Fiscal Note - SB 0202 - Designates How MO Will Respond to The Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunity Act of 1996-Welfare Reform
L.R. NO. 0393-15
BILL NO. HCS for SS #2 for SCS for SBs 202, 23, & 183
SUBJECT: Welfare Reform
TYPE: #Revised
DATE: May 8, 1997
#Revised by vote of the Oversight Subcommittee on May 8, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
General Revenue ($752,384 to ($2,639,326 to ($3,112,562 to
Unknown) Unknown) Unknown)
General Revenue
Reimbursement $0 $0 $0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All ($752,384 to ($2,639,326 to ($3,112,562 to
State Funds Unknown) Unknown) Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Federal (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
The Office of State Courts Administrator and Missouri Western State College
do not expect this proposal to fiscally impact their agencies.
The University of Missouri, Linn State Technical College, and Southwest
Missouri State University did not respond to our fiscal impact request.
However, based on their responses to a similar proposal, Oversight assumes
this proposal would not fiscally impact these schools.
St. Louis Community College did not respond to our fiscal impact request.
However, based on their response to a similar proposal, Oversight assumes
this proposal would have an unknown fiscal impact on St. Louis Community
College.
Metropolitan Community College did not respond to our fiscal impact request.
Oversight assumes this proposal would result in unknown costs to colleges and
universities choosing to participate in the pilot programs.
The Secretary of State (SOS) states that this proposal provides various state
agencies with the authority to promulgate administrative rules. Because the
actual number of rules which will be promulgated by these agencies is
unknown, the actual number of additional pages of the Missouri Register and
the Code of State Regulations that SOS would be required to publish is
unknown. Therefore, SOS cannot estimate publication costs incurred as a
result of this proposal. Oversight assumes SOS could increase fees to cover
additional costs, per Section 536.033 RSMo, and therefore, will not include
any publication costs in the fiscal impact for the proposal.
The State Treasurer's Office (STO) did not respond to our fiscal impact
request. Oversight assumes this proposal would not fiscally impact STO.
The Office of Prosecution Services states that since this proposal creates
the new crime of electronic benefit transfer fraud, it may impact the
caseloads of prosecutors. However, the impact is unknown.
The City of St. Louis assumes this proposal would have a fiscal impact on the
city through the creation of the offense of EBT fraud. The City of St.
Louis, through the Office of the Circuit Attorney, would experience a cost of
approximately $700 per offense, and through the Police Department, a cost of
approximately $500 per offense. The total fiscal impact is dependent upon
the number of offenses, which is unknown.
The Office of State Public Defender (SPD) assumes this proposal would result
in 150 additional class D felony cases per year and would require .75 FTE to
represent indigent persons accused of electronic benefit transfer fraud.
Total costs associated with the FTE would be $35,665 in FY98, $37,536 in
FY99, and $38,500 in FY00.
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DES) states that
because of education requirements, this legislation may require additional
funding for adult basic education and/or public schools. In addition, the
provision related to Parents As Teachers may require additional funds for
this program. These costs cannot be estimated. Therefore, the fiscal impact
for these portions of the proposal on DES programs and public schools is
unknown. DES further states that the elimination of the State Council on
Vocational Education should have no state fiscal impact since this council is
federally funded. The FY98 budget eliminates funding for this council.
The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBH) did not respond to our
fiscal impact request. However, in a similar proposal CBH assumed an unknown
fiscal impact on their agency and on colleges and universities that choose to
participate as Community Organizations. CBH further stated that this
proposal would have an unknown impact on community colleges that develop
pilot projects for welfare recipients. It is currently unclear as to which
agencies would finance these projects; however, if the community colleges
were required to finance them, costs could be significant.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume this proposal would
have a minimal administrative impact on DOR that could be handled by existing
staff/resources.
#The Department of Social Services (DOS) states that Missouri will receive
the 1994 level of federal funding, or $217,000,000, under the TANF block
grant. In addition, this proposal requires the state to appropriate no less
than 100% of its FY94 nonfederal expenditures for maintenance of effort. DOS
estimates maintenance of effort funds at $146,600,000, making a total of
$363,600,000 available to DOS. DOS assumes there are several provisions in
this proposal that may be funded with TANF block grant and maintenance of
effort monies, thus reallocating existing funds for the purpose of
establishing specific provisions and programs as described. These programs
and provisions include the following:
#Earned Income Disregards
DOS states there is a provision for increasing earned income disregards,
which would allow some people to remain eligible longer than they would
have been under past law. In FY96 there were 18,750 case closings
because of excess income. If DOS used the food stamp disregard of 20%
after the 30 and one-third disregard had expired, DOS assumes it would
extend coverage for 390 cases a month at $50 per case for up to 12
months. DOS estimates this would result in possible usage of $1,521,000
annually in available funds. It should be noted that these amount could
be adjusted by DOS.
#Pregnant Women
DOS states that this proposal does not mandate specific benefit amounts
but would allow for cash benefits to pregnant women who meet the
AFDC eligibility guidelines. DOS estimates that 2,441 women would
meet the AFDC income criteria each month, and an additional 1,993
women would qualify assuming even distribution of income from 0% to
185% of poverty. Assuming a cash grant of $134 per person for 4,434
recipients for 12 months, DOS estimates total annual usage of $7,129,872
in available funds. It should be noted that these amounts could be
adjusted by DOS.
#Child Support Assurance Benefits
DOS states that the language of this proposal does not mandate a
specific payment level for child support. For fiscal note purposes, DOS
estimated fund usage based on two different scenarios. Under the first,
DOS assumed a monthly payment of $150 for the first child and $50 for
the second child. In addition, DOS ranged fund usage based on a 70% to
100% participation rate. Fund usage under these assumptions would be
$10,819,649 to $15,456,642 in FY98 (assuming implementation would begin
12/1/97), $23,013,936 to $32,877,052 in FY99, and $22,929,845 to
$32,756,922 in FY00. Under the second scenario, DOS assumes a monthly
payment of $100 for the first child and $50 for the second child.
Under this scenario, fund usage would range from $7,251,163 to
$10,358,805 in FY98, $14,765,213 to $21,093,162 in FY99, and $12,248,073
to $17,497,247 in FY00. It should be noted that these amounts could be
adjusted by DOS.
In addition to the programs described above that DOS assumes will fall under
TANF block grant and state maintenance of effort monies, DOS states that
there are three other provisions in this proposal which may fiscally impact
DOS. DOS assumes the provision allowing for EBT reimbursement for loss
involving force, duress, or coercion would have a negative fiscal impact, as
they estimate that 9% of the 75,000 cash cases will file a claim at an
average of $300 per claim. DOS estimates a fiscal impact of $600,000 in
FY98, and $2,000,000 annually afterwards. The FY98 cost was reduced by
two-thirds to account for the phase-in of EBT statewide. DOS assumes these
monies would be funded by general revenue.
DOS also assumes the provision allowing the award of reasonable fees and
expenses for the prevailing party in any action challenging any rule in this
act could create costs. The Division of Legal Services estimates these costs
as unknown, but less than $100,000. Oversight assumes that state agencies
would write procedural and emergency rules in conformity with provisions of
the proposal so that court awards to plaintiffs for reasonable expenses in
bringing suits against rules could be absorbed within current budgets.
Finally, DOS states there is a provision for cash grants to aliens who lose
SSI solely due to citizenship status. This would create a new state funded
program paid entirely from general revenue. The language of this proposal
allows DOS to implement this program "subject to appropriation". DOS assumes
if they did implement this program, it would affect 1,462 persons at an
annual cost of $2,385,984 to $8,491,296.
The Department of Mental Health (DMH) assumes there are several provisions in
this legislation that would result in unknown costs to their agency. One
provision requires the Department of Social Services (DOS) to collect and
record data regarding demographics of persons applying for public assistance.
It also allows DOS to make this data available at actual cost of reproduction
to other state agencies. DMH notes they currently receive a vast amount of
information from DOS, and would suffer a negative fiscal impact if they have
to pay for this information. Another provision allows DOS to test applicants
and recipients of public assistance and sanction those who test positive.
DMH states the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (ADA) could experience a
significant increase in the numbers of people seeking help in recovering from
drug addiction and the related costs due to these testing and sanction
provisions. In addition, this proposal could affect ADA clients currently
receiving food stamps. This could result in minimal costs to DMH if they
elect to offset the loss of food stamps.
DMH further notes that this proposal appears to leave Medicaid eligibility
intact and raises the resource limit for benefits from $1,000 to $5,000.
This could allow more of DMH's clients to be eligible for cash benefits.
While DMH does not receive any of the cash benefits for clients, DMH may
potentially be required to provide less assistance if more cash is available
to clients.
DMH states that this proposal creates the Work First Program, which replaces
the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance Program. DMH received over $2,000,000 of
Title IV-A in FY96. This money was transferred from the Department of Social
Services into the General Revenue Reimbursement Fund (GRRF) and was funded
through a 50/50 general revenue/federal match. DMH assumes this proposal
does not allow for further emergency assistance and will result in a
$2,000,000 loss of income to the GRRF. DMH also assumes they will continue
to provide emergency assistance services to families and the funding will
come from general revenue, resulting in a negative fiscal impact of
$2,000,000 annually.
Oversight assumes this proposal replaces the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance
Program with the Work First Program. Since this proposal appears to
eliminate the emergency assistance program, Oversight assumes DOS will no
longer provide $2,000,000 to the GRRF for these services. Because these
monies were funded through a 50/50 match, this would result in a $1,000,000
savings to general revenue. Federal funds would not be affected, as there
would be a loss of the 50% matching funds and a related savings from no
longer spending these monies.
Officials from the Department of Health (DOH) anticipate additional costs as
families currently receiving government subsidies enter the work force,
creating an increase in the number of children requiring child care services.
Additional staff will be needed to inspect, license, and monitor the child
care facilities for compliance with state statutes and licensing rules. DOH
estimates the costs associated with this legislation would be $653,107,
$1,554,639, and $2,358,997 in FY98, FY99, and FY00, respectively.
According to DOH, the Division of Family Services has confirmed that
approximately 78,990 families in Missouri are receiving government subsidy in
FY97. Approximately 25% or 19,748 of those families will be required to
enter the work force in FY97. An increasing percentage will be required to
enter the workforce each successive year. There are approximately 1.5
children per household. This will create the need for child care for
approximately 29,622 additional children in FY97. However, it is estimated
that approximately 21,622 of these children will already be receiving child
care services in FY97. Therefore, it is estimated that 8,000 additional
children will need child care services in FY97. This 8,000, along with a 5%
increase each year, is used as the basis for calculating need in FY98, FY99
and FY2000, as additional families are required to enter the workforce. DFS
estimates that this legislation will create the need for child care services
for 8,400 additional children in FY98, 8,820 in FY99, and 9,261 in FY2000.
Based on the current distribution of children in child care facilities with
above and below 50 children in care, and family child care homes providing
care for ten children, it is estimated that in FY98, there will be 25% or
2,100 additional children in facilities with less than 50 children, 7% or 588
in facilities with more than 50 children, and 68% or 5,712 in care in family
child care homes. In FY99, it is estimated that 25% or 2,205 additional
children will be in care in facilities with less than 50 children, 7% or 617
will be in facilities with more than 50 children, and 68% or 5,998 will be in
care in family child care homes. In FY2000, it is estimated that 25% or
2,315 will be in facilities with less than 50, 7% or 648 will be in
facilities with more than 50, and 68% or 6,298 will be in family child care
homes.
Based on an average size of 30 children in child care facilities with less
than 50 children; 70 in facilities with more than 50 children; and ten in
family child care homes, this will require the addition of the following
licensed child care facilities in FY98, FY99, and FY2000:
FY98 FY99 FY2000
Child care centers with less than 50 children 70 73 77
New child care centers with more than 50 children 8 9 9
Family child care homes with ten children 571 600 630
Total new child care facilities 649 682 716
Based on a caseload size of 50 facilities per Child Care Licensing
Representative, this will require the addition of 13 new Child Care Licensing
Representatives and four Clerk Typist II's in FY98. In FY99 14 new Child
Care Licensing Representatives and 4 Clerk Typist II's will be needed. In
FY2000 14 new Child Care Licensing Representatives and 4 Clerk Typist II's
will be needed. Even though there will be a 5% increase in the number of
children requiring care in FY99, it will have no significant impact on the
total number of new child care facilities or the need for additional staff.
Based on conversations with DFS on current projections, Oversight assumes
there will be an additional 13,542, 6,948, and 6,948 children needing day
care service in FY98, FY99, and FY00, respectively. In FY97, there will be
approximately 19,748 families that must go to work as a result of federal
work participation rates. Of these families, 14,203 still have to meet the
work requirements. DFS estimates that 88% of these families have children
needing day care, and that the average family has 2 children. Based on these
assumptions, it appears there are 24,997 additional children needing day care
in federal FY97. According to DFS projections, most of these children will
be added to day care during state FY97; however, some will filter over and be
added during state FY98. DFS bases their estimates on this carry-over into
FY98 and the 5% increase in the work participation rate each year.
Using the same assumptions that the DOH used in calculating the number of new
facilities needed, Oversight assumed there would be a need for 1,047
additional child care facilities in FY98, and 537 additional facilities in
FY99, and FY00. Using a caseload size of 64 facilities per child care
representative, which is the current actual ratio, Oversight assumes DOH
would need 20 additional FTE in FY98 (16 Child Care Licensing Representatives
and 4 Clerk Typist IIs) and 10 additional FTE in FY99 and FY00 (8 Child Care
Licensing Representatives and 2 Clerk Typist IIs). Costs associated with
these FTE would be $768,893, $1,319,290, and $1,791,562 for FY98, FY99, and
FY00, respectively.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Division of Employment Security (DES) state
that DES is under contract with the Department of Social Services for the
FUTURES and METP programs. The proposed legislation appears to reassign the
responsibilities of the employment and training services provided by the
FUTURES and METP programs. DES estimates this could result in the potential
loss of state and federal funding for the FUTURES program in the amount of
$2,446,581 and a potential loss of federal funding for the METP program in
the amount of $1,283,553. DES further states this is a potential loss of 96
FTE, and since the amount contributed by the state to FUTURES is not known,
the fiscal impact to revenue is unknown.
Based on conversations with officials of DOS, Oversight assumes that a
program similar to the FUTURES program will be operated as it has in the past
and that the DOL would not be losing state and federal funding for FUTURES.
DES also states this proposal reassigns the responsibility of the grievance
process for individuals affected by the Work First Program from DOS to DOL.
DES assumes they would administer this responsibility and note they do not
have experience regarding these matters. DES estimates current unemployment
hearing costs at $144 per case at an approximate two hours per case. This is
an estimated $60 per hour. DES estimates the hearings described in this
proposal would take a minimum of eight hours per hearing and decision at a
cost of $500 per hearing. The actual amount could be more or less depending
on the complexity of the case. In addition, DES states they would need to
establish regulations to govern this process, and develop computer
programming, forms, brochures, and procedures. Since DES is unable to
determine the number of described cases, the negative fiscal impact is
unknown.
DES further states that this proposal allows DOS to make "appropriate"
inquiries to DES prior to the issuance of public benefits. DES currently
provides wage information. Since the term "appropriate" is not defined, the
potential impact of these inquiries is unknown because additional programming
may be needed.
The Department of Economic Development, Division of Job Development and
Training (DJDT) assumes the fiscal impact of this proposal cannot be
estimated. Officials from the Office of Administration (OA), Division of
Budget and Planning assume the creation of the two boards described in this
legislation would have no fiscal impact. OA assumes the expenses of the
boards, including staffing, would be covered by transferring existing
appropriations for current similar activities from other departments to the
Division of Budget and Planning.
OA also estimates that the cost of contracting for evaluation of the public
assistance program and the self-sufficiency program, as described in this
proposal, would be $141,250 annually for an ongoing comprehensive evaluation
of each program. However, OA notes these costs are highly dependent on the
scope of the evaluation and research design. Costs for the contract would
include staff, computer processing time, postage, office expenses, and
contractor overhead and fringe.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
GENERAL REVENUE
Savings-Department of Social Services
Monies not transferred to General
Revenue Reimbursement Fund $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Costs - Department of Social Services
EBT reimbursement ($660,000) ($2,000,000) ($2,000,000)
Cash grants to legal aliens $0 to $0 to $0 to
($8,491,296) ($8,491,296) ($8,491,296)
Costs - State Public Defender (SPD)
Personal Service (.75 FTE) ($24,800) ($25,417) ($26,052)
Fringe Benefits ($7,075) ($7,251) ($7,433)
Expense & Equipment ($9,116) ($4,868) ($5,015)
Total Costs-SPD ($40,991) ($37,536) ($38,500)
Costs-Office of Administration
Personnel/Expense & Equipment ($282,500) ($282,500) ($282,500)
Costs-Department of Health
Personal Service (20 FTE) ($404,999) ($747,523) ($1,021,613)
Fringe Benefits ($115,546) ($213,268) ($291,466)
Expense and Equipment ($248,348) ($358,499) ($478,483)
Total Costs-DOH ($768,893) ($1,319,290) ($1,791,562)
Cost-Various state agencies
Program costs (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON ($752,384 ($2,639,326 ($3,112,562
GENERAL REVENUE to Unknown) to Unknown) to Unknown)
GENERAL REVENUE
REIMBURSEMENT FUND
Savings-Department of Mental Health
Emergency assistance $2.000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Loss of Income-Department of Mental Health
Monies not transferred from General
Revenue ($2,000,000) ($2,000,000) ($2,000,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE
REIMBURSEMENT FUND $0 $0 $0
FEDERAL
Savings-Department of Social Services
Monies not transferred to General
Revenue Reimbursement Fund $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Loss of Income-Department of Social Services
Title IV-A match ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)
Cost-Various state agencies
Program costs (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
FEDERAL FUNDS (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
Costs
Costs of local government to enforce
and prosecute EBT fraud cases (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
This proposal will affect small businesses as a large number of public
assistance recipients enter the work force.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal establishes the "Families Work Act" as the state public
assistance program through which federal and state resources are used to move
families from welfare to self-sufficiency and establishes the "Work First
Program" as the component of the Families Work Act which complies with the
federal welfare reform restrictions. The Department of Social Services is to
enroll Work First Program recipients in self-sufficiency pacts in order to
assess skills, education and work experiences, and to establish a plan for
moving recipients from welfare to work. The department is to use uniform
standards of eligibility and benefits statewide and may establish criteria
for eligibility no more restrictive than those in place on 7/17/96 for the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Benefits are to be
granted for the needs of an eligible child and eligible parents or caretakers
in households with income below the standard of need, as determined by the
department. Benefits are limited to Missouri residents and those
participating in approved work activities, unless the work requirement is
waived. Benefits for eligible individuals are limited to a maximum of 60
months, excepting minor children who are not the head of household or married
to the head of household.
Recipients must be participating in an approved work activity within 24
months of receiving benefits, or when the department determines they are work
ready, whichever occurs first. Single custodial parents of children under
age 1 are exempt from the work requirements for up to 12 months. Others
exempted from work requirements include single custodial parents of a child
under age 6 and who are unable to obtain needed child care and
transportation; those who are permanently disabled or a caretaker of a
disabled dependent; and individuals in the last trimester of pregnancy. The
department is required to ensure that minimal work participation rates and
requirements pursuant to the federal law are met, and to strive to exceed
these in order that the state may qualify for bonus and incentive funds from
the federal government.
The department is to establish sanctions covering Work First Program
benefits, excepting Medicaid benefits, for those who fail to meet the work
requirements, with good cause exceptions as determined by the department
provided. Recipients must assign and cooperate in securing child support and
establishing paternity, with good cause exceptions provided. Payments from
the earned income tax credit, and income from the Child Support Assurance
Program and in Individual Development Accounts are disregarded as assets for
purposes of determining eligibility. Individuals ineligible for benefits
include those fleeing to avoid prosecution for custody or confinement after a
felony conviction; those violating a condition of probation or parole;
unmarried minor parents unless they are enrolled in educational programs and
are living with a parent or certain other adults, and those convicted after
8/22/96 of certain felony drug offenses.
This proposal authorizes the department to make nonrecurring emergency
payments to needy families to help prevent their entry into the public
assistance system. Such assistance may include payments for child care,
housing, transportation, and work-related expenses. It also provides that
Work First Program recipients who fill vacant employment positions are
entitled to the full benefits and protection employers provide to other
workers who are similarly employed but not receiving benefits. In addition,
displacing employees by the hiring of Work First Program recipients is
prohibited, and a grievance procedure through the Department of Labor and
Industrial Relations for employees who believe they have been displaced by a
program recipient is established.
Work First Program recipients who are required to work and who fail an
employer-required drug test must regain employment within 90 days.
Recipients who are not re-employed within 90 days may be sanctioned by the
department for a 30 to 60 day time period, unless resources for drug
rehabilitation are unavailable. Recipients demonstrating that the drug test
failure was not due to the use of drugs are exempt from sanctions for a one
year period.
This proposal establishes the "Missouri Families Work Program Fund,"
comprised primarily of federal funds available through the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to fund benefits and
programs available through the Work First Program, and establishes the
"Missouri General Revenue Maintenance of Effort Fund," to provide benefits
for adults unable to meet the federal work requirements due to age,
disability, or other good cause. These funds may also be used to provide
benefits through the Child Support Assurance Program.
This proposal requires the state to appropriate funds equal to at least 100%
of the fiscal year 1994 state expenditures on the AFDC and AFDC-related
programs. These expenditures are referred to as the state "maintenance of
effort" and can qualify the state for access to federal contingency funds.
It also requires the department to continue implementing the two established
state waivers concerning public assistance and to apply the waivers'
provisions in instances when they are in conflict with federal welfare reform
law.
This proposal establishes the "Child Support Assurance Program" for custodial
parents who are employed and whose gross income is below the federal poverty
level. Benefits through this program supplement the income obtained through
employment and child support payments and may be decreased if appropriated
funds are insufficient to pay the full child support assurance benefit
amount. It also establishes the "Missouri Workforce Policy Board" to advise
the Governor and General Assembly on statewide workforce development goals.
The board is comprised of 24 members appointed by the Governor, representing
business, state agencies, education, labor, community groups and colleges,
the women's council, and the general public. In addition, 2 members of the
House and 2 members of the Senate are to be appointed by the Speaker of the
House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. The board assumes the duties
of the Missouri Training and Employment Council, which is deleted from
statute, and is responsible for developing a strategic plan for
community-based delivery of work-related services and coordination of state
resources in order to avoid duplication. The board is also required to
submit an annual report to the Governor and the General Assembly, and to work
with the Family Investment Trust Board, also created by this proposal, for
the integrated delivery of workforce development and family related services.
Funding and staffing for the board is assigned to the Office of
Administration's Division of Budget and Planning. A sunset date of December
31, 1999, is provided for the board.
The "Family Investment Trust" (FIT), also established, is to form a
public/private partnership for community-based delivery of services to
children and families. The composition of the 18 member trust is outlined,
and includes state department directors, House members, members of the
Senate, and private sector members appointed by the Governor. The trust is
authorized to establish contracts, called "charters," with local community
partnerships, to carry out their objectives. The duties and objectives of
FIT include decreasing the number of Missouri children living in poverty, and
increasing high school graduation rates and literacy rates in the state. The
FIT is to work with various state departments in reviewing the pooling of
funding in order to support programs for children, youth and families. The
FIT is to report to the Governor and the legislative oversight committee,
comprised of 5 House members and 5 members of the Senate. Funding and
staffing for the FIT is assigned to the Office of Administration's Division
of Budget and Planning.
The proposal also establishes the "Community Organization Program" as a pilot
program in 2 counties, whereby certain local organizations provide public
assistance benefits to eligible recipients. The participating community
organizations may charge the department a fee for the administrative costs of
providing these benefits. The "Community Organization Program Fund" is also
created to fund the costs of the pilot program, including the administrative
costs charged by community organizations. The proposal also requires the
department to establish a direct placement program in every county and the
city of St. Louis to identify employers and job vacancies to which public
assistance recipients may be referred. Recipients in the program who do not
attend job interviews or accept job offers will be sanctioned by the
department.
The Electronic Benefits Program (EBT) is established as a statewide program
for the purpose of providing public assistance benefits electronically.
Recipients with a bank account will receive their benefits through an
Electronic Fund Transfer, while those without a bank account will continue to
receive benefits through the EBT system. The department is to provide
protection for EBT consumers, including reimbursement for any loss of public
assistance benefits, under certain circumstances. EBT fraud is defined and
constitutes a class D felony if the value of benefits involved is $150 or
more, and a class A misdemeanor for benefits valued under $150.
This proposal contains an emergency clause and will become effective on the
later of July 1, 1997, or the date of approval by the Governor.
Parts of this proposal are federally mandated and would change existing
programs. The proposal would not require additional rental space or capital
improvements.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Social Services
Department of Labor
Department of Health
Department of Mental Health
Office of Administration
Division of Budget and Planning
Department of Revenue
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of State Courts Administrator
Secretary of State
State Public Defender
Office of Prosecution Services
Department of Economic Development
MO Western State College
NOT RESPONDING: STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE, COORDINATING BOARD
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, LINN STATE
TECHNICAL COLLEGE, AND METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.