Review-Journal LogoDonrey
Monday, January 20, 1997

Welfare hot issue for state

Lawmakers and Gov. Bob Miller face difficult questions in carrying out reform mandated by Congress.
By Jane Ann Morrison
Review-Journal

      Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio believes the top issue facing the Legislature as it opens today -- besides the budget, always lawmakers' biggest challenge -- is welfare reform.
      Nevada legislators have to make decisions on some emotional issues in their efforts to create a state welfare plan under the federal welfare reform bill passed in 1996.
      Lawmakers are expected to debate options, including:
      --Should family caps be established so that no additional welfare benefits would be paid to women who keep having children?
      --Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs and cut off from benefits if they test positive?
      --Should legal immigrants who are not citizens be banned from receiving benefits?
      Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., a co-author of the House welfare reform bill, hopes Nevada legislators answer yes to all three of those questions.
      He wants state lawmakers to set family caps, he supports drug-testing, and he believes welfare should be limited to citizens.
      But not everyone agrees with him.
      Democratic Gov. Bob Miller said in October he does not support cutting Medicaid and welfare cash benefits to legal immigrants already on the rolls. It now costs the state $776,963 for the 1,300 Nevada families with one or more legal immigrants receiving benefits.
      However, Miller's stance won't necessarily stop legislators from proposing or passing laws that would cut off such payments.
      Nevada Welfare Administrator Myla Florence is in the unenviable position of facing a series of deadlines this spring in the middle of a legislative session where lawmakers and the governor may disagree on how the final plan should be crafted.
      "I hate the implementation expectations," she said. "You can't take 61 years of rules and expect a state agency to implement changes in a three- to nine-month period."
      Florence feels the federal law is "probably well-intentioned. But we don't fully understand how children in the long term will be impacted. The challenge is to make sure we don't hurt kids in the largest social experiment ever undertaken."
      To a certain extent, Florence said, Nevada was ahead of the game because of its efforts to launch its own state reform plans in 1995.
      Miller's reform efforts two years ago included adding money to provide employment and training to 6,000 welfare mothers, twice the number trained before, and hiring more welfare workers to allow more time to focus on finding jobs for applicants.
      The caseload has dropped by 27 percent since summer 1995.
      "With a declining caseload under block grants, we fare better than under the old system," Florence said. "We've lost about 10,000 recipients since the base for the block grant was established in the federal fiscal year 1995."
      So Nevada's $44 million federal block grant provides more money for fewer recipients -- a good starting position.
      Lawmakers also have other decisions to make that could be controversial, such as:
      --Should deadbeat dads be denied food stamps?
      --What programs will the state implement to reduce out-of-wedlock births and abortion rates in order to compete for federal bonuses?
      --Within federal guidelines, what will the state enact for work requirements and lifetime limits on assistance?
      Miller is proposing a 24-month limitation on cash assistance to families in any one period, a limit that is stricter than federal laws, which allow welfare recipients to receive financial help beyond 24 months if they are working at least 20 hours a week.
      Clark County welfare officials worry that the burden for those being pushed off the state welfare rolls will land upon the county's shoulders once people start losing benefits, starting with those cut off from federal Supplemental Security Income payments this month.
      Hard data isn't yet available on how many people have turned to the county for help since their SSI payments were lost, Clark County Social Service Director Verlia Davis said last week.
Next Column


      "We've started to collect the statistical data, but can't tell yet what the impact on the county will be," Davis said.
      All the counties are worried about the impact of the federal welfare bill, said Robert Hadfield, executive director of the Nevada Association of Counties.
      He is having a bill drafted to say counties would not have to care for those who formerly qualified for welfare programs.
      The "hold harmless" legislation is needed to protect the counties' financial position, he said.
      "From the county perspective, we're the safety net. We serve those people while they see if they qualify for other programs under new plans. But we may have a lot of people coming to the counties for help. And we don't have the financial resources to address this problem," Hadfield said.
      So where would these people turn?
      "Depending on how welfare reform is enacted, some may not be effected, but there may be a large number of people who don't know where to go," he said. "But our position is that we cannot be asked to absorb a pass-through of clients that were previously served by the state of Nevada."
      Florence said the federal dollars have always gone to the state, then directly to the recipient, and that none of the federal block grant money can go to the counties.
      "The counties may make a case to the Legislature that they're going to be burdened and get a state appropriation," she suggested.
      Hadfield said Nevada's 17 counties -- which don't have the same needs and standards when it comes to welfare -- don't feel it's a good solution to run to the Legislature for money.
      "We'd like to address the problem initially, rather than seek bailout money," he said.
      The association hasn't taken a unified position on issues such as family caps and legal immigrants.
      Whatever welfare program is ultimately crafted, Hadfield said the real test of the state's welfare reform won't come until something happens that nobody wants. "It won't truly be tested until such time as the economy takes a downturn," Hadfield said, noting that's when more people lose their jobs and apply for welfare.
      Jan Gilbert, Northern Nevada coordinator of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, plans to lobby lawmakers to pass more humane welfare laws.
      She also served on a welfare task force and said that during hearings, all the welfare mothers who came to testify supported drug testing, saying it would help dissolve their image as drug users.
      However, testing everyone would be costly and would waste dollars that could be better used. "I don't think it's going to happen because of the expense," Gilbert said.
      She anticipates the biggest battle will be over family caps.
      Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Reno, is returning with another bill to continue his fight for tougher welfare laws.
      He failed in his attempt two years ago to pass a law that would have placed a two-year limit on welfare payments and denied cash benefits to children conceived after their mothers start receiving welfare. Benefits also would have been cut for children who didn't make progress in school.
      His proposal was dubbed punitive by Assembly Democrats and defended by Senate Republicans as a sensible approach.
      Gilbert said one of the biggest problems the state faces is determining who qualifies as an exemption to the federal work requirements.
      The heart of the federal bill requires able-bodied adults to work after two years on welfare and limits lifetime welfare assistance to five years.
      For example, Gilbert said she heard of a man who was a caretaker for his wife, and the state told him he had to get a job. He said that if he got a 20-hour-a-week job, his wife would die, she said.
      And what about the mother who doesn't work so she can care for her paraplegic child? Must she work or lose benefits?
      "Until we iron out the problems, we're going to face a lot of catastrophic problems with people being hurt," Gilbert said.
[News] [Sports] [Business] [Lifestyles] [Neon] [Opinion] [in-depth]
[Classifieds] [Help/About] [Home] [Archive] [Current Edition]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]