more money in that family 
to feed that extra child.

When I have an extra child, or Senator Washington has an 
extra child, our salaries might not go up, but our income 
tax deductions do, and those are worth more than $59 per 
month.  The child tax credit that has been proposed in 
the Personal Responsibility Act in Congress, would give 
everyone a $500 per year tax credit for children, 
including extra children. 

So I think there is precedent for working people within 
the tax laws that [recognizes] that if you have an extra 
child, your expenses go up.  The problem is that the 
other children in the family are going to suffer because 
they are going to have less to live on, and so I very 
strongly oppose this portion of the bill.

Also AFDC families, unlike the popular stereotype, have 
[fewer] children and lower birth rates than the general 
population at large.  This...exacerbates that old 
negative stereotype when it is not real.

Senator Mathews stated her intention to present this issue to the 
full committee rather than to seek a recommendation from the 
subcommittee.


Quoting remarks attributed to President Clinton, Senator Washington 
stated the welfare system promotes illegitimate births and single-
parent families and is a contributor to family disintegration, 
which is a leading cause of crime in the U.S.   He said the 
president further predicted that unless dramatic changes occur, 
half of the American children will be born to unwed mothers.  The 
senator maintained the proposals in S.B. 428 are not new, but 
merely reflect the national sentiments that unless the illegitimacy 
issue is addressed, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

Ms. Smalley said it should be noted with reference to President 
Clinton's views on the subject, the president has stated that every 
child born deserves a chance, no matter the circumstances of their 
birth.

Senator Washington countered, "We are not denying that, either."

Senator Mathews reiterated her intention that this issue be 
considered by the committee as a whole.

Mr. Abba continued his review of the policy issues pertaining to 
S.B. 428.  (Senator Rawson returned to the meeting at 4:55 p.m.)

POLICY ISSUE #5 - One-Time Diversion Program (Section 16):

S.B. 428 allows the Welfare Division to make a one-time payment to 
applicants in need of only short-term assistance.  Applicants who 
receive the onetime payment are ineligible for AFDC benefits until 
36 months have passed.  For the fiscal note, the division assumed 
5 percent of applications would be provided onetime payments and 
the average payment would be $851 (3 months' average AFDC payment).

Fiscal Impact: The diversion program costs are estimated at 
$357,500 for FY 1997, $775,000 for FY 1998, $840,000 for FY 1999 
and $912,000 for FY 2000.  It is assumed that the saving to be 
realized by diverting potential AFDC recipients will be greater 
each fiscal year than the overall costs of the onetime diversion 
program.

Senator Rawson added the diversion program would be eligible for 50 
percent federal funding.

May S. Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services, indicated 
if the state implements the onetime diversion program, the county 
can eliminate general assistance to AFDC applicants and thereby 
avoid duplication of services.

Senator Rawson asked Ms. Shelton if the county is willing to assist 
the state in developing and refining the program; she answered in 
the affirmative.  She commented the county program assists AFDC 
applicants for 30 days, whereas the program proposed in the bill 
will help applicants for 3 months.

Ms. Florence clarified those individuals who are allotted the 
onetime diversion payment are not waiting for AFDC benefits, but 
are opting to receive a onetime payment  (equivalent to 3 months' 
AFDC benefits) instead of monthly AFDC assistance and will not be 
eligible to apply for AFDC benefits for 36 months.

Senator Rawson responded the recipients of the onetime diversion 
payment may need to seek additional aid if their circumstances are 
not sufficiently improved with the short-term assistance, "so there 
would be some preventive there."

Senator Rawson invited testimony in opposition to the onetime 
diversion program.


Mr. Sasser spoke to the difficult choice families will have to make 
in choosing whether to enroll in the regular program or to accept 
the larger lump-sum payment and waive eligibility to receive 
additional benefits for the next 36 months.

Senator Rawson suggested counseling should be involved to assist 
families in choosing the best option for their circumstances and 
not merely to facilitate savings to the state.

Mr. Sasser said the concern is the possibility the recipient may 
have a gambling, drug or alcohol problem, in which case not only 
might the children not realize the benefits from the lump-sum 
payment but they would also be ineligible to receive benefits for 
8 months.  He inquired whether the fiscal note includes a waiver of 
Medicaid, as well, and was assured it does not.

Ms. Florence clarified the period of ineligibility to receive  AFDC 
benefits would be 36 months rather than the 8 months indicated by 
Mr. Sasser.  Mr. Sasser stated:

Well, then, that really raises my concern, if for $800 
somebody is basically saying they can't be eligible for 
a 3-year period, no matter what their circumstances; and 
the problem is, how will they know, and then what happens 
to the children?  If their family is not able to maintain 
those children, they end up in our foster care system at 
$306 a piece.

What kind of counseling or decision...that is a 
responsible decision for children...concerns me a lot, 
because if they are eligible that means that the moment 
they are applying they have zero income, or at least net 
income of under $348 per month; so they are in dire 
economic need.  And maybe they think they are going to 
get a job tomorrow, and they don't.

Senator Rawson said the subcommittee will proceed with this policy 
issue, recognizing there are concerns that must be addressed, 
especially with regard to the regulation phase.  He suggested the 
diversion plan could be implemented as a pilot program.

POLICY ISSUE #6 - Self-Sufficiency Program Services to Presumed 
Fathers
(Section 18):

S.B. 428 allows absent fathers of AFDC children to participate in 
the self-sufficiency programs and to receive employment and 
training services.  It is proposed to amend Section 18 to establish 
a pilot project and limit this program to 100 participants.  If 
absent fathers choose to participate, an increased AFDC benefit 
would be provided the household which would average $59 per month 
(the value for one extra person).

Fiscal Impact: The estimated fiscal impact for 100 participants is 
$171,500 for FY 1997 and $343,000 for FY 1998, FY 1999 and FY 2000.

Mr. Abba explained that the cost to implement the program would not 
be shared by the federal government.

Senator Rawson expressed disappointment that the program is limited 
to 100 participants and commented there are resources within the 
community college system that could be directed toward supporting 
programs similar to this one.  He said everything possible should 
be done to extend the resources available.

Senator Rawson invited comment on this issue.

Senator Washington testified the sponsors of S.B. 428 are not in 
total agreement with the proposal in policy issue #6, but have 
acceded to it in the interests of retaining this provision of the 
bill.  He echoed Senator Rawson's comments regarding the 
desirability of extending the program beyond the 100 participants 
provided for in the bill as a means of addressing the problem of 
absent fathers of AFDC children.  He remarked the absent fathers 
for the most part have similar problems to their counterparts, the 
mothers of AFDC children.

Senator Rawson inquired as to the level of success of reentry 
programs for women in the community college system.  Senator 
Mathews responded that the program at Truckee Meadows Community 
College (TMCC) has been extremely successful, with the exception 
that participation is limited.

Senator Rawson indicated his intention that the community college 
presidents be called upon to utilize some of their resources to 
supplement this program.

POLICY ISSUE #7 - School Attendance and Immunization (Sections 23, 
24 and 25):

S.B. 428, as originally drafted, required all AFDC recipients to 
receive a high school degree or equivalency as a condition of 
receiving benefits.  Also, as a condition of receiving benefits, 
all dependent children are required to receive the standard 
childhood immunization series.  Significant changes to S.B. 428 are 
proposed which clarify academic progress as proof of enrollment and 
school attendance.  Also, the requirements for obtaining a high 
school degree or equivalency are proposed to be amended to those 
recipients who are 18 years of age and under.

Fiscal Impact: The estimated fiscal impact is $429,000 each fiscal 
year.  The estimate assumes no supportive services or case 
management will be provided.

Senator Rawson invited those having concerns regarding policy issue 
#7 to present them at this time. 

Ms. Florence stated the Welfare Division is concerned about the 
provision relating to academic progress.  She indicated it would 
not be feasible to require the verification of academic progress.

Senator Rawson questioned whether verification of academic progress 
would necessarily be complicated.  He noted that for students in 
his classes (at the community college in Las Vegas) who receive 
Pell grants, he is merely required to sign a paper indicating their 
work is satisfactory.

Ms. Florence explained that educators have testified strongly 
against being required to perform the task of providing reports of 
academic progress, and the division therefore presumes the 
necessary cooperation of the schools will not be forthcoming.  She 
therefore recommended limiting this provision to proof of school 
attendance.

Senator Mathews commented that when her children were in school, 
parents received mid-term progress reports.  She suggested it would 
be fairly simple to provide the progress reports.  Senator 
Washington agreed, remarking that he receives mid-term progress 
reports as well as report cards for his children.  He agreed with 
Senator Mathews that the provision relating to verification of 
academic progress is feasible.

Elizabeth A. Livingston, Lobbyist, Nevada Women's Lobby, spoke in 
opposition to the school attendance provision.  She commented on 
the difficulty of determining whether a junior high or high school 
level child is actually attending school, even if the parent takes 
that child to school.  She said the requirement places the burden 
on the welfare parent to prove that she has done everything 
possible to ensure school attendance of her children. 

Senator Rawson responded the intent of this provision is to attempt 
to have the parents assume the responsibility of parenting.

Ms. Livingston characterized the provision as a sanction that 
"feels punitive."  She said it might be easier to apply the 
provision to the elementary grades because the parents have more 
control over younger children than they do with those in junior 
high school or high school.

Senator Rawson said the committee will take these concerns into 
consideration.

Senator Washington reiterated the intent of S.B. 428 is not to be 
punitive but to insist that parents assume the responsibility of 
ensuring their children attend school.  He noted that mothers 
sometimes keep older children home from school to care for the 
younger ones, and the school attendance provision is aimed at 
ensuring the children are in school by showing proof of attendance 
and academic progress.  He said if there is a problem with the 
child, it is hoped this will come to the attention of a social 
worker in time to prevent problems in the future.

Senator Rawson stated, "I think we all agree that your intention is 
admirable."

Senator Mathews commented the intent of S.B. 428 may be as 
indicated by Senator Washington, but is not what is written in the 
bill.  Senator Washington indicated there is flexibility in 
establishing the grade levels for which school attendance must be 
verified, and the emphasis should be on grades K-8.

Sherry C. Loncar, Lobbyist, Nevada Parent Teacher Association 
(NPTA), testified in opposition to the school attendance 
provisions.  She stated the association strongly imposes any 
punitive sanctions dealing with welfare reform.

Ms. Loncar testified section 23 is design to promote and encourage 
school attendance, and to achieve this goal the proposal requires 
parents receiving AFDC benefits to ensure that their school-age 
children do not have excessive absences.  If this goal is not met, 
a financial sanction is imposed upon the parents.  One of the 
problems perceived by the NPTA is that in every school district, 
"excessive absence" is defined differently.  She cited as two 
examples the difference in the attendance policies of the Washoe 
County and Carson City school districts and said it would not be 
fair to have parents in one district sanctioned while parents from 
another district whose child has the same number of absences are 
not penalized.

Senator Rawson responded the term "excessive absences" can be more 
specifically defined.  


Continuing her testimony, Ms. Loncar said another problem the NPTA 
has is that philosophically, while the goal of promoting school 
attendance is a good one, the provision in section 23 "attacks only 
those who are the most vulnerable."  She said inherent in poverty 
are problems which legitimately affect attendance: low self-esteem, 
poor health and a lack of child care for younger siblings.

She asked if parents are being taught a lesson by reducing their 
AFDC benefits, or if instead the sanctions are hurting the children 
that are already suffering because they lack proper care, nutrition 
and health benefits.  She maintained the children ultimately suffer 
through imposition of sanctions that reduce AFDC benefits.

Senator Rawson commented that in S.B. 428, Senator Washington has 
actually developed an incentive for parents receiving AFDC benefits 
to ensure their children are attending school.  

Disagreeing, Ms. Loncar stated, "We would hope that all children 
would receive these benefits, and that is what we are trying to 
look out for.  We see this as a punitive action rather than a 
positive action."

Mr. Sasser stated his intention to summarize from testimony 
provided to the Assembly 
Committee on Ways and Means relative to concerns of the education 
community and some of the practical problems that would need to be 
addressed.  He stated the education community would oppose S.B. 428 
if it assigns the teacher the role of "cop," with the consequences 
of the teacher's actions (with respect to substantiating progress 
and attendance) possibly resulting in loss of income to the 
student's family.  
Further, Mr. Sasser testified, everyone would agree it would be 
unfair to reduce or eliminate an AFDC family's income if there is 
a valid excuse for a child's absence from school.  He challenged 
the idea of simply submitting a student's report card for 
verification purposes.  He said the problem is that only four 
school districts require delineation of the reason for absences on 
their report cards, which necessitates another mechanism to obtain 
the required information.  This entails administrative problems 
that the plan to simply submit the report card was intended to 
eliminate.

Senator Rawson pointed out it is obvious that excessive absence 
promotes academic problems.  Mr. Sasser asserted it is not possible 
to obtain information as to whether an absence is due to an 
extended illness or some other legitimate reason.

Disagreeing, Senator Washington said common sense would indicate 
that something is wrong when excessive absences from school are 
reflected on a child's report card.

Senator Rawson stated that while  the frustrations voiced by 
Senator Washington are understandable, the opponents of the 
provisions relating to school attendance and academic progress are 
reacting to the fact that bureaucracies do not necessarily act with 
common sense.  He said there are difficult issues to address with 
regard to the provisions under discussion.

Senator Washington stated, "I am just taking into consideration 
that a simple report card will tell you if there is a problem going 
on...a lack of remedial skills or something else that is going on 
in the family, and hopefully with a report card an eligibility 
worker or a social worker would be able to detect something."

Senator Rawson responded that is what is required in the 
assessments is "a view to the entire family."  


Mr. Sasser inquired as to the intent of the bill with regard to 
whether benefits will be terminated for the entire family or 
whether just the adult's portion of the benefits will be 
terminated, when a family does not meet a specific requirement for 
benefits.

Senator Rawson called upon Mr. Abba to respond.  Mr. Abba  the 
entire benefit amount will be terminated when the family fails to 
meet the criteria.

Mr. Rentner expressed his concern that should an older child learn 
that benefits can be cut off for noncompliance, that child can 
purposely set out to cause the family's benefits to be eliminated 
in order to "get their parents."  He asserted this situation will 
occur frequently.

Senator Washington contended otherwise.  He said he has dealt with 
AFDC families, and they do not behave in this manner.  He said he 
has adamantly opposed AFDC and  has witnessed many positive results 
when families leave the system.  He stated:

I have seen their children respond better in school.  I 
have seen their academics go up.  I have seen their 
parents participate more in their lives and take pride in 
what they are doing.  I know what I am talking about.  I 
know it works.

Ms. Smalley testified in opposition to the requirements in section 
23 in her capacity as lobbyist for the Nevada Association of School 
Boards (NASB).  She stated the education coalition opposes this 
provision on the basis that children should not be singled out in 
any way.  As a member of the school board in Douglas County, Ms. 
Smalley voiced concern this provision may present additional 
problems in connection with the 150 children who are home-schooled 
in Douglas County.

Senator Rawson remarked, "Or presumably they are being home-
schooled."  

Ms. Gilbert addressed the immunization portion of the sanction in 
S.B. 428.  She stated that in discussion on this issue during a 
hearing of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means it was 
indicated AFDC recipients are no less likely to have their children 
immunized than are nonrecipients.  She said there is data that 
indicates AFDC recipients are in fact more likely to have their 
children immunized because there is a program in place that 
provides guidelines and requirements for immunization.  She 
characterized the immunization provision as another punitive 
measure that has no connection with changing behavior, which is the 
goal of welfare reform and which, she maintained, is already 
occurring.

Senator Washington indicated the immunization requirement will 
ensure that the children are protected. 

Ms. Gilbert countered that some parents have limited access to a 
vehicle to take their children to be immunized.  Senator Washington 
suggested they take the bus.  Ms. Gilbert insisted it can be too 
difficult to do this when more than one child is involved.  The 
senator stated, "They do it all the time."  Ms. Gilbert suggested 
that if immunizations were more readily available and could be 
offered at the proposed family resource centers (S.B. 365 and S.B. 
405), this provision would be less problematic.

SENATE BILL 365:	Requires establishment of family resource 
centers in certain neighborhoods to provide 
and administer social services.


SENATE BILL 405:	Provides for establishment of family resource 
centers in certain neighborhoods to provide 
and administer social services.

Ms. Gilbert voiced opposition to the loss of benefits that would 
result from failure to comply with the immunization requirement.

In further discussion it was ascertained that since children are 
required to be immunized before they can enter school, the problem 
of verifying immunization relates to pre-school children.  Ms. 
Florence commented:

Where you would have the most difficulty is to determine 
whether they [the children] are aged appropriately for 
immunization.  For that, I do not see our eligibility 
workers making that decision...We would have to require 
a statement from the public health clinic indicating that 
somebody at age 3 has received all of the series [of 
immunizations] appropriate to their age.

Senator Washington suggested the Welfare Division currently 
inquires about the immunization of the AFDC children.  Ms. Florence 
responded the division does not consider immunization as a 
condition of eligibility.  She clarified, "For kids that are 
enrolled, once they are approved...there is an automatic tracking 
system that goes out to the providers, if they have a provider; 
often they do not."

Senator Mathews commented the family resource centers are not 
designed to provide immunizations, only referrals for 
immunizations, inasmuch as the public does not want a "health 
clinic" in the public schools.

POLICY ISSUE #8 - Parenting Skills (Section 26):

S.B. 428 requires, as a condition of receiving benefits, each 
participant, if required as part of the self-sufficiency plan, to 
attend parenting training and education classes.  It is proposed to 
delete the requirement for the State Board of Education to approve 
the course content of parenting skill training and education 
classes.

Mr. Abba outlined the three options recommended for consideration 
and the estimated fiscal impact of each option:

OPTION 1:  Providing parenting skills training to recipients 
age 24 and under.

Fiscal Impact: $683,000 for FY 1997, $265,000 for FY 1998, 
$287,000 for FY 1999 and $312,000 for FY 2000.

OPTION 2: Provide parenting skill training to recipients age 
20 and under.

Fiscal Impact: $245,000 for FY 1997, $95,000 for FY 1998, 
$103,000 for FY 1999 and $112,000 for FY 2000.

OPTION 3: Provide parenting skill training to recipients age 
18 and under.

Fiscal Impact: $76,000 for FY 1997, $29,500 for FY 1998, 
$32,000 for FY 1999 and $36,000 for FY 2000.
 

Senator Rawson clarified the bill allows the social workers to 
determine whether to require parents to attend parenting skills 
classes and training as part of their self-sufficiency program.

POLICY ISSUE #9: Dental and Vision Care Services (Section 20):

S.B. 428 requires the Medicaid program provide dental and vision 
care services necessary to correct problems which would be 
potential barriers to employment.  Currently, Medicaid only 
provides for emergency dental care for adults.  Vision services are 
allowed every 2 years with some exceptions.  It is proposed to 
limit dental coverage for adults to a maximum of 500 recipients at 
an average cost of $500  per recipient for a total cost of $250,000 
each fiscal year.  The total cost would be a state responsibility 
since the program would be limited and federal Title XIX match 
participation is not anticipated.

Senator Rawson voiced dissatisfaction with the limit on 
participation, but he said the availability of these services will 
help to achieve the objectives of the JOBS program.  
POLICY ISSUE #10 - Violations and Failure to Comply Sanctions 
(Section 33):

S.B. 428 requires the use of sanctions for those participants who 
fail to comply with terms of their self-sufficiency plan.  For the 
first intentional violation, all cash benefits will be terminated 
for 1 month.  For the second intentional violation, all cash 
benefits will be terminated for 3 months.  For the third 
intentional violation, the participant will permanently lose cash 
benefits and will be removed from the program.  The sanctions in 
S.B. 428 are more aggressive than currently imposed and include the 
entire household's grant payment.  The Welfare Division currently 
only sanctions the head of household versus the entire family.

Fiscal Impact: The saving assumptions were based on current 
violation statistics.  A savings will be realized as follows: $2.2 
million for FY 1997, $4.8 million for FY 1998, $7.3 million for FY 
1999 and $1.4 million for FY 2000.

Senator Rawson noted this provision assumes that for sanctions to 
be imposed, the violation must be intentional.  He cited as an 
example of an intentional violation the refusal to appear for a job 
interview.

Mr. Sasser indicated he supports sanctions to enforce compliance 
with self-sufficiency plans and believes the inclusion of the 
language specifying the sanctions apply only to intentional 
violations is very important.  However, he offered as an 
alternative to imposing sanctions on first-time offenders the 
suggestion to have the head of the household's benefits suspended 
until the participant comes into compliance rather than withholding 
benefits for an entire month for the entire family.  He said the 
goal of gaining compliance would thereby be achieved without 
harming the children involved.

Senator Washington paraphrased from a letter he received from a 
constituent in support of strict sanctions.  The constituent wrote 
that his mother was an able-bodied person on AFDC who squandered 
her monthly grant on herself rather than using it for the benefit 
of her children.  Senator Washington said, "When you...sanction the 
whole AFDC check, it wakes them up."


Ms. Gilbert stressed there are child neglect laws in place to 
address occurrences of this kind.  She said many AFDC children 
could suffer if sanctions were to be imposed  against the entire 
family.  She also took issue with what she perceived as the 
implication that AFDC parents neglect their children.

Referring to Exhibit F (List of Exhibits, Testimony of Jon Sasser, 
Nevada Legal Services, Inc. in opposition to S.B. 428), Senator 
Mathews noted the alcohol and drug treatment section of the bill 
(section 22) has not been discussed and asked whether there is a 
fiscal note as to the cost of implementing that program.

Senator Rawson pointed out that the fiscal note appropriates up to 
$12 million, depending upon the option that is implemented.

Mr. Rentner asked where the child care component of the bill is 
reflected in the fiscal note.  Senator Rawson said this element is 
included in the mandatory job training requirement on line 16 of 
page 1 (Exhibit D).  Ms. Florence noted the amounts shown are not 
just for child care.

Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator, Administrative Services, 
Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, called attention 
to page of 1 of the fiscal note (Exhibit D), stating child care 
costs are combined in the job training requirement line item (line 
16) as well as in the 12-month extension category (line 17).  He 
pointed out that approximately 70 percent of the costs for each of 
those categories is for child care services and that the amounts 
allocated are in addition to any funds allocated through the 
employment and training budget contained in the Executive Budget.

Mr. Rentner inquired whether it is known how many children the 
program can accommodate.  Mr. Willden estimated the number of 
caretaker parents at 900 in FY 1997 and 1,400 in FY 1998.  He said 
in the Governor's budget, approximately 2,000 families out of 5,100 
families for which job training is mandatory would be served.  The 
fiscal note (Exhibit D) provides for services to the other 3,000-
plus families and approximately 900 more families.  The total 
number of families to be served would be approximately 6,000 versus 
the 2,000 provided for in the Executive Budget, Mr. Willden 
concluded.

Mr. Rentner observed there are approximately 18,000 families on 
AFDC.  Senator Rawson replied the new proposals would be 
implemented as a demonstration project, and therefore half of the 
families would be in the control group while half would participate 
in the program. 

Mr. Willden pointed out that only about half of the AFDC families 
require child care services.

Senator Rawson stated there will be modifications made to S.B. 428 
based on discussions during this hearing.  He said a report will be 
made to the Senate Committee on Finance and a final decision will 
be made by the full committee. 

Ms. Florence indicated she has concerns over the definition of 
"household" contained in S.B. 428 and requested that she be allowed 
to work with the appropriate persons to address the concerns.


Ms. Florence commended Senator Washington for bringing forward a 
welfare reform proposal that "has some merit in it" as well as 
elements with which the Welfare Division disagrees.  She further 
stated that given the comprehensiveness of the bill and the 
lateness of the session she wished to emphasize to the committee 
the division's staff has done the best possible job in formulating 
accurate assumptions and estimates, but it may be necessary to 
request additional funds from the Interim Finance Committee (IFC) 
at some point.

Senator Rawson stated it may be necessary to include a proviso for 
every aspect of S.B. 428 that enables the programs to advance as 
far as possible with the funds available.   He acknowledged there 
may be incomplete implementation of some of the provisions in the 
bill.

Ms. Florence cautioned the subcommittee that because there are so 
many components to the bill, the division may experience difficulty 
in implementing some of the bill's provisions.  She said the 
division will report to the Legislature should that occur.

Senator Rawson said the division must be given adequate lead time 
to phase in the new programs.  He said the task force that has been 
involved in bringing forward the Governor's program may well be 
involved in implementing some aspects of S.B. 428.  He stated it is 
the committee's intention to develop a workable bill that will 
contain enhancements beyond what the Governor has proposed.  He 
commented the Governor has "taken some considerable steps" (toward 
welfare reform) with his proposal.

Continuing, Senator Rawson expressed the hope that adversarial 
behavior will not prevent the Legislature and the executive branch 
from working cooperatively toward the same ultimate goal of 
facilitating improved conditions for families in Nevada that are 
receiving public assistance.

Senator Rawson voiced appreciation for the attendance and 
participation of the proponents and opponents of S.B. 428 at the 
hearing on this bill and invited additional input within the next 
several days.

Senator Washington stated his willingness to work with the Welfare 
Division on the definition of "household" in S.B. 428.

An article from the San Francisco Examiner, dated April 12, 1995 
and titled "The golden rule - or `a society of meanies'?" that was 
distributed to the subcommittee members is attached to these 
minutes as Exhibit I.

Senator Rawson adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:


	
Sue Parkhurst,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:


                                                        
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

DATE:                                               



Senate Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Welfare Reform
May 31, 1995
Page