This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0971 - Changes Methods of Distribution of Public Assistance
L.R. NO. 3556-01
BILL NO. SB 971
SUBJECT: Welfare Reform
TYPE: Original
DATE: March 29, 1996
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
General Revenue $2,453,442 to ($9,293,479) to $37,157,682 to
$1,766,179 or ($10,426,685) or $36,020,818 or
$1,615,468 ($10,728,107) $35,719,396
Child Support
Enforcement Fund ($1,417,581) ($3,730,477) ($3,730,477)
Partial Estimated $1,035,861 to ($13,023,956) to $33,427,205 to
Net Effect on All $348,598 or ($14,157,162) or $32,290,341 or
State Funds $197,877 ($14,458,584) $31,988,919
*Some unknown costs and savings are not included in the total.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Federal* $31,550,496 to $77,539,049 to $79,782,436 to
$31,437,321 or $77,368,860 or $79,606,703 or
$31,210,688 $76,915,594 $79,153,437
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds* $31,550,496 to $77,539,049 to $79,782,436 to
$31,437,321 or $77,368,860 or $79,606,703 or
$31,210,688 $76,915,594 $79,153,437
*Potential loss of $1.6 billion in Title XIX funds subject to interpretation,
not included in fiscal impact.
**Some unknown costs and savings are not included in the total.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Local Government* ($267,781) ($728,372) ($728,372)
*Unknown income and costs related to the Self-Sufficiency Development fund
and unknown costs to the Job Training Partnership Act subcontractors
providing Workforce Program Assistance are not included in the total.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
The Missouri Sheriffs' Association does not expect to be fiscally impacted.
The Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (DES) and the Department
of Health (DOH) do not expect to be fiscally impacted.
The Department of Corrections (DOC) does not expect to be fiscally impacted.
DOC currently notifies the Department of Social Services (DOS) monthly of new
incarcerates and contacts DOS for advisement if a check arrives for an
inmate. DOC currently complies with all requirements of this proposal.
The Secretary of State (SOS) indicates that the fiscal impact would be
unknown. If the rulemaking activity required were to result in 100 pages in
the Code of State Statutes and 250 pages in the Missouri Register, then the
costs would be $8,550 for printing and distribution. Additionally, even
though this proposal would not require staff, the enactment of more than one
similar proposal resulting in a minimal fiscal impact to the SOS could
require an increase in the SOS's appropriation for such purposes. Oversight
assumes, per section 536.033 RSMo, that the SOS would be able to increase
fees to cover additional costs, thus, the fiscal impact would be zero.
The State Treasurer (STO) does not expect any significant fiscal impact. The
STO does not expect general revenue to be impacted as a result of the
creation of the Welfare Fraud Reward Fund.
The Office of Administration (OA), Division of Accounting does not expect to
be fiscally impacted.
The Department of Mental Health (DMH) expects to be fiscally impacted by this
proposal as a result of losing monies reimbursed from DOS to it for providing
services to Medicaid recipients. DMH assumes that DOS would adopt the
definitions of mental retardation, mental disorder, mental illness and
developmental disability as defined in section 630.055 RSMo, which would
exempt the Division of Comprehensive Psychiatric and Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities clients from losing their Medicaid eligibility
after 24 months. However, clients from the Division of Alcohol and Drug
Abuse (ADA) would be excluded from the definitions and would lose their
Medicaid eligibility. In FY95, 2,591 Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) eligible C-Star clients were served by ADA, resulting in Medicaid
costs of $6,914,155. The Department of Social Services (DOS) assumes that it
is unclear whether or not all who have been eligible for AFDC for over 24
months would be immediately ineligible, but for purposes of this fiscal note,
DOS assumed that individuals would become ineligible immediately. DMH used
the same assumption in responding to this proposal. According to DOS, 58% of
AFDC clients would lose their Medicaid eligibility immediately. This
percentage was adjusted as a result of the exemptions in HB 1416, thus
reducing the percentage to 45.4%. The immediate effect would be a loss of
$3,139,026 to DMH. Additional costs of $1,451,972 are expected as clients
continue to lose their eligibility each year. It was assumed that AFDC
clients would enter the C-Star program as old clients are released.
The Department of Economic Development (DED), Division of Job Development &
Training (DJD) would not be directly impacted by this proposal. However, it
is expected that this proposal would increase costs to local public and
private Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) subcontractors in serving all
Division of Family Services' (DFS) public assistance recipients who would
have to be referred to JTPA for workforce program assistance within thirty
days of receipt of DFS' services. Oversight assumes that this would be an
unknown cost at the local level. Additionally, to the extent that the
proposal's welfare clientele would be required to find work through the
assistance of the DJD state and federally funded public and private
non-profit subcontractors and One- Stop Career Center system partner
agencies, total costs of serving these participants would increase as the
Division of Family Services' clients apply for direct job referral and
placement services. To what extent the costs would rise cannot be
determined. Additionally, federal funds for such purposes are likely to be
limited, especially if Congress passes the legislation currently being
considered.
The Department of Social Services (DOS) would be significantly impacted by
this proposal.
The Division of Medical Services (DMS) assumes that it would be fiscally
impacted by the 24 month limitation on the receipt of AFDC. It was assumed
that when the AFDC case was closed, the adult would become ineligible for
Medicaid coverage as well. The child would still be eligible for coverage
under the Medicaid for Children program. Based on DFS's estimates of the
number of cases affected, DMS assumes that 45.4% of the current AFDC caseload
would become ineligible for Medicaid, with 50% being closed within one month;
40% within three months; and 10% within five months. FY98 and FY99 savings
represent a ten month average to take into account that some cases could
regain eligibility and/or caseload fluctuations. The average monthly savings
per eligible was assumed to be $152.90. A 2.4% inflationary factor was
applied per year. Total Medicaid savings were estimated at $25,179,266 in
FY97; $53,716,040 in FY98; and $55,006,020 in FY99. The split would be
60.04% FFP and 39.96% GR.
DMS also did not estimate a savings related to the loss of eligibility for
individuals convicted or who had pleaded guilty to a drug violation and who
did not complete a drug rehabilitation program. Oversight assumes, based on
a similar proposal, that the Medicaid program could lose $1.6 billion in
federal Title XIX funds annually. DMS could not identify language which
would permit a state to deny eligibility based on drug convictions. In
essence, DOS could find itself in a position of being unable to enforce state
law and continue to accept federal funds under Title XIX, or enforce state
law and find itself out of federal compliance. Thus, risking the loss of
approximately $1.6 billion in federal Title XIX funds.
The Division of Data Processing (DDP) indicated that additional disk
storage(DASD) and major system development would be required to identify,
track and report on the different groups affected by this proposal. DDP
assumes that it would need eight Computer Information Specialist II's for
detail design and programming including the initial process and on-going
maintenance; one Systems Analyst III to perform the overall design,
communicate with users, review work, supervise computer information
specialists; and coordinate all aspects of the systems involved including
development and on-going maintenance; and one Computer Information Specialist
IV to plan, assign and coordinate systems analysis and programming activities
for implementation of major and minor changes to the Income Maintenance,
FUTURES and Child Care Systems. Total costs were estimated at $361,639 in
FY97; $409,791 in FY98; and $420,755 in FY99. Oversight assumes that since
an implementation date of January 1, 1997, was assumed by DOS that the FTE
requested by DDP would only be needed for six months in FY97. Furthermore,
it was assumed that 10 FTE would not be needed once the development and
implementation phases were complete. As a result, Oversight has calculated
on- going personal services and expense and equipment costs for three
Computer Information Specialist II's for maintenance purposes.
The Division of Legal Services (DLS) would be responsible for handling any
appeals. DFS estimated that there would 34,307 cases closed as a result of
the 24 month limitation on the receipt of AFDC. Applying a 10% appeal rate
and assuming that each Hearing Officer could handle 500 cases per year, DLS
would need an additional 6.5 FTE. DLS assumed that 3 Clerk Typist II's would
be needed as well. Oversight assumes a 3:1 ratio, thus, decreasing the
number of Clerk Typist II's needed to 2 FTE. Another 5,405 cases would be
expected from prohibiting an incremental increase in AFDC grants as a result
of another birth. For this component, DLS would need one Hearing Officer.
The denial of benefits to persons convicted of a drug violation could
conceivably impact DLS if it were assumed that hearings could result from the
268 potential cases estimated by DFS. Using an average of 500 cases per
hearing officer, 268 additional hearings would require .5 hearing officer.
DLS indicates that it is unclear as to whether or not hearing rights would be
attached to these denials/terminations. Therefore, DLS did not request
additional staff for this component. The Learnfare component is expected to
result in approximately 33 additional hearings. Oversight assumes these
hearings would be absorbed with existing resources. DLS indicates an unknown
fiscal impact related to the People Attaining Self-Sufficiency Act (PASA).
It is conceivable that persons who are required to participate in community
services, but claim an exemption could request a hearing. The number of
hearing requests cannot be determined.
The Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) would be impacted by the
provision which would limit the receipt of AFDC benefits to 24 months and the
provision which would allow DCSE to petition to the court to suspend or
revoke a professional's license when the person owes child support arrearages
in excess of $5,000. When the AFDC cases are terminated, they would be
converted to a Non-AFDC classification and terminated with DCSE.
Approximately 30.73% of AFDC collections are deposited into the Child Support
Enforcement Fund. Once DCSE operating expenses are subtracted the remainder
would be transferred to GR. The total amount of collections would not
change, but the amount of AFDC collections would decrease, and in turn,
decrease the amount reimbursed to the Child Support Enforcement Fund, federal
funds, and local incentives, as well as the amount transferred to GR at the
end of the fiscal year.
DCSE assumes that allowing it to petition the court to suspend or revoke a
license when a professional owes child support arrearages in excess of $5,000
could increase collections. However, only specific boards could suspend or
revoke licenses. Any action taken would be at the discretion of the court
and the boards. Therefore, DCSE does not anticipate child support
collections to increase.
The Division of Family Services (DFS) indicated that numerous changes in this
proposal would either cost, save, create cost avoidances, and/or a
combination of any of the three.
In order to effect many of the changes required in this proposal, a minimum
of eight 1115 Demonstration Waivers would be required. Components of the
1115 Demonstration Waiver require a control group and an independent
evaluation. DFS assumes that the cost for the evaluation contractor would be
$300,000, with $100,000 being paid in each fiscal year. The federal
financial participation (FFP) would be 50%. Additionally, DFS would need 3
Program Development Specialists to make application for the federal waivers;
prepare federal and state reports, evaluations, and state plan changes;
prepare policies, procedures and forms; act as liaison among the various
entities; act as liaison with the evaluation contractor; and serve as the
project director for the major reforms. Due to the cost neutrality component
of this type of waiver, DFS assumes that since the savings exceed the
associated costs, FFP would be allowed in all three fiscal years. Oversight
assumes that one Program Development Specialist could complete the functions
outlined by DFS once the waiver process has been completed. Therefore,
Oversight assumes that two Program Development Specialist would only be
needed for six months in FY97, while personal services and expense and
equipment costs for the remaining Program Development Specialist would be
on-going.
Based upon unpublished studies on length of stay, DFS assumes that 45.4% of
the current AFDC caseload (85,686), adjusted for the 10% control group
(8,569) and 2.01% (1,552) for those incapacitated or needed in the home,
would be closed upon passage of this proposal since they would have already
exceeded the 24 month limit. This means that 34,307 cases could be closed,
with 50% closed within one month; 40% within three months; and 10% within
five months. Assuming an implementation date of January 1, 1997, and an
average monthly grant of $261, DFS could experience total savings of
$34,026,570 in FY97 and $89,543,880 in FY98 and FY99. FY98 and FY99 savings
were based on an average of ten months in order to account for caseload
fluctuations and regaining eligibility (i.e., different children, new payee,
change in circumstances, etc.). The FFP would be 60.06% and the general
revenue (GR) would be 39.94%. No reduction in staff was assumed since the
children in these cases would remain Medicaid eligible and DFS is responsible
for eligibility determinations and redeterminations. Oversight assumes that
the 24 month limitation would continue to result in a savings for DFS as more
recipients reach this limit.
DFS does not expect any fiscal impact related to FUTURES priority being given
to married AFDC families. These individuals are currently given priority.
According to Medicaid payment files, approximately 11,000 AFDC mothers
received childbirth services. For purposes of this fiscal note, DFS assumes
11,000 births while on AFDC per year. Adjusting for the control group and
the 24 month limitation on benefits, DFS assumes that 5,405 AFDC cases would
not receive an incremental increase in their AFDC grant. Since the current
payment level is dependent upon many factors, it was further assumed that the
birth rate would be similar to the percent distribution of the AFDC caseload.
Savings associated with this component would be $0 in FY97; $777,780 in FY98
and $3,238,170 in FY99. DFS assumes no savings for FY97 as a result of the
stipulation in the proposal delaying the implementation of this component for
10 months (i.e., until November 1997). The match would be 60.06% federal and
39.94% GR.
DFS has indicated an unknown fiscal impact associated with the higher earned
income disregards. According to a recent AFDC characteristics study,
approximately 8% of the AFDC population has earned income. DFS estimates
that, on the average, 333 of the 5,405 families could qualify for the higher
earned income disregard. However, give the multiple variables affecting
this, DFS cannot estimate the cost due to the application of the formula
within the proposal. If the application of the formula allowed all 333
households to realize grant increases when they parented a child, there would
be no cost savings for this group.
DFS assumes that it could not estimate the number of persons who had been
convicted or pleaded guilty to a drug violation and who had not completed a
drug rehabilitation and parenting program. Based on a similar proposal from
last session, Oversight assumes potential savings of $225,120 annually if
these persons fail to complete a drug rehabilitation program. According to
information provided by DFS, there was finger print information on 500,000
individuals in 1993. Adjusting this amount by the percentage with
possibility of arrest and duplicate arrests, 48,057 would be cash public
assistance recipients, with 496 (i.e., based on Missouri State Highway Patrol
Criminal Records Division data) having a drug arrest warrant issued.
Assuming 60% or 298 would have been convicted or pled guilty, and adjusting
for the 10% control group, 268 public assistance recipients could lose annual
cash benefits of $840. An implementation date of January 1, 1997, and a
60.06% FFP and 39.94% GR split was assumed.
DFS also assumed that the drug violation provision could result in costs
because creating a new eligibility condition (i.e., attending a drug
rehabilitation program) would require DFS to pay the costs of making clients
comply with the new requirement; systems would need to be developed to
determine which clients had drug convictions and to ensure attendance and
completion of the classes; a federal waiver would be necessary, requiring a
formal evaluation; and new eligibility requirements would require additional
caseworker staff for application processing. Based on information provided
by DFS to a similar proposal, Oversight assumes the average cost per program
could range from $552 to $3,368, including the cost of the drug
rehabilitation, child care, transportation, books and other miscellaneous.
Since the proposal would require the completion of a drug rehabilitation
program in order to continue receiving public assistance benefits, the costs
for the estimated 268 recipients would range from $0 to a low of $147,936 to
a high of $902,624. An implementation date of January 1, 1997, and a 60.06%
FFP and 39.94% GR split was assumed. Personal services and expense and
equipment costs related to this provision would be $227,030 in FY97; $360,549
in FY98; and $369,781 in FY99. The program, personal services and expense
and equipment costs would be contingent upon the 268 persons completing the
necessary programs in order to maintain eligibility.
Upon passage of this proposal, "pregnant or parenting teenagers" not
attending 75% of scheduled school days would have their AFDC benefits
reduced. DFS, Income Maintenance (IM) records indicate that there are 32,636
teens receiving AFDC. Based on data from the KIDS COUNT resource book, it
was assumed that 15% of the AFDC teen population would be pregnant or
parenting teens, with 25% already attending school and receiving child care
services. Assuming a 10% control group in accordance with the waiver
requirement and that 10% would not attend school and lose their benefits as a
result of the 24 month limitation, the potential caseload which could be
affected would be 2,974, with 75% currently enrolled in QUEST and meeting
attendance requirements. This means that 2,231 teen parents would eligible
for Transportation (TRE) and Work/School Expense (WRE) reimbursement at an
monthly cost of $36.04 per participant for annual costs of $964,902. In
addition, these participants would be eligible for child care. Assuming one
child per household at a monthly cost of $212 per child annual costs would be
$5,675,664.
Twenty-five (744) percent of the 2,974 teen parents would be subject to a
reduction in their AFDC benefits for not attending school as required. It
was assumed that no more than two months of benefits would be reduced. Total
savings related to the sanction would be $74,400. An implementation date of
January 1, 1997, was assumed. The FFP and GR split would be 60.06% - 39.94%.
DFS assumes that no additional costs would be incurred related to the People
Attaining Self-Sufficiency Act (PASA). The monies currently received by DFS
for PASA would be turned over to the community welfare commissions and
current DFS staff would provide support for the commissions. Federal waivers
would be required to transfer all available monies, block grants and other
public assistance program monies to the Self Sufficiency Development Fund
(SSDF). It was further assumed that compensation for commission members
would come from the SSDF. DFS assumes that allowing the commissions to
control the PASA could result in increased costs as numerous benefit payment
systems and scope of benefit packages would be required instead of one
state-wide system. The costs would be unknown. Higher administrative costs
could result in a reduction in benefits.
DFS assumes that the community service participation component could require
all AFDC recipients, that do not meet an exemption, to participate in
community service projects. Currently, community work experience is
available on a statewide basis through FUTURES with participants being
reimbursed for transportation, work related expenses, and child care on an as
needed basis. Caseload limitations under JOBS restricts the number of
individuals currently served. If all AFDC recipients were to be required to
participate the costs for these support services would increase, ranging from
$1,500 to $2,500 per participant per year. The cost would be dependent upon
the number of communities implementing the "community welfare commission".
For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight has shown unknown costs for these
support services.
DFS would be required to provide cash benefits in lieu of Food Stamps to
public assistance recipients. Currently, 31% (71,857) of households
receiving Food Stamps are public assistance households. During FY95,
$1,216,134 was paid to vendors to cash Food Stamps in high risk ZIP Codes.
Based on past experience, a 2.2% increase in costs was assumed annually.
Postage costs for the same time period was estimated at $1,539,349. Assuming
that both postage and payments to ATP cashing vendors would be saved by the
Food Stamp cash out, DFS estimated savings at $475,331 in FY97; $959,325
FY98; and $968,179 in FY99. An implementation date of January 1, 1997, and a
50% FFP and 50% GR split was assumed. A federal waiver would be required.
It should be noted that Missouri is currently moving towards an Electronic
Benefits Transfer (EBT) system for payment of cash and Food Stamp benefits to
recipients. EBT provides access to cash benefits through automated teller
machines (ATMs) or retail point-of-service (POS) terminals. Food Stamps
would only be accessed through POS terminals. A cash-out of Food Stamp
benefits could affect the projected cost of EBT. The current EBT analysis is
based on the assumption that Food Stamp benefits would only be accessed
through POS terminals as opposed to a cash transaction. The rate charged for
ATM transactions is higher than the rate for POS transactions.
AFDC cases, closed as a result of the 24 month limitation, would be allowed
to qualify for 12 months of child care after closing. DFS assumes that the
12 months would begin immediately upon closing and run for 12 consecutive
months. It was further assumed that 67% of the closings would require child
care for an average of ten months for 1.2 children per household at a cost of
$201.45 per child. Of the remaining AFDC caseload, DFS assumes that 7,707
would reach the 24 month limit per year, and as a result, qualify for the 12
months of child care. Total child care costs would be $13,054,202 in FY97;
$57,492,299 in FY98; and $12,483,454 in FY99. Since child care is a capped
entitlement, DFS assumes that FFP could not be received and costs for child
care would be 100% GR.
DFS is currently implementing policies, matches and procedures to ensure that
incarcerated persons do not receive public assistance benefits. No
additional fiscal impact would be expected.
In FY95, approximately $7 million was collected on 51,000 claims with the
average amount collected ranging from $70 to $130 depending upon the type of
claim. It was assumed that 30% to 50% of these cases would include "provable
fraud" with the average monthly fraud claim being $40. Based on the language
of the proposal, an incentive of fraud reward could be approximately $80.
Thus an estimated GR appropriation of $2 million (i.e., $80 x 25,000
potential fraud cases) was assumed. Oversight ranged the costs from
$1,224,000 to $2,040,000 based on DFS's projected percentage of fraud cases.
An implementation date of January 1, 1997, was assumed.
The direct job placement component is not expected to fiscally impact DFS.
This component is currently available around the state and self-sufficiency
teams have been organized on a county level to serve local employers. "Good
cause" would have to be defined for sanctioning purposes.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE
Savings-Department of Social Services
Division of Medical Services (DMS)
Twenty-four Month Limitation on
Receipt of Medicaid $10,061,635 $21,464,930 $21,980,406
Savings-Division of Family Services (DFS)
Twenty-four Month Limitation on
Receipt of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children Benefits $13,590,212 $35,763,826 $35,763,826
No Aid to Families with Dependent
Children Increase Due to Birth of
a Child $0 $310,645 $1,293,325
Drug Violation - Loss of Benefits $0 $0 $0
to to to
$44,956 $89,913 $89,913
Reduction in Benefits Due to
Not Attending School $14,858 $29,715 $29,715
Costs-Department of Social Services
Division of Data Processing (DDP)
Personal Service (6.5 FTE) ($140,060) ($82,037) ($84,088)
Fringe Benefits ($43,054) ($25,218) ($25,849)
Expense and Equipment ($30,654) ($32,394) ($33,366)
Total Costs-DDP ($213,769) ($139,650) ($143,303)
Costs-Division of Legal Services (DLS)
Personal Service (5.4 FTE) ($78,680) ($161,294) ($165,326)
Fringe Benefits ($24,186) ($49,582) ($50,821)
Expense and Equipment ($47,990) ($50,364) ($51,875)
Total Costs-DLS ($150,856) ($261,239) ($268,022)
Costs-Division of Family Services (DFS)
Program Development Specialists
Personal Service (1 FTE, .5 FTE) ($26,492) ($14,814) ($15,184)
Fringe Benefits ($8,144) ($4,554) ($4,668)
Expense and Equipment ($5,097) ($1,790) ($1,844)
Total Costs-DFS ($39,732) ($21,158) ($21,695)
Independent Contractor ($50,000) ($50,000) ($50,000)
Earned Income Disregard (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Drug Rehabilitation Classes $0 $0 $0
to to to
($29,543) ($59,086) ($59,086)
or or or
($180,254) ($360,508) ($360,508)
Division of Family Services (DFS)
Caseworkers/Supervisors/Clerical
for Drug Violations $0 $0 $0
to to to
Personal Service (4.85 FTE) ($47,178) ($96,716) ($99,133)
Fringe Benefits ($14,503) ($29,731) ($30,474)
Expense and Equipment ($28,995) ($17,557) ($18,083)
Total Costs-DFS ($90,676) ($144,033) ($147,691)
Transportation/Work Related Expense ($192,691) ($385,382) ($385,382)
Child Care for Teens ($1,133,430) ($2,266,860) ($2,266,860)
Community Service Participation (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Child Care - 12 Months After Closed ($13,054,202) ($57,492,299) ($12,483,454)
Fraud Incentive/Reward Fund ($612,000) ($1,020,000) ($1,020,000)
to to to
($1,224,000) ($2,040,000) ($2,040,000)
Loss-Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE)
Amount Transferred to GR after Child
Support Operating Expenses are Paid ($1,417,580) ($3,730,476) ($3,730,477)
Loss-Department of Mental Health (DMH)
Reimbursement from the Department of
Social Services for Serving Medicaid
Recipients ($4,349,003) ($1,495,531) ($1,540,397)
PARTIAL ESTIMATED NET EFFECT $2,453,442 ($9,293,479) $37,157,682
ON GENERAL REVENUE FUND to to to
$1,766,179 ($10,426,685) $36,020,818
or or or
$1,615,468 ($10,728,107) $35,719,396
FEDERAL
Savings-Department of Social Services (DOS)
Division of Medical Services (DMS)
Twenty-four Month Limitation on
Receipt of Medicaid $15,117,631 $32,251,110 $33,025,614
Savings-Division of Family Services (DFS)
Twenty-four Month Limitation on
Receipt of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children Benefits $20,436,358 $53,780,054 $53,780,054
No Aid to Families with Dependent
Children Increase Due to Birth of
a Child $0 $467,135 $1,944,845
Drug Violation - Loss of Benefits $0 $0 $0
to to to
$67,604 $135,207 $135,207
Reduction in Benefits for Not
Attending School $22,342 $44,685 $44,685
Costs-Department of Social Services
Division of Legal Services (DLS)
Personal Service (6.6 FTE) ($96,164) ($197,137) ($202,066)
Fringe Benefits ($29,561) ($60,600) ($62,115)
Expense and Equipment ($58,655) ($61,555) ($63,402)
Total Costs-DLS ($184,380) ($319,293) ($327,583)
Costs-Division of Family Services (DFS)
Program Development Specialist
Personal Service (1 FTE, .5 FTE) ($26,492) ($14,814) ($15,184)
Fringe Benefits ($8,144) ($4,554) ($4,668)
Expense and Equipment ($5,097) ($1,790) ($1,844)
Total Costs-DFS ($39,732) ($21,158) ($21,695)
Independent Contractor ($50,000) ($50,000) ($50,000)
Earned Income Disregard (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Drug Rehabilitation Classes $0 $0 $0
to to to
($44,425) ($88,850) ($88,850)
or or or
($271,058) ($542,116) ($542,116)
Division of Family Services (DFS)
Caseworkers/Supervisors/Clerical
for Drug Violations $0 $0 $0
to to to
Personal Service (7.30 FTE) ($70,945) ($145,437) ($149,073)
Fringe Benefits ($21,808) ($44,707) ($45,825)
Expense and Equipment ($43,601) ($26,401) ($27,193)
Total Costs-DFS ($136,354) ($216,546) ($222,090)
Transportation/Work Related Expenses ($289,760) ($579,520) ($579,520)
Child Care for Teens ($1,704,402) ($3,408,804) ($3,408,804)
Community Service Participation (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Loss-Department of Social Services
Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE)
Amount of Child Support Collections
Reimbursed to Federal Funds ($1,757,561) ($4,625,160) ($4,625,160)
PARTIAL ESTIMATED NET EFFECT $31,550,496 $77,539,049 $79,782,436
ON FEDERAL FUNDS to to to
$31,437,321 $77,368,860 $79,606,703
or or or
$31,210,688 $76,915,594 $79,153,437
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FUND
Loss-Department of Social Services
Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE)
Amount Reimburse from Collections ($1,417,581) ($3,730,477) ($3,730,477)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
FUND ($1,417,581) ($3,730,477) ($3,730,477)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
LOCAL
SELF-SUFFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT FUND
Income-Community Welfare Commissions
Monies Transferred from the
Department of Social Services Unknown Unknown Unknown
Costs-Community Welfare Commissions
Implementation of People Attaining
Self-Sufficiency Programs (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
SELF SUFFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT
FUND Unknown Unknown Unknown
LOCAL
Cost
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
Subcontractors Providing Workforce
Program Assistance (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Loss-Counties
Reduction in Incentive Payments
from Child Support Collections ($276,781) ($728,372) ($728,372)
PARTIAL ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT ($276,781) ($728,372) ($728,372)
DESCRIPTION
The proposal would reform the current welfare system by changing eligibility
requirements for public assistance. The primary components of this welfare
reform proposal would be as follows.
- The receipt of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits, on
behalf of a dependent child(ren), would be limited to twenty-four months
unless an exception has been met.
- The twenty-four month limit would not be applicable to parents or other
needy eligible relatives caring for a dependent child or any child who meets
one of the conditions in the proposal.
-The receipt of AFDC benefits for a needy child with an unemployed parent
would be limited to twenty-four months with exceptions as outlined in the
proposal.
- Married parents with dependent children receiving AFDC would be given first
priority to participate in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training
Program, with volunteers second.
- The Department of Social Services (DOS) would not increase the family's
benefits for another birth or during a temporary period of ineligibility,
with penalty provisions. Additional benefits could be received in the case
of a general increase in the amount of AFDC benefits.
- In cases where another child is born to an AFDC family or during a period
of temporary ineligibility, DOS would eliminate the increase in benefits;
compute the amount of financial assistance available; and increase the
monthly earned income disregard.
- Any applicant or recipient of public assistance benefits would be required
to notify the Division of Family Services of any conviction or guilty plea to
a drug violation or risk the suspension of cash benefits.
- It would be an additional condition of eligibility for any person convicted
or who has pleaded guilty to a drug charge to enroll in and complete a drug
rehabilitation program approved by the Department of Mental Health (DMH).
- DOS would provide day care vouchers for one year for the age appropriate
children of any recipient whose benefits have been terminated solely because
of the twenty-four month limit.
- Failure on the part of the pregnant or parenting teenager to attend school
at least 75% of the time could result in a $50 reduction in benefits for that
month.
- The pregnant or parenting teenager or legal guardian would be required to
provide information to verify enrollment or good cause, with failure to do so
resulting in benefits being reduced $50 for any month that school attendance
is not verified.
- DOS would review school attendance information on a monthly basis for all
pregnant or parenting teenagers and use attendance information provided by
the school district for verification purposes.
- School attendance requirements would be waived for good cause as outlined
by the circumstances indicated in the proposal.
- Written notice by DOS would be required if good cause was not shown, with
the teenager being able to request a hearing.
- After a hearing officer has held a hearing for the pregnant or parenting
teen and good cause has not been found, DOS would reduce the cash benefit and
any other cash benefits in the next possible payment month.
- Any person owed child support or the Division of Child Support Enforcement
(DCSE) could petition the court to revoke or suspend a person's professional
license or registration, if the person owes child support payments in excess
of $5,000.
- DOS would be required to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to
transfer the funding and administration of appropriate department programs to
the community welfare commissions.
- A Public Assistance Reorganization Task Force would be established within
DOS for the purpose of developing and implementing administrative program
changes; suggest rule changes; and make recommendations concerning federal
legislative changes that would affect DOS.
- Community welfare commissions would be created in each county, group of
counties or neighborhoods to establish policy for the type, scope and the
extent of supportive services to be provided.
- The Self Sufficiency Development Fund would be established and funded with
all FUTURES child care and other supportive services monies, contributions,
and other federal grants and public assistance funds.
- DFS county offices would be required to conduct assessments on AFDC
applicants and recipients, after which the client and case manager would
design a self-sufficiency plan.
- Community welfare commissions could require public assistance recipients to
participate in community service projects as a condition of eligibility for
support services, with exemptions.
- DOS would be required to provide staff, both crisis and case managers, from
current staff to the community welfare commissions.
- The responsibilities of the community welfare commissions, in conjunction
with the director of the county DFS office, would be outlined in the
proposal.
- All records pertaining to recipients would be confidential and not
admissible as evidence.
- Use of any recipient's name for commercial or political purposes would be a
class B misdemeanor.
- DOS would be required to request the utilization of federal savings
resulting from implementation of the twenty-four month limit for child care
vouchers.
- Cash benefits would be provided in lieu of food stamps, pending waiver
approval.
- No person would be eligible for or receive public assistance benefits while
incarcerated in any correctional institution of this state.
- The Department of Corrections (DOC) would be required to notify DOS, at
least once a month, of persons admitted to its custody, at which time DOS
would cease payment of public assistance benefits.
- DOS would be required to maintain a record of persons no longer receiving
benefits because of incarceration in a correctional facility.
- The director of each DFS county office would be required to contact the
sheriff and administrators of city jails each month, requesting a list of
persons incarcerated.
- The DFS county director would be required to forward the information to
DOS, with DOS immediately ceasing payments to any person incarcerated in a
county or city jail.
- DOS would be required to maintain a record of persons no longer receiving
benefits because of incarceration in a county or city jail.
- Reinstatement of benefits could occur after release with satisfactory proof
being provided.
- DOS would be required to develop and implement a program of fraud
investigation incentives for assistance to DFS offices or local law
enforcement agencies who successfully discover and prove a case of fraud.
- The Welfare Fraud Reward Fund would be created in the state treasury for
the purpose of funding payments under the fraud program, with the monies
being deposited by the director of DOS in an amount equal to two times the
monthly benefit payments which would have been paid to the recipient.
- DOS would be required to establish a cost center within its' budget to
handle the funds, with additional spending authority, not to exceed two times
the amount of the monthly benefit payment which would have been paid to the
recipient, being granted to the DFS county office which successfully
discovers fraud.
- The Commissioner of Administration (OA) would be required to issue warrants
to the state treasury to transfer available funds, not to exceed two times
the amount of the monthly benefit payment which would have been paid to the
recipient, to a local city or county law enforcement office upon
certification by DOS of successfully developing and proving a fraud case.
- To the extent allowable under federal law, county offices would be required
to contact employers and businesses in the county in an attempt to operate a
direct job placement program for public assistance applicants and recipients.
- DOS would be required to promulgate rules and regulations to provide for
sanctions against persons who are eligible to participate in a direct job
placement program, but refuse to do so without good cause.
- DOS would define "good cause" as it relates to the direct job placement
program and determine exceptions.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
Department of Social Services
Department of Mental Health
State Treasurer
Department of Corrections
Office of Administration
Department of Economic Development
Secretary of State
Missouri Sheriff's's Association
Jefferson City Police Department