MINUTES

MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 52nd LEGISLATURE - REGULAR SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES & AGING

Call to Order: By CHAIRMAN DOROTHY BRADLEY, on January 28, 1991, at 8:05 a.m.

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Rep. Dorothy Bradley, Chairman (D) Sen. Mignon Waterman, Vice Chairman (D) Rep. John Cobb (R) Rep. John Johnson (D) Sen. Tom Keating (R) Sen. Dennis Nathe (R)

Staff Present: Carroll South, Senior Fiscal Analyst (LFA) Bill Furois, Budget Analyst (OBPP) Faith Conroy, Secretary

Please Note: These are summary minutes. Testimony and discussion are paraphrased and condensed.

Announcements/Discussion:

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES (SRS)

HEARING ON FAMILY ASSISTANCE DIVISION

Carroll South, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, distributed the Family Assistance Division's budget summary. EXHIBIT 1

Julia Robinson, SRS Director, provided an overview of the Division. EXHIBIT 2

LOW-INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIEAP)

Jim Nolan, Intergovernmental Human Services Bureau Chief, provided an overview of LIEAP. EXHIBIT 3

Tape lA

SEN. WATERMAN asked if the LIEAP transfer to the Developmentally Disabled Program finances energy assistance for developmentally disabled people. Mr. Nolan said no. When the block grant program was proposed by President Reagan and passed by Congress in 1981, it allowed states to transfer money from the energy program to a number of unrelated programs. If states didn't transfer money to other programs, the federal government would reduce funding for those programs. States, like Montana, that transferred money from the block grant program faced attempts by the federal government

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 2 of 18

to reduce LIEAP. It was a political maneuver that had no connection to energy assistance.

REP. COBB asked why eligibility applications decreased. Mr. Nolan said he didn't know. Program eligibility has not changed. Poverty levels, which identify the amount a family can earn, have increased. The Bureau has been working with Human Resource Development Councils (HRDCs) and the Montana Low-Income Coalition to increase participation in the program. Next year the Bureau may have the Montana Low-Income Coalition conduct outreach for LIEAP. Table L-3 in EXHIBIT 3 shows that 92 percent of the people served by LIEAP are at or below 100 percent of poverty.

SEN. KEATING asked for an explanation of Title XX. Mr. Nolan said Title XX is a social-services block grant. In Montana, all Title XX money goes to the Developmental Disability Program.

SEN. KEATING asked if the block grant no longer allows the Division to transfer to Title XX. Mr. Nolan said yes, effective fiscal year (FY) 94.

WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. Nolan provided an overview of the Weatherization Program. EXHIBIT 3. He said the program will serve about 2,500 homes statewide in FY 91. Programs on Indian reservations are not fully developed.

REP. COBB asked if the Division works with Montana Power Company. Mr. Nolan said yes. The relationship has been good. Montana Power finances its own weatherization program. This year it cost about $600,000. There has been discussion about Montana Power turning over its program to SRS, which would run a joint program.

SEN. NATHE asked if Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) money is involved in the state Weatherization Program. Mr. Nolan said no. BPA runs its own program in western Montana through contracts with HRDCs.

SEN. NATHE asked why a poor person would have an all-electric home. Mr. Nolan said it may be the only source of power in the area. Marcia Dias, Montana Low-Income Coalition representative, said some poor people have electric heat because of the cost to replace a gas furnace, even though utilities would cost more. Mr. Nolan said LIEAP clients can use program money to convert to a cheaper power source.

SEN. NATHE asked if the Division contacted BPA to coordinate efforts. Mr. Nolan said yes. Several years ago, BPA offered to run the state's program, but conditions attached to the offer made it unattractive. He agrees the Division should coordinate with BPA.

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 3 of 18

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Mr. Nolan provided background on Homeless Assistance Grants. EXHIBIT 3.

SEN. KEATING asked if a state match is required for Housing and Urban Development money. Mr. Nolan said no. There used to be a 50-50 match required of local agencies, but the match did not have to be in cash.

REP. COBB asked if any homeless people get out of poverty. Mr. Nolan said he didn't know. Homeless Assistance Grants are a stop­gap measure. Although funds are limited, a portion can be used to prevent people from becoming homeless.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said funding for the programs is outlined on Page 3 of EXHIBIT 1.

Tape 1B Ms. Robinson said the theory behind Homeless Assistance Grants didn't work as well as had been hoped because sufficient resources weren't available. The question is whether the state can afford the investment to help people out of poverty.

SEN. NATHE asked if anyone in the state or federal government has determined the total spent on assistance programs and considered issuing a monthly check for all services. Ms. Robinson said there was a proposal during the Nixon administration to distribute a single amount for all programs. It received little attention.

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANTS

Mr. Nolan provided an overview of the Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) Program. EXHIBIT 3. He said that if the agency retains its special projects money, it will be better able to address statewide poverty problems. HRDCs would not suffer. Chart C-2 shows the average increase would still be more than 33 percent.

REP. JOHNSON asked what kind of projects the Department envisions. Ms. Robinson said the governor recommended $70,000 be spent to continue the health-care initiative, which would account for 2.5 percent. The Department wants to hold a conference after the session ends to examine legislation that passed. Other plans are to hold town meetings for public input and a statewide conference in two years on health-care issues. Peter Blouke, SRS Deputy Director, said the Department would like to establish a task force to address areas in which the state is not adequately meeting its responsibility. The agency wants to develop a program to address homelessness and to coordinate efforts with the Hunger Coalition, the Governor's Advisory Council on Employment of the Handicapped, and services for the head-injured, which are scattered across several state agencies. SRS will take the lead in this area. The Department wants local input for development of the governor's health-care plan. Ms. Robinson said the Department

JH012891.HMl

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 4 of 18

wants to expand its use of telecommunications technology for outreach and public input.

REP. JOHNSON said he wasn't sure such efforts shouldn't be done by the HRDCs. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said that is a key decision to be made by the sUbcommittee.

SEN. WATERMAN said HRDCs are concerned about having input. The Department indicated a willingness and desire to include them in the study. HRDCs want to be involved in deciding how the study will proceed. She asked if this could be done. In the last health-care study, by the time people were asked for their input, especially eastern Montana, things were well on their way. There were people who would have liked to have a say about what was studied and how it was studied. Ms. Robinson said that was true. There are numerous health-care plans that might work. The Department decided to work on areas that would be supported by the governor. After deciding what to study, the Department encouraged participation. The problem is that health-care programs are driven by health-care administrators. People affected by the programs weren't represented as well as they could have been. The Department recognizes the need for increased involvement of HRDCs and consumer groups.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if HRDCs and other community groups can be involved in deciding what to study. Ms. Robinson said she is not sure there will be a plan for determining what to study, but the Department is committed to involving HRDCs.

FOOD STAMPS

Ms. Robinson provided an overview of the Food Stamps program. EXHIBIT 4. She said people can live on food stamps but they must know what to buy. There was a suggestion to have a public nutritionist within the Department of Health to develop public education activities. Issuance of food stamps is a time-consuming process. Model projects in other states involve food stamps debit cards, which resemble credit cards that can be used at grocery stores. They eliminate food stamp coupons but cannot be used as cash. SRS is seeking a federal grant to test the cards in Montana.

SEN. WATERMAN asked what SRS has in the way of nutritionists, the reasoning for having a state nutritionist in the Department of Health, and what kind of coordination exists with the Department of Health. Ms. Robinson said the original proposal from the Hunger Coalition was to place the nutritionist in SRS and create a council involving the Department of Health and community interests. She believed then that SRS was not the proper agency to supervise a nutritionist. If the Department of Health commits to doing it, then SRS will guarantee its involvement. SRS also agreed to use some Community Services Block Grant administrative money to help finance the council.

JH012891.HMl

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 5 of 18

SEN. WATERMAN asked if food stamp credit cards can be tied to a person's driver's license so that only one card is needed. Ms. Robinson said some states are trying to eliminate public assistance checks by issuing a single card with a computer chip that can be re-programmed each month. SRS is seeking a grant to test the cards in the Food Stamps program.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if the cards would tie into The Economic Assistance Management System (TEAMS). Ms. Robinson said it couldn't be done until TEAMS is in place. One state looked at combining unemployment insurance, workers compensation, AFDC and Food Stamps benefits in a single card. SRS has not looked at use that broadly.

Tape 2A Debit cards can reduce fraud in the Food Stamps program. Clients also would benefit by not having to carry stamps and the stigma attached to them. SRS wasn't eligible for the grant until TEAMS was approved. Broader use may be something the Legislature or subcommittee may want to study.

GENERAL RELIEF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-

Ms. Robinson provided an overview of the General Relief Assistance Program. EXHIBIT 4.

FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM

Norm Waterman, Family Assistance Division Administrator, provided an overview of the Food Stamp Job Search program. EXHIBIT 4

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked how the $25 allocation for supportive services works. Mr. Waterman said $25 is given to a client who needs money for transportation, or another small service, to get a job. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked how the client receives and spends the money. Penny Robbe, Program and Policy Bureau Chief, said most food stamps and general support money is paid by voucher. The limit is $25 per month. The federal government finances half of it and the state pays the other half. REP. COBB asked if $25 is enough to cover costs. Ms. Robbe said she hasn't heard that it isn't sufficient. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked the Department to determine which account the money comes from and submit the information to Mr. South.

GENERAL RELIEF ASSISTANCE/PROJECT WORK PROGRAM

Mr. Waterman provided an overview of the General Relief Assistance/Project Work Program. EXHIBIT 4

Geri Baker, project Work Program Employment Specialist in Lewis and Clark County, said the local program served about 650 people this year. Of the total, 25 percent are employed in long-term, full-time, meaningful employment. The four-month extension enforced last January has not caused a problem in Lewis and Clark county. It has been positive for clients. only four people have

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 6 of 18

exceeded the four-month extension. Two people returned from last year. One of them was laid off and the other is an alcoholic.

The program addresses employment barriers. In the first month, a client is enrolled in a job-skills class. In the second month, the client engages in a supervised job search. The most successful component is the work experience. There are 40 sites in the Helena, Augusta and Lincoln areas where clients can get hands-on experience. About 18 people have gotten jobs with the state, county and city of Helena because of this component. These jobs encourage clients to seek full employment and to stay off welfare. Jobs include auditors, county clerks, office and maintenance workers, janitors and motor vehicle operators. Project Work recruits for the National Park Service and state agencies, and works directly with the Helena Job Service. The program has a full-time chemical dependency counselor on staff who is paid through the Department of Institutions. The counseling service has increased the project's retention rate, which is about 85-90 percent.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if the program uses Galen or if the full-time chemical dependency counselor provides sufficient services. Ms. Baker said the program uses Galen and other institutions. SEN. WATERMAN asked if Project Work will be able to meet needs if Galen is closed and its resident alcohol program is discontinued. Ms. Baker said no. SEN. WATERMAN asked what would happen if Galen closes. Ms. Baker said about 70 percent of the project Work Program's clients are military veterans. Fort Harrison is a major outlet. About four people have gone to Galen. Ms. Robinson said the Department of Institutions indicated in a letter that services would continue if Galen is closed. SRS does not pay for this population. The chemical dependency counseling portion of the program is being tested in Lewis and Clark County only. She would like to see it expanded to other counties. SEN. KEATING said there are other places besides Galen where alcoholics receive treatment. Alcoholics Anonymous meetings are free. Some people get help without going through a treatment program.

REP. COBB asked if SRS will be looking for an alcohol treatment counselor for the Flathead area. Ms. Robinson said Lewis and Clark County was a test area. Institutions has agreed to continue that contract for another year. SRS does not have the money in its budget for chemical dependency counseling but will meet with Institutions to see if the service can be expanded.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if Institutions has money to expand the chemical dependency program statewide. Mr. Blouke said closure of Galen is expected to free up some money and Institutions has committed to continue funding alcohol treatment for that particular popUlation.

SEN. WATERMAN said it appears there are two popUlations. Institutions says it is committed to treating Galen patients locally, but there are a number of other individuals in the pilot

JH012891.HMI

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 7 of 18

project in Helena. It isn't known how much it will cost to provide those services statewide. Ms. Robinson said if money is freed up from Galen, there would be adequate resources to fund a continuum of community care that may include the type of counseling provided in the General Assistance program, plus treatment and placement when needed. If Galen remains open, there is no money in the budget to finance chemical dependency placement at every General Assistance facility.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked about reimbursement for General Assistance recipients. She said there is increasing concern that the sum is too low. She asked for the Department's perspective on the monthly reimbursement level. Ms. Robinson said the level is something that must be decided by the Legislature. There is a fine line between when a benefit is a disincentive to work and when it is inadequate. The issue to decide is how high to place the level, based on jobs in the area, so that people still have an incentive to work.

SEN. KEATING expressed concern that non-assumed counties will want to become state-assumed to reduce property taxes and secure more state funding. Mr. waterman said counties that opted for state assumption in 1983 were levying 13.5 mills. They opted for state assumption to lower their levies to 12 mills. Non-assumed counties will become interested in state assumption as their mill levies increase. Many smaller counties' levies are nowhere near 13.5 mills. SEN. KEATING asked for a list of levy amounts in non­assumed counties. Mr. waterman said the information was being gathered.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked about the status of the Transition-to-Work Allowance and Non-Resident Interstate Transient Assistance. Ms. Robinson said the program is small but successful. It placed people in jobs, and some of the jobs pay well. One-hundred five people chose Transition-to-Work benefits, which cost the state $25,163. The budget was $100,000. Clients must have a job lined up to receive the moving allowance. If they accept the benefit, they cannot return to General Assistance. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked how many people left the state. Ms. Robinson said the program paid for 105 moves. It isn't known how many went out of state.

SEN. WATERMAN asked what happened to the people who were terminated from the Project Work Program. Mr. waterman said he did not know. They were terminated because they did not want to participate in the program. Ms. Robinson said some people choose to get jobs rather than work 40 hours per week for $220 per month through the Project Work Program. REP. COBB asked for a benefits breakdown. Ms. Robinson said she would present a comparison with other states and a breakdown of benefits received by a typical client.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked if the Department designated someone as a contact for HRDCs. Ms. Robinson said Mr. Nolan is the contact person. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said she tried to get an update on what

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 8 of 18

HRDCs are working on, but Montana isn't included in the federal Community Services Block Grant statistical report. She asked why and wanted to know how the state could be included in the future because it isn't known how the funds are being spent. Mr. Nolan said the state survey is voluntary. He asked HRDCs to complete the surveys in previous years, but they didn't.

Tape 2B Ms. Robinson said she wanted to clarify the issue. The Department hadn't sent out surveys for a couple of years. The forms used to be sent out faithfully, but no one would fill them out. Year-end reports are sent to the federal government but that isn't what is needed. The federal government needs a separate report. Mr. Nolan said the survey is not a federal requirement. The state and national association puts together the report, which asks for information that Montana's HRDCs do not keep. The Department submits annual progress reports, but the format is different from information sought for the statistical analysis. Narratives submitted to SRS by the HRDCs also are submitted.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said the report includes success stories, not just numbers. She asked if Montana has ever had a-success story in the report. Mr. Nolan said nobody has responded. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked if the Department asked for such stories when information requests were sent out in the past. Mr. Nolan said HRDCs got the surveys as they came to him. Ms. Robinson said the Department will ensure the surveys go out this year. Apparently they haven't been.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if the subcommittee should require HRDCs to complete the surveys. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said maybe interest shown in the hearing will make it happen.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Jim Morton, HRDC District 11 Executive Director and HRDC Association Chairman, said HRDCs began in 1964 and are controlled by local boards of directors. One-third of the members are public officials, one-third are representatives of the poor and one­third are representatives of private sector interests. HRDCs submit budgets for Community Services Block Grant funds. Local control is important, though centralization and state control at some level also are important.

HRDCs support the governor's health-care initiative. The District 11 HRDC has provided administrative funds to homeless shelters since 1983. Food banks and homeless shelters receive funds directly from national organizations and have asked the HRDC for fiscal, audit and administrative support. Services are funded with Community Services Block Grant money, which is the only money HRDCs have that is controlled by local boards of directors. If the percentage decreases, some of the HRDCs' local ability will be restricted.

Patricia callaghan, HRDC District 1, 2 and 3 representative,

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 9 of 18

expressed concern about census-driven cuts in Community Services Block Grants money for eastern Montana. The biggest concern is local control. HRDCs believe they are better suited to decide how to spend the money. The health-care initiative also must serve eastern Montana. She asked the subcommittee to allow HRDCs to retain control over 95 percent of the Community Services Block Grant money.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked Ms. Callaghan if she is reassured of the Department's commitment to seeking local input, regardless of where the extra money goes. Ms. callaghan said she is sure the intent is good and that the Department will try to include eastern Montana, but often the money isn't available.

Marcia Schreder, Montana Low-Income Coalition Co-Chair and Montanans for Social Justice President, asked the sUbcommittee to consider inflation, where jobs will corne from to employ General Assistance recipients and how long it has been since benefits were increased. She cautioned the subcommittee about becoming too optimistic about a drop in the number of General Assistance recipients. She said it can take more than 12 mon~hs for a person to get off welfare, fail to maintain adequate support and return to the rolls.

The intent of Project Work, to eliminate barriers to work, is wonderful. But four to six months may not be enough time to deal with illiteracy, alcoholism and co-dependency. She asked the sUbcommittee to consider these concerns when reviewing General Assistance.

SEN. KEATING asked Ms. Schreder to expand on her comments about barriers to employment. Ms. Schreder said alcoholism isn't created in four to six months and can't be solved that quickly either. Co-dependency is similar to alcoholism. It is a life pattern that must be changed if the person is to keep a job. It takes time.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY referred the subcommittee to Page 25 of the executive budget narrative on how staggered services for employable people worked out. She suggested the subcommittee postpone action on General Assistance benefits until hearing testimony on AFDC because the two are tied together.

Marcia Dias, Montana Low-Income Coalition representative, said her group is concerned about the General Assistance benefit level. General Relief Assistance was changed during the 1989 session to limit recipients to four, six or 12 months of benefits, depending on employability. The coalition wants the focus to be on people with barriers who are eligible for six months. Some people do not overcome their barriers in six months. The coalition is seeking legislation that calls for these people to be allowed to remain with the program until they overcome their barriers. They comprise about 12 percent of the total. If they are cut off before overcoming their barriers, it is likely

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 10 of 18

they will return to the system.

The coalition wants barrier assessments done when people enter the program. The cost is estimated at about $150,000. The coalition also is concerned that the $240,000 received as Food Stamps Incentive money went toward equipment, desks and more computers. The money should have been put back into services. Montanans are taxed to provide these basic services.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked if efforts were made to help people overcome one particular barrier more than another. Ms. Dias said she didn't know. Programs vary between counties. Some say chemical dependency is still a problem and laws need to be more stringent. Others believe they are wasting state money by removing people from the program after only six months. Some programs take longer. Many people being served in state-assumed counties come from non-assumed counties. When someone is enrolled in the program, they get $25, but $25 isn't enough money for supportive services.

REP. COBB asked if people have multiple barriers. -Ms. Dias said yes. Age may be against them, but they aren't old enough to be considered unemployable. Some may have physical ailments that are not severe enough to qualify them as disabled. The law should be changed to include a vocational counselor's assessment in employability determinations.

Leon stalcup, HRDC District 11 Board Chairman in Missoula, said community services Block Grant money is what gives local HRDCs the most flexibility. He urged the subcommittee to retain only 5 percent of the money for state administration.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said she is aware of the HRDCs' efforts to increase the federal appropriation. She asked for additional background. Mr. Stalcup said Congressman Bill Bradley was the principal force behind the increase. When he bicycled through Montana on his way across the united States, HRDCs helped raise money to offset costs of his trip.

Mr. Morton said more than 960 agencies in the united states created the National Community Action Foundation, which finances a congressional lobbyist and information submitted to Congress on local agencies' activities. Several thousand dollars are raised each year. Montana gets less than 0.5 percent of the national allocation. The Foundation asked for an increase of several million dollars in the block grant program. Montana will get some of the money. HRDCs send information to Congress through the Foundation, including success stories and data about the population served and initiatives. SRS will receive an additional $25,000 as a result of the increase.

Gene Huntington, Montana Hunger Coalition representative, said the coalition is interested in this issue because Community Services Block Grant money will be used to support the state

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 11 of 18

council, which is a coalition recommendation. The coalition works closely with HRDCs. It supports coordination of the state's food programs and policies, and hopes to obtain funding for the council, which will involve state agencies, consumer groups and agriculture. The council would examine state policies that affect problems and recommendations in the Hunger Coalition study, help coordinate programs between state agencies, and examine ways to make more food available.

REP. JOHNSON asked about allocation of the funding increase. Ms. Robinson said the Department's $23,000 increase would be used to finance a hunger task force, services for the head-injured and the Governor's Council on Employment of the Handicapped. The money comes from the 5 percent automatically received from the federal government. The governor's health-care proposal would use an additional 2.5 percent for health-care activities across the state.

REP. COBB asked what the additional $39,000 is for. Ms. Robinson said the Department originally wanted the entire 5 percent for special projects. Meetings with HRDCs did not reselve the issue. She suggested the Department drop back to 2.5 percent, which is what is needed to fund the governor's health-care proposal.

Bob MCLaughlin, HRDC District 4 Executive Director in Havre, testified in support of local control. HRDC District 4 uses block grant money to provide accounting support for the Montana Food Bank Network and Montana Hunger Coalition. The money also supports three local food banks; Lean On Me Inc., a private non­profit shelter for the homeless; office space for consumer credit counseling services in Great Falls; the Bear Paw Youth Guidance Home for developmentally disabled youth in Blaine County; administrative support for Vista Volunteer, which is associated with the Center for Adolescence Development in Helena; Buffalo Berry Food Cooperative; Rural Employment Opportunities; and Job Corps.

Mr. South explained Family Assistance and Family Assistance Benefits budget issues. EXHIBIT 1. He said the LFA budget eliminated 1 FTE, which accounts for the $25,486 difference in Personal Services.

Under Operations, the Legal Services, Training and Food Stamps Issuance contract traditionally was appropriated as benefits and recorded as benefits when spent. The LFA believed it was more appropriate to record expenditures in the operations portion of the budget. The executive budget still lists those amounts under benefits, but there is agreement that they should be recorded as contract services, or whatever the case may be, rather than benefits because it distorts overall state expenditures for benefits.

The executive base is slightly above the LFA base and includes about $8,000 in insurance and bonds that the subcommittee already

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 12 of 18

took action to include in another program. The net difference is about $4,000 when inflation is discounted in the difference.

The Executive Budget Modification relates to the operational budget. The Division is already spending the money under a budget amendment and would like to have the amount continued in 1992 and 1993.

The executive and LFA offices agreed to use one set of base figures for Family Assistance Benefits so that the subcommittee wouldn't have to choose different figures based on statistics alone. The difference in AFDC relates to executive savings estimates, which the agency will explain later.

Tape 3A The executive and LFA took the 1991 appropriated level in federally funded benefits. If the federal government has revised its estimates and the figures are no longer accurate, the agency should tell the subcommittee so adjustments can be made.

The difference in the General Assistance Work program is conceptual. The state will spend $1.3 million in FY 92. The executive proposes to transfer some federal money to the Department of Labor, which will match it with unemployment insurance tax money. That is the $286,145 difference identified in the chart. The LFA budget is $286,145 higher in General Fund each year of the biennium for this item because of that proposed transfer. The difference in AFDC Day Care reflects assumptions about the number of people who will go to work. Day-care expenses will rise if more people go to work.

The subcommittee should approve an expenditure level for each benefit and allow the LFA, SRS and Budget Office to determine the funding split. The 42-percent-of-poverty level established for AFDC and General Assistance was in the last appropriations bill and report, which became legislative intent. No one has been able to find it in the statutes. It is assumed that it isn't there so it terminates June 30. Projections are based on no increase in payment per recipient. If the subcommittee chooses to increase payments or to tie them to the federal poverty index, which increases at a 4 percent rate, projections will have to be increased.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked for the Department of Labor to report on the unemployment insurance tax match. Brian Mccullough, Management services Bureau Chief in the Centralized services Division of the Department of Labor and Industries, said the Labor Department's budget includes $360,000 in unemployment insurance administration tax money for a Project Work match. The Labor Department contracts with SRS to provide the service.

SEN. NATHE asked if the tax was originally levied to get the unemployment insurance fund into compliance with the federal government. Mr. Mccullough said no. When the fund had a deficit, an additional percentage was added to the unemployment insurance

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 13 of 18

tax. That percentage was dropped when the fund was back in the black. The administration tax was added in 1981 when it appeared federal Job Service funding would be cut. It wasn't used until 1988 to help Job Service offices cover budget shortfalls. until then, revenues from the tax were deposited into the trust fund.

SEN. NATHE asked how much money accumulated in the fund between 1981 and 1988. Mr. Mccullough said he didn't know but he could find out. Revenues of about $2.7 million per year go into the unemployment insurance trust fund. Some of that revenue will be used as match money for Project Work.

SEN. KEATING asked if premiums charged to employers were reduced between 1981 and 1988, and how much money was involved. Mr. McCullough said the unemployment insurance tax schedule is at the lowest level possible. The Labor Department may have to increase the schedule by one notch in 1992 and 1993 if the economy deteriorates and unemployment increases. Further information about tax reductions between 1981 and 1988 will be presented by unemployment insurance staff.

REP. COBB asked if unused administration tax goes into the trust fund. Mr. McCullough said yes. REP. COBB asked the Labor Department to hold off depositing the $4 million of unused administration tax money into the trust fund until the sUbcommittee has a chance to decide if it wants to spend it. Mr. Mccullough said he would tell the Department. The Department didn't intend to prematurely move any of the accumulated administration tax money. It will wait until the subcommittee decides what to do.

EXECUTIVE ACTION ON THE FAMILY SERVICES DIVISION

Votes were taken on EXHIBIT 1.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked for a motion on the elimination of the program specialist position.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Robinson said the Department is in the process of hiring a training officer. The program specialist position was left vacant for a year to see if the Division's redesigned training model would work. It was agreed that if it didn't, the Division could fill the position. The model didn't work.

REP. COBB asked if the job being discussed was the same as before. Ms. Robinson said no. It is a new position stemming from reorganization of the Division's training program.

MOTION: SEN. WATERMAN moved to fund the position.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

MOTION: REP. JOHNSON moved to adopt the LFA budget for

JHOI2891.HMI

operations.

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 14 of 18

DISCUSSION: SEN. KEATING asked if legal services is line-itemed in the budget. Mr. Blouke said it had been in the past. The appropriations bill contains specific language that addresses the legal services contract. Mr. South said the purpose of the contract is to get General Assistance clients onto some federal program with match money. Line-item language can be added.

SEN. KEATING asked if legal services is line-itemed in the entire budget or just in this case. Mr. South said it is line-itemed in this program. The legal services contract is a $100,000 lump-sum appropriation. SEN. KEATING said he thinks it should be line­itemed. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said Mr. South will draft intent language and bring it to the subcommittee for approval.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if there is an advantage or disadvantage to line-iteming legal services. Mr. Blouke said it doesn't matter. The Department is amenable to it being line-itemed. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said line-iteming adds complexity. Maybe language of intent would suffice, though that isn't needed either.

SEN. NATHE asked if legal services involves the Department of Administration's legal pool or contracted lawyers. Mr. Blouke said SRS contracts with the Montana Legal Services Association, which helps General Assistance recipients get social security disability benefits. The process can take up to two years. The Department for years has contracted legal services. It is cost­effective because General Assistance clients are switched from a 100 percent state-funded program to one that is better for them and qualifies for Medicaid reimbursement. Ms. Robinson said the Department anticipates savings from moving unemployable clients to Supplemental Security Income. The Department wants to become more aggressive in this area.

SEN. KEATING said that at first he didn't understand the legal services term used. He now realizes it is a specific contract, not an ordinary appropriation. He withdrew his request for line­item language.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

SEN. KEATING asked what the $96,000 in the Food stamp Employment and Training program budget modification would be used for. Ms. Robinson said the Department has a number of training programs. Project Work is for General Assistance recipients. The Food Stamp Job Search Program interfaces with General Assistance. The Department is trying to combine them so there aren't so many separate programs. The federal government requires the Department to run a Food Stamps Job Training Program. It is 100 percent federally funded for the work component and 50-50 match for administration.

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 15 of 18

SEN. KEATING asked if the Food Stamps Job Search Program dovetails with the General Assistance Project Work Program. Ms. Robinson said yes. The programs may serve the same population, but it is possible to be a food stamps recipient and not receive benefits from other assistance programs. SEN. KEATING asked if the budget modification reflected new money. Ms. Robinson said yes. It is new federal money. Mr. Blouke said the money was approved through a budget amendment during the current biennium. CHAIRMAN BRADLEY asked if the modification continues what the Department has now. Mr. Blouke said yes.

MOTION: SEN. NATHE moved approval of the Executive Budget Modification for the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

Curt Chisholm, Department of Institutions Director, discussed impacts of the proposed closure of Galen. He said plans call for the state to continue inpatient care for indigent alcoholics and chemically dependent clients. Some of Galen's campus is under­used and not needed. The alcoholism treatment program is well­used and will be maintained, but it can be located elsewhere in the state. The Department of Institutions intends to manage its beds more effectively, regardless of whether Galen closes or not. An effort will be made to divert as many people away from inpatient care as possible as part of the inpatient managed-care initiative, which will be implemented at the beginning of FY 92. Institutions financed a counselor with block grant money as part of a pilot program in the Helena area. Fifteen clients were referred to the program. Of the total, 11 were recommended for intensive outpatient care and four for inpatient care. The agency intends to have up to 50 beds available through contracts with existing programs throughout the state.

SEN. WATERMAN asked about plans for the pilot program, if counseling services will be expanded statewide, and if it is funded as part of the agency's proposal. Mr. Chisholm said Institutions diverted money from block grant funds to test the program's success. The program will be re-evaluated to determine whether it should continue.

SEN. WATERMAN said there is concern that indigent people are cut off from counseling services once their 28-day treatment ends. She asked if this is a valid concern and how it will be addressed. Mr. Chisholm said it is a valid issue but not a valid concern. People aren't refused treatment if they can't pay. The state subsidizes outpatient programs statewide. There is only one residential, transitional care facility in the state: Boyd Andrew Chemical Dependency Care Center in Helena. The agency wants to encourage development of more of these programs. Ms. Robinson said the issue will be discussed when the sUbcommittee reviews the Medicaid budget. The Department wants to better use the Medicaid rehabilitation option to help match community programs.

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 16 of 18

SEN. WATERMAN asked if people are deemed unemployable and exempted from the project Work Program because they are chronic alcoholics, and what treatment is provided for them. Ms. Robinson said the Department plans to discuss the issue when it reviews the state Medical Program. Some primary diagnoses, such as alcoholism and sUbstance abuse, are not sufficiently addressed. More money is spent on secondary issues, such as liver problems.

SEN. KEATING said no one can heal an alcoholic unless the person wants to be healed. The best after-care program in the united States, after 28-day treatment, is Alcoholics Anonymous, and it's free. Treatment gives a patient tools to work with, but it's a self-recovery program. Alcoholics have to develop the desire to get better themselves.

EXECUTIVE ACTION ON FAMILY ASSISTANCE BENEFITS

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said the lower chart on Page B71 in the LFA budget analysis shows the General Fund money involved in benefits programs, but the amounts have been adjusted. The majority of programs the subcommittee will vote on are 100 pe~cent federally funded. She asked for a motion on LIEAP.

MOTION: SEN. WATERMAN moved to adopt the LFA budget for LIEAP.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

MOTION: SEN. KEATING moved approval of the LFA budget for Weatherization.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

SEN. KEATING asked if the reason the executive budget is lower than the LFA budget in the General Assistance Work Program is because money was pulled out as match money for the Department of Labor. Mr. South said the LFA budget has $286,000 General Fund money for match that isn't included in the executive budget. The executive intends to use $286,000 from the Department of Labor. Expenditures are the same in both budgets. It's a funding issue, not an expenditure issue.

MOTION: SEN. KEATING moved approval of the executive funding mix for the General Assistance Work Program.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY postponed discussion on the Community Services Block Grants Program to allow adequate time for comment on the allocation of the additional 5 percent. She asked the Department to comment at the next hearing as to whether 2 percent of the Community Services Block Grant money could be used for a program

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 17 of 18

serving the brain-injured, instead of the health-plan proposal discussed earlier.

SEN. WATERMAN asked how the Governor's Council for Employment of the Handicapped was funded in the past. Ms. Robinson said it was in the Department of Administration. SRS recruited the program's staff person for Project Work. The Department of Administration did not fill the vacancy. SRS has agreed to assign staff to Vocational Rehabilitation to run the program. The Department of Administration will transfer $15,000.

Tape 3B The Department believes Congress eventually will fund it. SEN. WATERMAN asked if the subcommittee would revisit the issue during discussion of Vocational Rehabilitation. Ms. Robinson said yes.

MOTION: REP. JOHNSON moved approval of the Homeless Grants Program budget.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

MOTION: SEN. KEATING moved approval of the LFA budget for the Emergency Shelter Program.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

MOTION: SEN. KEATING moved approval of the LFA budget for General Assistance Burials.

VOTE: The motion PASSED unanimously.

MOTION: REP. JOHNSON moved approval of the LFA budget for the Job Search Program.

DISCUSSION: SEN. KEATING asked if the budget modification was included in the Job Search Program budget. Mr. South said no. SEN. KEATING asked about the relationship between the Job Search Program and budget modification. Ms. Robinson said General Fund money finances the $25 supportive-services payments discussed earlier. SEN. WATERMAN asked if that money is in the budget modification. Mr. south said yes. The $491,000 for the Job Search Program is 100 percent federal funds. The $87,500 in the Food Stamp Job Search budget modification is General Fund money. He asked the Department if that was correct. Jack Lowney, Family Assistance Division Fiscal Officer, said yes. The $87,500 is General Fund match money for the $25 supportive-services payments. SEN. KEATING asked if the $87,500 would be used to leverage federal funding. Mr. Lowney said yes. It would provide a 50-50 match.

VOTE: The motion PASSED 5-1, with REP. COBB voting no.

JH012891.HM1

HOUSE HUMAN SERVICES & AGING SUBCOMMITTEE January 28, 1991

Page 18 of 18

FOOD STAMP JOB SEARCH EXECUTIVE BUDGET MODIFICATION

SEN. WATERMAN asked for clarification on funding for the Food Stamp Job Search Program. Ms. Robbe said participants are restricted to $25 per month for supportive services and up to $160 per month for child care. The federal government pays 50 percent of the payment amount and the state pays 50 percent.

SEN. WATERMAN asked if there is flexibility in the program, in case a recipient's car needs repair, so that more than $25 can be used in a month. Ms. Robbe said federal regulations restrict use of the $25, which is the maximum amount the federal government will provide in its 50 percent match.

CHAIRMAN BRADLEY said it appears the money came from somewhere else. She wants assurances it will not continue if the subcommittee decides against funding it. The subcommittee postponed action on the issue until it could be discussed further.

ADJOURNMENT

Adjournment: 11:50 a.m.

do.i#v ~ F~NROY, Secretary

DB/fc

JH012891. HM1

BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

BUMAN SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE

ROLL CALL DATE

NAKE PRESENT

REP. JOHN COBB v

SEN. TOM KEATING v

REP. JOHN JOHNSON v'

SEN. DENNIS NATHE V

SEN. MIGNON WATERMAN, VICE-CHAIR V

REP. DOROTHY BRADLEY, CHAIR V

ABSENT EXCUSED

-

---.-

b9

01

D

EPT

SOC

IAL

&

REH

AB

SER

VIC

ES

DA

TE

: 0

1/0

8/9

1

01

FAH

ILY

A

SSIS

TA

NC

E

TIH

E

: 2

1/2

9/2

':'

00

00

0

CURR

ENT

LEV

EL

CO

HPA

RIS

ON

S

Act

ual

E

xecu

tiv

e

LFA

D

iffe

ren

ce

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

LFA

D

iffe

ren

ce

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Bu

dg

et

Item

1

99

0

19

92

1

99

2

19

92

1

99

3

19

93

1

99

3

FTE

39

.25

3

7.2

5

36

.25

1

. 00

3

7.2

5

36

.25

1

. 00

Pers

on

al

Serv

ices

98

6,1

12

1

,18

5,1

29

1

,15

9,6

43

2

5,4

86

1

,18

5,3

28

1

,15

9,8

92

2

5,4

36

O

pera

tin

g

Ex

pen

ses

1,7

24

,48

6

1,6

03

,28

0

1,8

81

,91

9

27

8,6

39

-1

,60

4,1

22

1

,88

1,3

15

2

77

,19

3-

Eq

uip

men

t 9

1,5

63

7

2,1

95

7

2,1

95

0

72

,19

5

72

,19

5

0 B

en

efi

ts

and

C

laim

s 5

4,2

24

,64

8

54

,89

5,3

02

5

4,8

70

,23

3

25

,06

9

53

,07

3,2

60

5

4,8

70

,23

3

1,7

96

,97

3-

Tra

nsf

ers

1

,17

6,7

15

_

__

_

0 1

,14

7,9

55

1

,14

7,9

55

------

. ...Q

Ll'

!7,9

55

1

,14

7,9

55

-

To

tal

Ex

pen

d.

$5

8,2

03

,52

4

$5

7,7

55

,90

6

$5

9,1

31

,94

5

$1

,37

6,0

39

-$

55

,93

4,9

05

$

59

,13

1,5

90

$

3,1

96

,68

5-

Fun

d S

ou

rces

Gen

era

l F

und

14

,95

1,8

72

1

4,3

56

,06

6

14

,35

6,6

58

5

92

-1

3,8

04

,36

9

14

,28

3,7

43

4

79

,37

4-

sta

te

Rev

enu

e F

und

70

2,3

03

6

77

,16

3

72

1,7

54

4

4,5

91

-6

43

,63

7

71

6,9

06

7

3,2

69

-F

ed

era

l R

even

ue

Fun

d 4

2,5

49

,34

9

42

,72

2,6

77

4

4,0

53

,53

3

1,3

30

,85

6-

41

,48

0,8

99

4

4,1

30

,94

1'

2,6

44

,04

2-

To

tal

Fu

nd

s $

58

,20

3,5

24

$

57

,75

5,9

06

$

59

,13

1,9

45

$

1,3

76

,03

9-

$5

5,9

34

,90

5

$5

9,1

31

,59

0

$3

,19

6,6

85

-==

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

PA

GE

RE

FER

EN

CE

S:

LFA

C

urr

en

t L

ev

el

An

aly

sis

Refe

ren

ce:

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

Bu

dg

et

Sum

mar

y R

efe

ren

ce:

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

Bu

dg

et

Narr

ati

ve

Refe

ren

ce:

B

70

-74

1

24

-12

5

7-3

6

EX

EC

UT

IVE

A

ND

L

FA

CU

RR

ENT

LE

VE

L

DIF

FE

RE

NC

ES

Pers

on

aIs

erv

ices:

LFA

E

lim

fili

ted

-O

ne p

osT

t-io

n

# P

osit

ion

s

Po

sit

ion

T

yp

e

1.0

F

TE

P

rog

ram

sp

ecia

list

II

Op

era

tio

ns:

1)

Infl

ati

on

2

) L

eg

al

Serv

ices*

3

) T

rain

ing

*

4)

Fo

od

S

tam

p

Issu

an

ce C

on

tract*

5

) B

ase

D

iffe

ren

ce

To

tal

Dif

fere

nce

Tim

e V

acan

t

7/1

/89

th

rou

gh

9

/21

/90

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

(Un

der)

OV

er

LFA

19

92

(4

,71

7)

($1

00

,00

0)

($1

57

,50

0)

(32

,50

0)

16

,07

8

(27

8,6

39

)

19

93

(4,3

48

) ($

10

0,0

00

) ($

15

7,5

00

) (3

2,5

00

) 1

7,1

55

(27

7,1

93

)

* T

hese

am

ou

nts

are

in

clu

ded

in

b

en

efit

s

in th

e

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

Bu

dg

et

. t

\ ~J

j )

" \i i'; \"

' ~-

00

-D - ,,­

I ,

c ,;

t,)

J'

-;: tt

~ t: ~

r f

" r:

. -v

(~

~f\

I ~

"')

'<:.-

T"'\ \

'" <- 'I

'-1,;

EX

EC

UT

IVE

B

UD

GET

M

OD

IFIC

AT

ION

:

Fo

od

st

am

p

Em

plo

ym

ent

an

d T

rain

ing

(F

ed

era

l F

un

ds)

2

19

92

96

,00

0

19

93

96

,00

0

69

01

D

EP

T

SO

CIA

L

&

REH

AB

S

ER

VIC

ES

D

ate

2

6-J

an

-91

0

1

FA

MIL

Y

AS

SIS

TA

HC

E

BE

NE

FIT

S

Tia

e

03

:00

PH

Actu

al

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

LF

A

Dif

fere

nce

Ex

ecu

tiv

e

LF

A

Dif

fere

nce

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Fis

cal

Bu

dg

et

Ite

a

19

90

1

99

2

19

92

1

99

2

19

93

1

99

3

19

93

AF

DC

3

8,2

18

,04

4

39

,36

7,5

81

4

0,4

24

,00

0

-1,0

56

,41

9

39

,20

3,5

83

4

0,4

24

,00

0

-1,2

20

,41

7

LIE

AP

7

,94

9,3

82

7

,38

8,1

00

7

,38

8,1

00

a

7,3

88

,10

0

7,3

88

,10

0

0 G

en

era

l A

ssis

tan

ce

2,9

73

,15

9

2,3

73

,00

0

2,3

73

,00

0

0 2

,37

3,0

00

2

,37

3,0

00

0

Weath

eri

zati

on

1

,75

8,2

05

2

,38

7,7

38

2

,38

7,7

38

a

2,3

87

,73

8

2,3

87

,73

8

0 G

en

era

l A

ssis

tan

ce W

ork

3

07

,06

4

1,0

37

,92

1

1,3

24

,06

6

-28

6,1

45

1

,03

7,9

21

1

,32

4,0

66

-2

86

,14

5

eo

_u

nit

y S

erv

ices G

ran

ts

1,0

79

,23

5

1,5

13

,66

9

1,5

13

,66

9

0 1

,51

3,6

69

1

,51

3,6

69

0

Ho

aele

ss G

ran

ts

10

2,4

09

8

1,0

00

8

1,0

00

0

81

,00

0

81

,00

0

0 E

aerg

en

cy

S

helt

er

59

,02

2

17

0,0

00

1

70

,00

0

0 1

70

,00

0

17

0,0

00

0

AF

DC

D

ay care

1

,28

7,3

23

2

,08

3,3

29

1

,60

0,0

00

4

83

,32

9

2,0

83

,32

9

1,6

00

,00

0

48

3,3

29

G

en

era

l A

ssis

tan

ce B

uri

als

1

45

,28

6

12

3,6

20

1

23

,62

0

0 1

23

,62

0

12

3,6

20

0

Job

S

earc

h

334~085

49

1, 7

52

4~1, 7~:

z Q

4

91

, 75

2

49

1, 7

52

0

To

tal

54

,21

3,2

14

5

7,0

17

,71

0

57

,87

6,9

45

-8

59

,23

5

56

,85

3,7

12

5

7,8

76

,94

5

-1,0

23

,23

3

ITE

MS

F

OR

C

OM

MIT

TE

E

DIS

CU

SS

ION

:

1)

AF

DC

E

lig

ibil

ity

C

rite

ria

a)

Un

em

plo

yed

P

are

nt

b)

Ste

p p

are

nt

inco

ae a

nd

re

so

urc

es

2)

SR

S h

as esti

.ate

d sa

vin

gs

in t

he A

FD

C p

rog

ram

wh

ich

are

n

ot

inclu

ded

in

th

e L

FA

cu

rren

t le

vel.

3

) T

he E

xecu

tiv

e B

ud

get

inclu

des

Un

emp

loy

men

t In

su

ran

ce

fun

ds

as sta

te m

atc

h fo

r th

e g

en

era

l assis

tan

ce w

ork

p

rog

raa.

4)

eo

_u

nit

y serv

ice G

ran

t fu

nd

s h

av

e in

cre

ased

ab

ov

e le

vels

in

th

e E

xecu

tiv

e B

ud

get

an

d L

FA

cu

rren

t le

vel.

a)

Ad

dit

ion

al

fun

ds

are

av

ail

ab

le fo

r o

pera

tio

ns u

nd

er

the

5%

set-

asid

e fo

r ad

min

istr

ati

on

. b

) S

RS

re

qu

ests

th

at

7.5

% o

f th

e co

mm

un

ity

serv

ice g

ran

t fu

nd

s b

e set-

asid

e fo

r co

ntr

acte

d serv

ices.

5)

Pay

men

t le

vels

fo

r th

e

AF

DC

an

d G

en

era

l A

ssis

tan

ce p

rog

ram

s d

uri

ng

th

e

19

93

B

ien

niu

m.

a)

Th

e

19

89

le

gis

latu

re re

qu

ired

th

at

pay

men

ts b

e set

at

42%

o

f th

e fe

dera

l p

ov

ert

y le

vel

du

rin

g th

e

19

91

B

ien

niu

m.

b)

19

93

Bie

nn

iua p

ay

men

t le

vels

wil

l re

main

at

the f

iscal

19

91

lev

el

un

less t

he l

eg

isla

ture

in

crt

ases p

ay

men

t le

vels

.

EX

EC

UT

IVE

B

UD

GE

T

MO

DIF

ICA

TIO

NS

:

1)

sta

tew

ide

JOB

S

Pro

gra

m

2)

Fo

od

S

tam

p Jo

b S

earc

h

Gen

era

l F

un

d

1,7

06

,73

4

87

,50

0

3

To

tal

Fu

nd

s

5,2

80

,73

6

87

,50

0

tt~,J.~ ... r

.J. !'

'Y

i ,I

•

t.

J I"

'-

. \

~9.J

-c:_

00

'1

r~

.'-

Page 7 & 8 SRS Budget Nar. Page B-70 LFA Budget

::: : .-" ~~, :;) D~ ';:" l-d_8~CjL_

Representing

YZ-8/4/ !.+ .. ,L\ll/1..Q,O'L ~\'''\

~::"Lq>c..... _

Family Assistance Di :ri~ion br.\<>'"'-F'~: Norman Waterman, Adml..nl..strator>-\v,,",v"'~3~~: Penny Robbe, Bureau Chief ' Jim Nolan, Bureau Chief-/-~+ Jack Thompson, Unit Supervisor (.:.< .. tJ ~ ,Q,rr,

Jack Lowney, Budget Analyst

FAMILY ASSISTANCE DIVISION

The Family Assistance Division is responsible for the coordination

and management of a number of public assistance programs for the

State of Montana. The division is responsible for; the

interpretation of federal regulations governing these assistance

programs, writing eligibility manual material, and executing

numerous contracts in the administration of these programs. The

Division is made up of three unit: the Program and Policy Bureau,

the Intergovernmental Human Services Bureau and the Administrative

unit. The agency is requesting a total 37.25 FTE for these three

units and a total of $2.9 million for administration in each fiscal

year of the next biennium, of which $656,000 is general fund. This

division administers benefits in the amount of $57.6 million in

FY92 and $55.8 million in FY93.

The Program and Policy Bureau is responsible for the development of

eligibility policy and interpretation of federal and state

regulations for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Program, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Day Care, and General Assistance.

The Bureau contracts with state and local agencies for the

administration of the Project Work Program for General Assistance

recipients, the Food stamp Job Search Program, and the Job

Opportunities and Basic Skills Program for the AFDC population.

This Bureau is also responsible for the development and

dissemination of eligibility forms and the training of the local

staff in the application of manual material. The Bureau is staffed

with 14 FTE.

The Intergovernmental Human Services Bureau is responsible for the

eligibility policy development and interpretation of state and

federal regulations for Low Income Energy Assistance,

Weatherization, Community Services Block Grant, commodity

distribution and the Homeless Grants. The bureau contracts with

the Human Resource Development Councils, Indian reservations, Area

Agencies on Ageing, and state and local private agencies for the

delivery of these services. A total of 13 FTE staff this bureau,

including 5 FTE located at the commodity distribution warehouse.

The Administration Unit consists of the Division Administrator,

five field supervisors, a clerical unit and a budget analyst.

These 10.25 FTE provide the support services. The five field

supervisors act as liaisons between the county welfare offices and

the division staff for the AFDC, Medicaid, Food Stamps and General

Assistance Programs.

; ~~

~c-,.. .. ____________ _

LOW-INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIEAP) (p. B-71 LFA Budget Analysis, p. 23 SRS Budget Narrative)

PURPOSE

Attempts to help households below 125% of poverty meet some of their home heating costs. Projected caseload for this year is 22,000 households.

Three types of assistance are available:

- Basic benefits determined by a series of matrices which factor a household's income, fuel type, size and type of home, and local climatic conditions. Average benefit this year is $350.

- Supplemental benefits of up to $150 for households below 100% of poverty who have paid at least 5% of their own income toward their heating costs and still need assistance. We anticipate approximately 500 households to utilize this benefit at a cost of $100,000.

- Emergency assistance of up to $250 to cover unforeseen events. Approximately 250 households will use this benefit for an estimated cost of $50,000.

ISSUES

The federal Department of Health and Human Services has proposed that 41 states, including Montana, be dropped from LIEAP. We do not anticipate that proposal to be adopted.

Recent LIEAP reauthorization phases out the ability to transfer funds from LIEAP to other block grants. has historically transferred 10% of LIEAP to the Developmentally Disabled program.

L-1

of states Montana

Co

FY 1990/91

Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (L.I.E.A.P. )

The Revenue tor the FY 90-91 LIBAP is expected to be $10,120,000. This total is the sum of a $8.200,000 anticipated block grant award, S 1.000.000 in avallable carry-over from the IT 89-90 program. $70.000 in estimated fuel company returns and $8'0,000 from the Stripper Well Trust Pund.

We project that benefits to Low- Income householdS for nelt year's program will total $7.000.833 with an average payment of $350. This compares with total benef1ts of $6.068.543 last year and an average pay of $300, In addition to direct fuel beneflts to households the program also provides two supplemental services. Last heating season the program provided 257 householdS with $53,299 in emergency assistance, primarlly furnace safety modificatlon, and the program provided 469 households with supplemental assistance at a cost of S60,209. The current program only provides supplemental assistance to households with annual incomes that are less than 50' or the poverty standards. We are proposing to increase this to 100% of poverty. We project that this rule change will cost approIimately $40.000.

Last year's program also experienced a 3,92' reduction in eligible applications. This reduction has been consistent the last 3 years. We anticipate a 3.5 ~ reduction in nelt year's eligible applicants.

LIEAP ReTeaue.

1990/91 Block Grant $8,200,000 1989/90 Catry-Over 1,000,000 Benefit Returns 70,000 Stripper Well 8'0.000 Total R"vl:lnues $10,120.000

Co.t ProjeclioJlI

Direct Benefit" Cusload Reduction Projected Benefits Emergen cy /Su p plemental TiUo XX Weatherization (admin. '" of Stripper Well) Administration Outrea.ch Tot.a.l Cost Projections

$7.000,833 -21'.'2Zi

$6.~'.80o{ 1'''.000 820.000

1.230,000 i2.~OO

738.000 200.000

$9,9-tO.30-t

This year's benefits were determined by surveying tuelcompanies on current prices of their respective fuels. These companies represented approximately 80~ of the total monies obligated last year. We then lncreased these adjusted benefits by 14.8~. We project S 179,696.00 in carry-over.

·, .J.

::....

T

'\II"

"'!.

L~~O:.,: (

;:;'

.1

,i,

'.

•

LIE

AP

..

....

. ~~' ...

L

\ 1 VJ t

;"~: L

'f

S [

Lc

.. I

1)2

'<.

" I.

J

~':l

:' J

1'J

11

~,l.

t ..:.~~~:.;.~"

POVC~TV

Ll.

VE

L

....... : ..

. ,~.-

'y.i:

-..I."

"':

3.~()b

I .6

,)9

'"2

1

62

0

34

3

12

5

31

: I:

I . i .

I •

:, . L

'j ;'

i;

'" "

" f

, I,

:1

I

. ,

" ~"

,

•• ~

I

" \.

,:

,! l

, I.

: " "

j

--r()

tJt4~;

AT'fF;

Ftt..'

~CNT?,

R-11

PEPA~T"~NT

OF

~OCJAL

AN

D

RE

H!,

!BtL

JTA

TIO

q SEHvtC~S

FA

'IIL

I'::

; w

ITH

IN

CQ

'·IE

S

LE

SS

T

ItA

N

OR

E

')U

AL

T

O:

CO

P:N

A

5 O

F

l/~I

OR

L

AT

ER

)

~;')%

PO

VE

RT

Y

tIo

!":"

'. 12~ ..

. P

Ov'

:f.'T

Y

e"2

1

.30

2

1.4

Jl

1 • ~ 7

C

c

1.2

17

c

77

3

c

..... ,

32

7

_,.,,

0

12~

c

16

5

7

0

4 1<

.1 .')

12

0

D

5 0

12

0

0

I J

r' J

T "

L

',,,

,_ .

........

--_ ..... "

"-

..... ~

~..,,""""";'.Al-l.,

. I

(0

~.(")~,..

4 ~io

2 0

t.3

-'l4

~'I~

1

.30

3

...w...

....

, ... 1

-~!l

'iIJ

... ;L.~.~,!~o:.

,..,u,

.~;."

.,:. .. ' .. , . .:

..........

...' .....

.....

,lu

~UN )'T~ •

•••

01

/25

/Ql

~UN

rIM

E •

•••

11

:42

Ptu~.......

1

IS)X

;>

uVi::

L.1

TY

" c C

0 ~ C

J -: r C

C

(.

0 :::

1 co- -'

' I

1· j

~. '"

.-. -.

. ·1

o

. !:

.-.

! '

I' ,

, 1

. I

• ,

I .•

. ,

.:)

"",

\: "'"

!

'.

I'

: ~ :

~ ::

. :

I'

~;

I,

.:.

I,

I "

:" li',

'. T

;",:

I.

I .

" •.• '

. t:

!.: j

1.;

~:.

'. ::'1

' ",

~/tvAL,

~otf

f(~-'~

t: .P

C ....

:T

...,~).

L I

t:.A

P

L~~:c~~~.1

.ST

AT

E ~F MO~TANA

• ..

>. ~~..:.t:.I;;.:.._~

......

. '.:

.:.;

.;;.

.pEP

AIH"

IJ;;

1'lr

J..P

Fnt!

~.IA

~ .~

!'IO

... R

EI1

!-.e

Jl..J

TA

TJO

N

SE

RV

I C

ES

FAHILI~S

wIT

H

INC

OM

ES

LE

SS

TH

AN

O

R ~uuAL

Ta:

.

CO

PEN

A

S O

F b

/qO

O

R LATE~I

·--..:

-~· ... ~

.... · ....

.. -:-

~;"'

:'~J

avE~

TV""

"':-

· .....

..........

... " .. :~~ ..

:;.

.H

~'5c

!i··

'iA~

·~ ·

~"·"'i

·:':':

>b·,;i

~,.;~·

"··t

... '.

-.,. ..

4M ..... 1

'25

%

t=A

,'4IL

Y

51

L'3

. L

EV

EL

P

OV

ER

TY

P

QV

ER

TY

: 1

__

L~~·l.i;'.:·::'~"

'.'-'..........-..~,:

C"-

'"J'4

'" ~._;

f,{;·.

.t~·.,

· .;

.• ,'

~;. ~,'r~:t£·::~~~.L . .;·

:,;d-

j(!)rr

·,':i;;

;,·

.l.-,~

1.0

;1..

, .. ~-""'---"""1 ;.~

03'·

'

r--0

2

_ ..

.. .i

. t"

d":,;;.,J.(t~·":·

:':..2·~~2_._

~~h$".k

th;·

~jr4

t;;·

7!t.

',gg

2h~~

·;lg

,9..

i~~;

..... ~ ;~ ~

.. ~;..

L"".n

.~ •. _

••..

. ~.AJ.-

......

... _

.

C 3

1

.30

3

2.1

95

o o . __

... ~ ..;

....

..::

~~bl

rl. ~ ~'".~ ..

-. .....

.. ~. iim:nr'·:;;i.2Uit·~tt:l.t7k' ...

i...

:L,~

.: .... ~ ..

. ~~ ....

.... _ .

..

)4

1

.00

1

1.70~

o

~

,~

.-----~-

... \. ..

... --

----

-c;

6--e

.~

&. t

f··· ~:·

Ari;

:."

:.:r..

;~-'

··':

;··~

-·g8

a""'

· ....

.:.;....

........

.. "~

-1.

_ ...... 0

O~

. ~

.t...o

"J..

•..

. "-t..

.....

·~~~

·~Sr

·_

.... _.

~~~.

1.~.

O. __

.',:";';;

:'% &

:m",

';;r:

·+6~e;;t·,1 ;:~

.... '. w.~~~t:~ ...

. ~,~ . ..:. .

.... ~ .. ;

.:.:..: .

..... : .....

.. ~~.~

__ .~ .!

t ..

~7

71

2

02

o

.:_ ;iG

ii;.

_._

._.,

;..w

;...

_..

...,

..;.

. • ....;...:~.j,;.\ ;;;

,;.,

g'\

b .

......

. .....

a;...

.. ::.:..o

.:... . .:

.. .. -

~-,--.....

... ~-

........ -

t: ;j

2

5

()3

o

, 'J

..

. ,:.:..~-.

.-.~ r

tr"

'rA

•. '; •

.;...

.:;:

.:.-

,---

...~

•. .;

.,j.

:'2~

-~.

o

10

--'

... -.....

..........

.-... .~, .• ~ .

....

...;

1_'i

I.!~

,,""

,,;L

; 'g

: .'w

.;·"1

':iilf

.i L:

,;.

J,

.L...

.....;

....

...

o

II

c q

o ..

-,".\

. ... to.~

•• u~ _

_

....

~:...'"'-~ _

w-

......

. ~ ....

';.

;;pj

r·"~

'.

i.~'

dNf;

":

'it·

t.4.

.~ •

12

c

5 o

13

"'

rA';

:.

:,~\

... ..;.:

. •. -c.~"'~~ "t

i't"

"~Aa

;·· ;~ _

_ "-''

'''''.

J''

e-

-Jr

"L

.. _.~_

~ __ -.:

~c :~_~

~?~.

_~ ... ,

'.,' M .' \W

~~

:~~Y

7.~

_.,,-,

1 • ~"3

~~_'_..-I,,~~ _

_ ,,

-L

... ~~ .. ~

'::_" ;rr

..;-(

it';

;'.

·:'·'!ti

v:";e

1,';"

9.).

. ..i

ke

~,,,H~;jr' ",

,; ,

•• # .... _

_ L

-.:..

RU

N

DA

TE

••••

RU

N

T J

ME

••••

-"'.

Wo·P

AG~.

~ •

• ~

••

.~ .....

.. '-..

15

C"'

( POII",.~TY

~

._--'r

...

. "'.

..::.;

-.

~.-.....

..........

__ ....

".'.

"

'.

__

_ . ..

......

.t..._

,_. _

_ J."

i,t. .

....

..

, ,',

" ..... ,-

...-:.

-. .... -.....

-.-.....

--.~ .

.--

~.

e. """-_

.. .. _

_ ~.;... ... __ ._

.JI._ ....

o o o o o o o o o " c c c o

....

-.-:a:.._.~'~~~~~~~~..w....:-_.

c,le;·j'yp-,d~(Jf.m;', ~

'frn

rl':

t;;;

pit&

r,il

;';~

:.::

. <. ¥h

r'AJM

j:4fe

t#i ~_ " ..

........

.... h .

....

_

... .

' • ..;

....

: .. i.

l~_ •

• ,

.. ~.

......Al...,;.:...._.~~ .

. ;., ..

.....

-,._

--

:)1

/2<

;/9

1

12

:09

1

""'"

"'" "'" "'" '"'" ""' ""' ""' ""'

'"'"

......

...... "'" .....

..... '"'

I I

Il.E

AP9

* I

__ \A

TK •. '_

. 5

0cI

RE

HA

' IT

lOC

' (

I OF

FICE

OF B

UDGE

T AN

D PR

OGRA

M PL

ANNI

NG

BUDG

ET A

ND P

ROGR

AM A

NALY

SIS B

UREA

U

I I

• I

' 01~8/91

,,12:

07 P

M , .. ~

1,--

~ ----

----

----

-----..--------------------~..-~~-

--------------

----------------.------------------------

I··

.:..

. ..

App

liC:IU

OIS

App

rove

d .

1 I-

----

-~--

----

~-~~

--~~

~---

----

----

----

-~-~

~-~-----------

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---1

I

FY86

FY

87

I C

hlng

e FY

88

I C

hlng

t FY

89

I C

hlng

e FY

90

I C

hlng

e FY

91

I C

hlng

e I

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-1

380

1,46

41'2

85.2

61

0'

0.00

1 0

0.00

1 0

0.00

1 1,

254

0.00

11

1,84

1 2,

297

','2

4.7

71

0

' ..

0.00

1..

0 0.

001

0 0.

001

2,29

8 0.

0011

3,

318

3, 7~

Z'~ ,1

1. 0

71

1,26

7 ,.6

6.23

1'. ~

°

0.00

1 1,

933

0.00

1 3,

348

73.2

01

I .

4,55

8 4,

992

I:,

• 9.

521

3, 7

87

i -2

4:14

1::

2,64

4 -3

0.18

1 3,

559

34.6

11

4,43

4 2

4.5

91

: 5,

551

5.60

9i~,

H 1.

041

4,401'-2L54H,~3,478

-20.

971

4,56

4 31

.221

:1

,539

21

.361

6,

439

6,52

4:3,

7 1.

921

4,60

3:,

-29.

4511

,14,

335

-5.8

21

5,99

0 38

.181

6,

283

4.89

1 8,

060

8.488·~·

5.31

1 6,

537

-22.

991

'5,1

14

-21.

771

7,02

3 37

.331

7,

026

0.04

1 8,

941

9,78

0 9.

381

9,38

5 -4

.041

6,

721

-28.

391

9,36

6 39

.351

8,

310

-11.

271

10,4

08

10,8

62

4.36

1 10

,718

-1

.331

7,

371

-31.

231

10,1

51

37.7

21

10,2

30

0.78

1 10

,887

11

,547

6.

061

11,8

63

2.741,~.;8,201

-30.

871

11,2

37

37

.02

11

0,9

25

-2

.781

12

,357

12

,662

6,l

2.

471

12,4

48;

-1.6

911

18,6

34

-30.

641

12,1

71

40.9

71

12,0

62

-0.9

01

13,2

81

13,778·~,:j'3.141

13,2

33'

.-3.

961

I 8,

815

. -3

3.39

1 12

,778

44

.961

12

,417

-2

.361

14

,205

14

,361

,1,,:

',1.1

01

14,1

08

. -l

.76

1t:

9.1

14

-31.

151

13.7

34

41.3

81

13,4

25

-2.2

51

15,1

29

15,166~:W.l

0.24

1 14

.717

' -2

.961

; 10

,254

-3

0.33

1 14

,179

38

.281

1

4.0

20

. -1

.121

16

.220

16

,131

' -0

.551

15

.288

-5

.231

' 14

,315

-6

.361

14

,566

1.

751

17,0

86

17,2

20

0.78

1 16

,161

-6

.151

14

,811

-8

.351

15

,864

7.

111

17,7

01

18,0

63

2.05

1 16

,632

-7

.921

15

,448

-7

.121

16

,577

7.

311

\- I ~ 18

,212

18

,695

.

2.65

1 17

,238

-7

.791

16

,139

-6

.381

16

,837

4.

321

18,5

69

18.888~. I

1.

751

17,6

92,.

-6.9

31

16,4

65

-6.9

41

17

,42

0'

:i.80

1 19

,455

19

,863

",:

2.1

01

18

,15

0;-

-8.6

21

17

,052

-6

.051

17

,847

4.

661

19,9

38

20,4

19 '

1, L

2.4

11

18,9

86

\ -1

.021

17

,656

-7

.011

18

,289

3.

591

20,2

67

20

,87

0'?

: 2.

981

19

,46

3'

-6.1

41'1

8,16

1 -6

.691

18

,633

2.

601

. 20

,708

21

,305

.2

.881

19

,771

-1

.201

18

,539

-6

.231

18

,984

2.

401

21,1

23

21,6

64

2.56

1 20

,148

-7

.001

18

,993

-5

.731

19

,296

1.

601

21,6

50

22,0

44

1.82

1 20

,405

-7

.441

19

,318

-5

.331

19

,522

1.

061

22,0

00

22,3

76

, 1.

711

20,6

52

-7.7

01

19,7

25

-4.4

91

19,7

79

0.27

1 22

,289

2

2,7

43

;. ;

·2.0

41

20,8

19

-8.2

01

20,0

69

-3.8

81

19,9

76

-0.4

61

22,5

62

22

,98

9',

11

.89

12

1,1

02

" -8

.211

20

,358

-3

.531

20

.285

-O

.S6I

22

,777

23

,229

;"

1.98

1 21

,309

-8

.271

20

,135

-2

.691

20

,457

-1

.341

22

,927

23

,434

."

2.21

1 21

.573

-7

.941

21

,041

-2

.471

2

0,6

48

' -1

.811

23

,044

2

3,6

18

; 2.

491

21,6

82

-8.2

01

21,3

70

-1.4

41

20,7

61

-2.8

51

23,1

05

23,6

70

2.45

1 21

,972

-7

.171

21

,504

-2

.131

20

,816

-3

.201

23

,155

23

,732

2.

491

22,0

47

-7.1

01

21,6

77

-1.6

81

20,8

27

-3.9

21

23,1

92

23

,78

0:,

2.

541

22,0

97

-1.0

81

21,6

97

-1.8

11

20,8

42

-3.9

41

23.~

22

23,7

9~ t

J' 2

.471

22

,120

, -7

.041

21

,769

-1

.591

20

,874

-4

.111

23

,265

23,8U~.'· 2

,961

22

,144

-7

.021

21

,810

-1

.511

20

,874

-4

.291

23

,265

23

,858

i,

' 21

551

22,1

57

-1.1

31

21,8

28

-1.4

81

20,8

74

-4.3

71

23,2

65

23,8

581,

:,

2.55

1 22

,157

-7

.131

21

,861

-1

.341

20

.814

-4

.511

23

,265

23

,858

2.

551

22,1

57

-7.1

31

21,8

78

-1.2

61

20.8

74

-4.5

91

Wee

k 6

WIS

es\i

ll\e

d b

ecIu

se \

here

WiS

n'\ I

Lie

lp w

Irrl

n\ r

un \

hl\

wee

k.

-'>"

.:

I •

1---

-I-~'

I·'

I

1.

C,

1'1

~;

~ ':~

-><

,

"1

T

t;::

-' r)

:;,

..:

~

1 t:.\

~ 3

:--"

' . l~lw

[~II

. ...Q

t--I

\...

r--­ I ~

ULr"K.n~nl

ur

~u~.n~

• "~n"D~Lllnl&Un ~~nYA~~4

OFf

ICE

OF B

UDGE

T AN

D PR

OCRA

H PL

ANNI

NG

0111

8191

BU

DGET

AND

PRO

GRAH

ANA

LYSI

S BU

REAU

, 12

:07

PH

j ~:.

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---~

-~ ...

-----

----

----

----

---

, ii"

"'-. .

' :.

'Av

erag

e'

Per

AppUc&lt.i<~'.

, I

,----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-.---

----

----

----

----

----

---1

HB

&

" H

B7

HB

8"

FY89

.'~:

J,;

FY90

FY

91

.-----------------

---------------------------~----

----

----

----

----

---,

$3

90.6

3 14

05.9

2 ''1

0'1.

09

$'103

.0.q

$.

q03.

93

$'10.

q.59

$'

103.

99

$'105

. .q9

$'1

05.8

.q

$'10.

q.18

S'

102.

88

$.q0

3.12

$"

108.

38

$'10

8.60

$'

104.

17

$'10

3.48

$'1

08.2

7 1'1

03.1

'1 $'1

03.8

1 $'

103.

13

$'102

.&0

$'10

2.22

$'

102.

24

$'102

,1'1

$"10

1. 88

1'

100.

70

S"I0

0.53

$3

99.6

7 S3

99.0

1 $'1

02.5

9 $'1

02.7

0 $'1

03.7

1 ''1

03.'1

5 S'

105.

25

$"10

5.30

14

05.2

2 H

05.2

2 14

05.2

2 S4

05.2

2

$'129

.21

14'1

1.59

S4

30.0

4 $4

34.2

0 $.

q34.

81

$484

.71

$487

.96

$438

.56

$440

."18

1440

.29

1439

.88

$439

.51

'440

.26

$"13

9.91

'4

"10.

22

14"1

0.14

14

"10.

13

$489

.36

1489

.67

1438

.63

H37

.80

1437

.27

$485

.68

$435

.01

S382

.18

$381

.28

S380

.87

1379

.77

S379

.37

1378

.63

S378

A7

$378

.21

1378

.27

1378

.06

$318

.12

1318

.05

S377

.80

1311

.80

$377

.80

SO.O

O $0

.00

1382

.91

$294

.9&

S2

94.4

5 12

94.1

9 12

93.&

5 $2

91.8

5 $2

92.4

4 $2

92.1

9 S2

91.8

4 $2

92.2

9 $2

90.8

1 $2

92.4

9 '2

92.1

4 S2

93.3

3 $2

92.8

6 S2

91.9

9 .2

91.8

1 $2

92.0

.q

$291

.12

1290

.15

'290

.57

$290

.69

1290

.56

$290

.42

$290

.32

'290

.53

$290

.91

' $2

91.7

0 $2

92.2

8 '2

91.2

0 $2

91. 0

4 $2

90.8

8 S2

90.8

3 $2

90.1

9 12

90.1

6 \

$290

.16

S290

.76

SO.O

O SO

.OO

SO.O

O·'

SO.O

O 10

.00

" S8

10.0

8 .2

91. 1

6 ':f

[ 13

01.9

1 $2

95.5

9 ".

;130

6.81

12

95.n

,;'i"

1801

.65

$297

.41

tf $

806.

41

'296

.13

. S8

05.5

1 $2

95.4

3 '

S303

.81

$296

.42'

S8

04.4

1 $2

95.9

5 $3

08.6

5 $2

96.1

4'

S302

.70

$295

.14

S303

.06

$296

.33

: $3

02.6

5 $2

89.8

0 ~

S802

.30

$290

.30

S301

.45

$290

.48

$301

.41

$290

.42

. $8

01.2

0 $2

90.4

0 S8

00.9

5 $2

90.4

1 S8

00.4

5 $2

90.3

9;,

1300

.14

'290

.39"

S2

99.7

0 $2

90. 53~

'. $

299.

29

$290

.82

$299

.06

$290

.30

$299

.19

$290

.02

$299

.15

$290

.3&

$2

99.0

7 $2

90.2

6 $2

99.0

6 $2

90.3

8 S2

99.4

5 12

90.4

6 $2

99.8

7 $2

91.3

4 $3

00.2

1 12

91.5

8 S3

00.5

1 $2

91.1

4 $3

00.8

1 $2

91.8

3 $3

01.0

9 .2

91.8

8 '3

01.6

1 $2

92.0

3 S3

01.6

1 $2

92.0

2 '3

01.6

1 $2

91.9

2 S8

01.&

1 '2

91.9

0 $3

01.6

1

'359

.28

$343

.51

'844

.63

$345

.06

1345

.86

$346

. .,1

'3

47.2

9 '3

48.8

2 $8

48.3

2 $3

.,9.7

7 $3

48 . .

,2

13.,8

.61

.3.,8

.62

$348

.91

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

, ,

Wee

k 6

WiS

es'i

lile

d b

ecau

se '

here

was

n',

, L

ie,p

War

rin\

run

lha'

wee

t.

: .~~

.

,...,

__

__

__

__

_ .

__

.. _

__

__

__

_ • _

__

__

__

__

__

__

_ ~ _

__

._

, •. _

__

__

__

__

__

__

•• _

_ '

....

"

....

....

.. ~ ~ _

_ ... _._...~~,~, _

__

__

'-_

• _

__

_ •• _

",-J.

• .-. ""_

-"-

-.:.~ -~ _

_ ."

,"-,-

4. _

__

'_,

_,

LIE

AP

$

TA

T;;

O

F "Q~TAN:'

P4

G£

.. e

...

.....

1J

R~PuRT Ne~.

q':>

T L~p~3C4!o-1

o::

p"R

r",:

:rH

O

f'

iGC

t.1

L

.i.~'l ~eHA~'LlrArION sS~~ICeS

Q.J

t,

'( I

'" ......... 'l':~l)

~CO~O~IC ASSlsrA~C~

OJ' y

I ;

I O

N

~ . .I.

, P

4T

0

"".2

q".

;o

--"

_.-

---

----

----

-~

---,'-------

----------=H-S~G¥--OhQ...;" ..

.... ;

. ~""'T l;rl~5-

---------

,,-,

-~,,

----

.-

ST

ArE

.I

Q::

TV

F::

O

.::L

LIN

G

SIN

GL

E

~ULTf

"'O~IL€

To

r A

L B

EO

QO

,)"'

S

ON

E

T .0

T

ril'

:E

FO

JR

e;N~

T.a

T

h ..

:c

FO

uq

O

NE

T

-a

Th~::::

FO

'JR

--

--G

AS

IIA

)

29

9 ]

1

54

1

66

4

11

24

5

7<

-3

10

5

6

32

6

14

d7

6

71

21

3 1I21~~

5 E

LE

e

::I..!

1

7~0

6e 1

3

]6

d

02

q

.. s

25

1

25

1

4:!

4u

e 3

1]

IS

5 ~

3 j

) )-

PO

'I:)

P

1'5

!!

41

Z

20

:5

ez

25

21

) 6

3 2

41

5

17

2

11

1

8

I .J

I 0

Iv

..

00

0

CO

AL

0

1'-

OHt~q

Tu

TA

LS

8EO~OO"i

Gl.

S

EL

EC

;>

RO

P

.00

0

C0

4L

O

IL

~TriE'I

TO

T A

L S

"O'-

'i-<

::E

S

J.F

'JC

F

S

SS

I V

I.

GA

~S

S!:

LF

E

"'P

S

AL

A"

v Cf":::~

~E ..

. T=

qj

"E·.Jr[~~

0 ..

'j';

:<1

5

1~6

32

2

21

1

&6

'l

19

3

2

I )

10

1

26

3

22

I~J

61

C

0

0 0

-I ,}

.l ~

48

11

2

71

J

12

3,}

S IN~LE

O'4

!:

T ..

. O

TH

RE

E

FOu~

22

27

&1

6

'JC

73

4

"IC

lle1

2C

I 2

1 2

•

25

:);:

' ..

36

39

0<

1

36

21

47

2

02

1:i

l 5

7!!

:!3

1

7:1

J4

9

6l7

Z

41

77

2

261aC'~

~4 3

19

5

]06

3

24

4"5

2

46

4

53

16

2

8&

) 2

2J6

..

51

1 'i

I 3

bO

3 I

.

6C

61

l -~

363-~9 .

'J

O·

.~'

0 0

48

01

J)

14

33

16

2

98

50

J6

S

Ca2

17

OF

IN

C .

J"E

5~t.q

'';~ 1

1

2 ~4~

eli

1

I&J,

,>

:: ,I. ,

I

11

5

b1

16

1

12

41

.. 1

!'H

U

TIL

ITIE

S

AN

;\jU

AL

J

I'<

(;.)

....

!::

. 0

TO

2

CO

C

2ee

I T

il

4C

OO

40

'='

I T

O

6('~1)

60

.)1

T

O

3::

00

eC

'H

TO

1

1)0

'1')

1

3C

C'1

T

C

12

::0

,)

12

CC

I T

G

14

C'0

C'

14

CO

I T

t.

10

(')C

16,)~1 C~ G~~-T!:,q

II ~4

~\li

?"

I"

ri=

:"'T

_

llJC

}'

)~1,t:!15

bc·.~F

IT'"

"

... t.

:"J"

-4T

!>.~~1.<te2

"E~L;\j:J

"·4

('·.

)'4

T

13

1

2

8 I

46

9

'0

0 I

0 0

0 I

I I

I I

J 1

#.1

9

9

c 0

0 0

0 0

19

15

Id

6l

!:o1

d ~6

81

C

26

11

Tv;

:>.:

C

.!::

LL

ING

M

UL

TI

O"l

E

T ..

e;

TH~c'::

FC

..Jq

O

"-E

T

.:;

17

9'3

12

1

72

1::

;2

11

0'1

6

15

1(\

4

6C

21

9

12

J1

49

2

58

1'1

3

3--

1 o

s::!

1

15

JJI

12

J7

1

52

13

0

l1:i

70

I .

6?

66

1

P.l

'l

20

94

'1

!l4

B

Bo

l]

22

.)(1

I 1

16

52

2

10

':

I :; ~.~

25,;

) 6~1l

le'H

:2

0 1

11

'l

C

0 IS

2

-.3

51

9

4"2

.:.

99~

53

'1

16

19

2

41

42

2

0 0

0 0

0 0

45

'= 6

92

5

7e3

15

1,)17C~

2:h

29

2

2":!

65

1

7 ~c 0

l

21

ql)

~1e5

62

6]

39

33

2

1'5

2

10

'1'1

61

) ')

q ~OC::~

47

10

?'

t (:1.;

7';

1

4 es

3

!!2

A;>

PL

tC",

TI:

J'l

.~:;

LI:

::l.

':>

::J

"4L

V

_c:: .

. Tti

=R

ll-T

lu'l

~3~H

c

OI!

. ...

3L

:O

H:.

t.O

0-

=

H~.1a

OF

H

!::"

O

0"

H:A

:l

OF

H

::A

O

Of'

HC:"\~

GF

FO~

O'jL

v

&1

6b

H

H

>

59

.8

4')

H

H

(b

e

>2

0

14

13

2

HH

<

2

1

51~

HH

F

EI"

!"'L

':

1;:

41

8

H'i

"UL

E

65

1,)

t1

ti

:;:: )

( UNt<.NO.~

11

C 2

C

0 t.

.1':;

V::

O

0 2C)9~

IN=

L t

el'

lL E

3

7

O'JPLICAr~s

t:t 1

I

SA

]

I ~

2 I

S-

I)

0 1

6

2<J

I ,,

31

0

0 0

12

94

6

5

20

,,9

0

TOTA~i,.{

MO~ILO:

Ttt~=:c

FC

'JR

v,

)Y

16

f>:I

!is

8('

~5

25

2)1

24

1

!:;3

1Q

) 3

11

4

22

lJIO

:'

'-17

1 '=

.. ~ 1

)

~4 0

i2

81

24

05

'-

/J..;

' ,

I I

0 3~

7d

5

2 I

2 1

31

1

8)

0 I

l" 2

2

I J

1 eO

: 4

2'!

3

6<

:23

5

I)

0 0

""~125

~o 3

~4

61

0i3

J2

"

DE~)G~"",:lH':;

WI-'

I T

E

16

61

"

HIs

o"'''4

IC

;iLA

Co<

. I"

'JI"

....

AS

I .

....

Ncr

~::P::J~T~:J

::lO

:,'l

l A

L5

O"::~

')C

~':'''4)IC4'''PEO

"" I

T o-

oE-'I

T

ur"

'L

31

8

64

17~J

56

1

) I

d

30

..,

Jlo

J 1S':~

21

<;"

':1:

' ~~U5!~ 'i::~~=ITI

U,U~~:l ~::N::~ITl

Q:.~4!:J

4~.~;5

At:.JU~T'= ••

: t:

.~N:

t::

I r

b. 1

"'''.

1 )

6

tt~

ATT

AC

HM

ENT

TO

PSC

5

22

-1

R-I

ep

\t

\ \

\. ,::2

~

t~

/--

,r,

.~

WEATHERIZATION (p. B-71 LFA Budget Analysis, p. 21 SRS Budget Narrative)

PURPOSE

To help low-income households reduce their home heating costs and to help conserve natural resources. Our goal for this year is 2500 homes.

DESCRIPTION

Energy-saving measures such as insulation, furnace repair and caulking are installed after each home has had an energy audit to determine the most cost-effective measure. No more than an average of $1648 per home is allowed.

Personnel and material needed are obtained locally by fifteen Human Resource Development Councils and tribal organizations. The federal government turned over its responsiblity for tribal operations to SRS during the last fiscal year.

The program is funded through a mix of federal funds from the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services LIEAP and oil Overcharge funds. Local agencies receive funding from us based on their share of the state's eligible population.

Training and technical assistance is provided to ensure that work done by weatherization staff is as professionally done and that the program is as effective as possible.

ISSUES

The program enjoys considerable support at the Congressional and state level. No major issues are apparent at this time.

W-1

WE

A T

HE

RIZ

A T

ION

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

PR

OG

RA

M

HO

ME

S W

EA

TH

ER

IZE

D

1.3

1.2

-I l1

21

4

1166

1.1 ~-1

08 ----

----0 w

N

_

a:

:>~

-.....

..~

0.9

\ w

-~~

0.8

c

--=>

CJ)

co

__

__

__

__

__

__

V

I

• •

~ 7

51

w I

I)

::E :

::J

O~

0.7

J:I

-\J.

.. 0 0

.6

a:

w

co

~~20

::E

0.5

:::>

z

0.4

r"37

5

0.3

--

~t246

0.2

PY

89

-90

P

Y9

0-9

1

PY

91-9

2

AP

Ril

1 -

MA

RC

H 3

1 P

RO

GR

AM

YE

AR

0

DO

E

+

O!l

OV

R.

CH

RG

. <>

lI

EA

P

:::...

__

(f

)

-J

I W

>

-

~ W

0

) -J

C

o C

J:.=

z:=

-~

0-

z :::>

lL.

2.2 2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

WE

A T

HE

RIZ

A T

ION

AS

SIS

TA

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

FU

ND

ING

BY

SO

UR

CE

DO

E

~OE

I "

...

I

lIE

AP

PY

89

-90

P

Y9

0-9

1

AP

Ril

1 -

MA

RC

H 3

1 P

RO

GR

AM

YE

AR

DO

E

lIE

AP

~

PY

91-9

2

'" "~ ,,'

. \~}()J

'" \d

J',

Li

\ .

\ J) -, I

~

\

~

WE

A T

HER

IZA

TIO

N A

SS

ISTA

NC

E P

RO

GR

AM

P

Y91

-92

BU

DG

ET

CA

TEG

OR

IES

AD

MIN

ISTR

A T

ION

(10

.0%

)

TRA

ININ

G &

TE

CH

. A

SS

ISTA

NC

E (

6.7%

)

LOW

/NO

CO

ST

(0.3

%)

MA

TE

RIA

LS

(20.

4%)

PR

OG

RA

M S

UP

PO

RT

(62.

2%)

LIA

BIL

ITY

IN

SU

RA

NC

E (

0.5%

)

BUDGET NARRATIVE

DOE, STRIPPER WELL, AND EXXON

TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

DOE Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) Funds

Item .1 Cost: $14,000

Residential Energy Auditor Certification Training

Description: Contract for two (2) grantee and subgrantee energy auditor training and certification sessions. Approximately $7,000 per one (1) week session.

Item 2.

Subgrantee Training and Technical Assistance

Cost: $113,000

Description: Subgrantee training will be obtained as specific local needs dictate. Subgrantees are required to submit a workplan describing the intended use of respective T & TA funds. Allowable T & TA activities include the following:

* Attend state or national training sessions.

* Contract for local weatherization related training.

* Provide educational materials or training to low income households.

* Purchase equipment to enhance the technical or educational capabilities of the program.

* Demonstrate weatherization techniques to low income families, organizations, etc.

* Pursue non-federal weatherization funds.

* Review weatherization and program management techniques utilized by other subgrantees in the state and region.

w-f

Grantee Travel to National, Regional, and state Weatherization Training Conferences

cost: $2,000

Description: T & TA funds will be used to supplement weatherization program staff attendance at national, state, and regional weatherization conferences. Staff will gain a wider perspective and gather useful program information at these functions. Staff will attend the regional weatherization conference which is to be held in South Dakota in June of 1991. Other state and national conferences will be attended if deemed appropriate to enhance grantee understanding of the weatherization process. At this time, the individuals who will attend, the exact locations of conferences, and the costs of travel and per diem are unknown.

Energy Conservation Client Education Booklets

Cost: $6;000

Description: The grantee will produce, print, and distribute to subgrantees approximately 10,000 energy conservation client education booklets. The booklets will be left with clients after their homes are weatherized. Subgrantee staff will explain information contained in the booklets as part of the client education component of the weatherization process.

Item .2- Cost: $5,000

Health and Safety Workshop

Description: The grantee will facilitate one (1) four day health and safety workshop. The workshop will be attended by grantee and subgrantee staff. Speakers will cover topics including:

* Workmanship practices and accident prevention;

* Indoor air quality (radon, asbestos, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, fiberglass, etc.); and

* Wiring, plumbing, and moisture control.

W-6

stripper Well and Exxon Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) Funds - Regular Training and Technical Assistance Activities

Item 1

1992 Energy Conservation Calendars

Cost: $11,250 stripper Well $1,625 Exxon

$12,875 Total

Description: 25,000 energy conservation calendars will be produced and distributed for the purpose of affecting the energy use behavior of all low-income energy program recipients. 1992 will be the fifth year the grantee has distributed energy conservation suggestions in a calendar format. This approach has the advantage of providing season-specific information to low-income clients on a sustained basis. At $.52 per calendar, it takes very little effort on a low-income household's part to return this conservation investment:

Item .a Cost: $ 2,000 Exxon

Montana Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Advisory Committee Budget

Description: Exxon T & TA funds will be contracted to District IX HRDC for the purpose of operating the Technical Advisory Committee during the 1991-1992 program year. Committee membership consists of five (5) subgrantee staff, one (1) grantee staff, and one (1) representative from the Sun Power Consumer Association. The Committee will meet periodically to update state weatherization standards, research new weatherization technologies, and gather and disseminate technical information to all subgrantees. The committee will utilize its operating bud~et to research technical and educational issues, distr~bute its findings, and hold periodic meetings throughout the state.

w-7

Item d Cost: $7,625 Exxon

Grantee Field Supervisor Training and Technical Assistance Related Support Costs

Description: Two (2) of the primary objectives of subgrantee monitoring are to identify the T & TA needs of subgrantees and provide on-site T & TA covering subjects including inventory control, financial management, procurement, materials installation, computer software applications, and energy audit techniques. Accordingly the grantee will use Exxon T & TA funds to pay the costs of travel, materials, and per diem associated with these activities.

stripper Well and Exxon Training and Technical Assistance ~ ~ TA) Funds - Evaluation and Leveraging Activies

Item .1

Household Energy Consumption Data Base

Cost: $11,250 Stripper Well $4,000 Exxon

$15,250 Total

Description: In addition to maintaining and accumulating energy consumption data by fuel type for all households weatherized since program year 1988, the grantee will contract to expand the capacity of the ener9Y consumption data base to include the follow1ng information for each home weatherized:

* Total costs associated with reducing infiltration.

* Total costs associated with reducing conductive heat loss.

* Total costs associating with addressing heating systems.

* Total ventilation and miscellaneous repair costs.

* Total labor and material costs by funding source.

* The square footage and volume of the home.

* The completion date.

The energy consumption data base provides "before and after weatherization" fuel consumption data on homes weatherized. Consumption data enables the grantee to evaluate overall energy savings achieved by each subgrantee. Expanding the data base will enable the grantee to correlate the energy savings achieved by subgrantees to the type of work being performed on different sizes and types of homes.

Item 2.

Energy Consumption Evaluation

Cost: $7,250 (Exxon)

Description: The grantee will contract to have an energy consumption evaluation compiled on homes weatherized during the 1990 program year. The evaluation of homes will be similar to an evaluation currently being conducted on homes weatherized during the 1989 program year. However, expanded features of the Household Energy consumption Data Base described above, will enable the grantee to more accurately attribute energy savings (adjusted for heating degree days, presence of secondary heat, etc.) to the type of measures performed on dwelling units.

w-{

3 -r, -;; /-d,8-- 9 r-,:,e_~~--/]-:W- 1X~·

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS (p. B-71 LFA Budget Analysis, p. 35 SRS Budget Narrative)

PURPOSE

The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provide funds for the renovation, rehabilitation or operating costs of homeless shelters and for the provision of follow-up and -long-term services to help homeless people escape poverty.

Shelters to be assisted and services to be delivered are determined by the state's HRDCs. Last year, 14 shelters received help.

ISSUES

The problems of homelessness continue to receive increased attention at the federal and state level. Although funds from these two programs are intended to deliver direct services, SRS hopes to be actively involved in the state-wide implementation of the recently-passed National Affordable Housing Act to ensure that our strategy ensures participation of the state's low income population.

Indian tribes are now eligible for participation in HUD's program and we are awaiting guidance for particulars concerning that change.

H-1

- ~ \ ~

'./8

7)

[IIU

luU

II ..

T

I. U

l'Il'l

I II(

~rRVICES

Hon

El. E

SS

GHAN

I r""

fM,,[

OF

2

UN

lY

AO

nnES

S CO

NTAC

T PE

RSON

&

PI/O

NE

NUt'Il

lER

m I

TliE

crrv

f1fl

iV S

F:S

Act

ion

fo

r E

aste

rn M

onta

na

III

Wes

t B

ell

, G

len

div

e,

MT

5933

0 P

atr

icia

C

alla

gh

'II1

, E

""clI

t iv

e D

lrp

ctn

r

)

ELIG

IBLE

A

CTIV

ITY

Exp

ansi

on o

f co

mpr

ehen

sive

ser

vice

s to

ho

mel

ess

ind

ivid

ual

s to

pro

vide

fo

llow

-up

and

long

-ter

m s

erv

ices

to

ena

ble

hom

eles

s in

div

idu

als

to m

ake

the

tran

siti

on

out

of

pove

rty.

:)

Pro

visi

on o

f as

sist

ance

in

ob

tain

ing

soci

al

and

mai

nten

ance

ser

vice

s an

d in

com

e su

ppor

t se

rvic

es

for

hom

eles

s in

div

idu

als.

,~

Pro

mot

ion

of p

riv

ate

s~ctor

and

oth

er a

ssis

tan

ce t

o h

omel

ess

ind

ivid

ual

s;

and

PLEA

SE

BR

1H

o-n

rsn

HsE

DA

T I::

HOW

ACT

I VIT

Y W

ILL

BE

ACC

ON

PLI S

ilEO

AC/

fI£\'[

IJ BY

By

pla

cin

g

ho

mele

ss

Ind

ivid

uals

w

ho

are

se

ek

ing

p

erm

an

en

t sh

elt

er

In

perm

an

en

t h

ou

sin

g.

By

so

do

ing

, p

ote

nti

al

em

plo

yers

, jo

b

serv

ice

an

d

cu

rren

t em

plo

yers

are

bett~r

ab

le

to

co

nta

ct

these

Ind

ivid

uals

at

a co

nsis

ten

t lo

cati

on

fo

r em

plo

ym

en

t.

Em

erg

ency

S

erv

ices

sta

tf

ad

vo

cate

s fo

r,

an

d

acts

as

liais

on

b

etw

een

h

om

ele

ss

ind

ivid

uals

an

d

ag

en

cie

s p

rov

idin

g

foo

d

stam

p,

AFD

C,

UIC

, g

en

era

l assis

tan

ce,

fuel

assis

tan

ce,

co

un

seli

ng

serv

ices

(AA

, H

en

tal

Healt

h,

Dru

g

and

A

lco

ho

l>,

an

d

ed

ucati

on

al

Insti

tuti

on

s

to

ob

tain

n

eed

ed

assis

tan

ce.

1.

By

co

ord

inati

ng

an

d

co

mb

inin

g

Em

erg

ency

S

erv

ice

effo

rts

w

ith

lo

cal

ch

urc

h

gro

up

s,

Salv

ati

on

A

rmy,

fo

od

an

d

clo

thin

g

ban

ks,

lo

cal

FEH

A

co

mm

itte

es,

p

riv

ate

en

erg

y

aS

Sis

tan

ce,

mig

ran

t w

ork

er

pro

gra

ms.

2. :~ ) 1 1 ~ j I . B

y ra

isin

g ad

dit

ion

al

em

erg

en

cy

h

om

ele

ss

tun

ds

thro

ug

h

join

t tu

nd

rals

ers

w

ith

co

mm

un

ity

b

ase

d

org

an

izati

on

s.

TOTA

L T

ill S

PAG

E

1 :.:

.~ _',I

~I

JU

lie

)0

. 10

'lO

Ju

ne

)0

, 19

')0

Ju

ne

)0

, 1

99

0

A7h

n

PRO

POSE

O-W

ST

1101

3079

3080

10

00

JBfl

/045

:)

- - I ,)

0: ••

•

'0

P/·r

;E

2 OF

2

Wry

1I

0DR

Iss-

----

-CO

NTl

lcT

PERS

ON

& P

HONE

/l1

lt·m

ER

DII

ITR

ITf I

yEo

8 (

Sf'S

A

ctio

n

for

Eas

tern

Mon

tana

II

I W

eHt

Bell

. G

len

div

e.

MT

5933

0 P

atr

icia

C

all

ag

han

. E

xec

llti

ve

Dir

ect"

r

PL

Em

BR

IEIT

YIT

ISC

RlB

E

DA

lE

ELIG

IBLE

AC

TIVI

TY

110W

AC

TIVI

TY W

ILL

BE

IICCo

r'lPL

ISIIE

D

IICIfI

EVEO

BY

Pro

vis

ion

of

assi

stan

ce

to a

ny

indi

vidu

al

who

ha

s re

ceiv

ed a

not

ice

of f

orec

losu

re,

evic

tio

n.

or

term

inat

ion

of u

tili

ty

serv

ices

, if

-

Up

to

25

%

of

fun

din

g

wil

I

be

used

to

sta

bil

ize

ind

ivid

uals

to

p

rev

en

t u

tility

o

r h

ou

sin

g

term

inati

on

d

ue

to

su

dd

en

re

du

cti

on

o

f in

co

me

an

d

wit

h

the

reaso

nab

le

pro

sp

ect

of

the

retu

rn

to

self

su

ffic

ien

cy

. T

his

co

ntr

act

run

s

co

ncu

rren

tly

w

ith

FE

MA

w

hic

h

co

vers

id

en

tical

cris

es.

Co

ord

inati

on

w

ith

FE

MA

~hould

en

ab

le

lon

ger

term

sta

bil

izati

on

fo

r th

ose

facin

g

term

inati

on

as

they

w

ill

be

ab

le

to

"g

et

their

feet

back

u

nd

er

them

selv

es".

Jun

e )0

. 19

90

(1)

The

inab

ilit

y o

f th

e in

divi

dual

to

m

ake

mor

tgag

e,

ren

tal,

or

uti

lity

pa

ymen

ts

is d

ue

to a

sud

den

redu

ctio

n in

in

com

e;

(2)

The

assi

stan

ce

is n

eces

sary

to

avoi

d th

e fo

recl

usu

re,

evic

tio

n,

or

term

inat

ion

of

uti

lity

ser

vic

es;

and

(3)

The

re

is

a re

ason

able

pro

spec

t th

at

the

ind

ivid

ual

w

ill

be a

ble

to

resu

me

the

paym

ents

w

ithi

n a

reas

onab

le

peri

od o

f ti

me.

ii .

T, :j • " j'( l :1 1 I :~ '1

TOTI

IL

THIS

PA

GE

27

54

Plm

posW

-cO

ST

2754

JBN

/045

~:

()

III

erik

'"

t; ,'~

~~

---

-}.

en

:s }-

:::~

t~0v

~f()

)l

.t'l

! c

"

\;?-L

D. ~

f--,

:---

- 1::

1-".

" ... H

·1

~V

q71

£n[R

GE

r.".

C(II"·I'I:IT.~·nC[S

IlU:1

U I

~S L

;;i·:

t

1:

z

URTY

AD

DRES

S CO

NTAC

T PE

RSON

g

r'lj

rrnr

~!"-

;i ------

-r~

~~T~TiTI:?~:-c:--~---~-

Hil

l,

Bla

ine

& L

ihert

y

Dis

tric

t IV

HR

DC

Bob

II

t-L

.:ll

Ifdd

in,

EX

Pf'

utiv

e Il

ir"ctn

r (4

06

) 2

6"-

07

41

P

.O.

Box

15

09,

Hav

re,

nr

5950

1

ELIG

IBLE

ACT

IVIT

Y

Expansio~

of cO~Drehensive

serv

ices

to

ho

mel

ess

ind

ivid

ual

s to

pr

ovid

e fo

llow

-up

and

long

-ter

m s

erv

ices

to

en

able

ho

mel

ess

ind

ivid

ual

s to

ma~e

the

tran

siti

on

out

of

po

vert

y.

Pro

visi

on o

' as

sist

ance

in

ob

tain

ing

soci

al

and

mai

nten

ance

se

rvic

es a

nd

inco

me

supp

ort

serv

ices

fo

r ho

mel

ess

ind

ivid

ual

s.

Pro

mot

ion

of

pri

vat·

Sl::

ctor

o

Jlld

oth

er a

ssis

tan

ce

to

hom

eles

s in

div

idu

als;

an

d

\ :~ 'l ;', ~ I \ j :t

PLEA

SE

BR

lfITY

uNSC

RTB

I HO

W AC

TIVI

TY

Will

HE

ACC

OMPL

ISHE

D

1.

Reh

ab

ilit

ati

on

o

f re

cen

tly

p

urc

has

ed

dupl

('}:

to

al

low

it

to

b

e us

ec\

as

a sh

elt

er

for

wom

en

and

ch

ild

ren

w

ho

are

h

om

eles

s as

<1

resu

lt

of domestic/sexu~l

ab

use

. A

. R

epla

cem

ent

of

roo

f sh

ing

les

by

corH

ril

cto

r.

2.

A.

A n

ew

sup

po

rt

gro

up

fo

r v

icti

ms

wil

l be

est

ab

lish

ed

fo

r 9

wee

ks.

B

. 18

%

of

pro

gra

m d

irecto

r's

sala

ry

plu

s fr

ing

e,

for

5 m

on

ths

to

pro

vid

e

cOll

nse

I,

adv

oca

cy,

refe

rrals

an

d

ass

ista

nce

to

the

ho

mele

ss.

3.

Pri

vate

se

cto

r in

div

idu

als

w

ill

do

nat

" ti

me

and

do

llars

fo

r sh

elt

er

sup

po

rt.

A.

Vo

lun

teers

w

ill

help

w

i th

sh

e1 ter

upke

ep

as

done

in

19

89

(73

0

hrs

d

O!,

ated

).

B.

Vo

lun

teer

s w

ill

do

nat

e g

roceri

es

and

p

ther

necessit

ies

as

awar

enes

s gr

ows!

_

WTA

I IH

IS

r'I~r,E

---1~iI

;'CW~\,fO

flY

.I "n

,' 1

0,

1'1'

10

.111

111'

-1

0,

1'1'

)0

.hll'"

-\

0,

1'I

"n

S I,

1')2

.O()

tEl',r

-ITS

;::;

CG S

i

S I .('9~ .

11

0

$ 1

,50

0.0

il

S 0

l

FAGE

OF

2

Dis

tric

t V

-O

ppor

tuni

ties

, In

c.

P.O

. Bo

x 22

89

Gre

at F

alls

, tIT

. 59

403

Les Stevenso~

14Q

§.2

76

1-0

11

0_

_

_.

rmmr

v AU

lmES

S cm

m,T

IPEN

SmTT

PIIO

r:r I

llrm

Fll

I~Tr r

'7TT

';HfT

lT""

C': ----

ElI

GIn

LE

J1

CT/

VIT

Y

Exp

ansi

on o

f co

mpr

ehen

sive

ser

vice

s to

ho

mel

ess

indi

vidu

als

to

prov

ide

foll

ow-u

p an

d lo

ng

term

ser

vice

s to

ena

ble

hom

eles

s in

div

idu

als

to m

ake

the

tran

siti

on

out

of

pove

rty.

Pro

visi

on o

f as

sist

ance

in

ob

tain

ing

soci

al

and

mai

nten

ance

se

rvic

es a

nd

inco

me

supp

ort

serv

ices

fo

r ho

mel

ess

ind

ivid

ual

s.

Prom

otio

n o

f p

riv

ate

sect

or

and

othe

r as

sist

ance

to

ho

mel

ess

indi

vidu

als;

an

d

1 i " !~ . J ~'

,:~

" '.

" ~\ .:, i

PIT~S[-BRl E

ITTn

ESC

RIB

E lJA

TI

FP

llr0

3EIl

CO

ST

flOH

AC

TIV

ITY

W

ILL

BE

Acc

or1P

LISl

lEO

ftC

IIIF\

TO

flY

Pro

vide

cas

e m

anag

emen

t as

sist

ance

for

in

divi

dual

s fo

r tr

ansi

tio

n

into

ser

vic

es/

facil

itie

s ap

prop

riat

e to

th~

indi

vidu

al

need

.

Cli

ent

need

s w

ill

be

asse

ssed

upo

n ad

mis

sion

to

sh

elte

r an

d pr

ovid

ed f

or

to

the

exte

nt

poss

ible

th

roug

h cl

ose

coo

rdin

atio

n w

itll

othe

r pr

ovid

ers

Dev

elop

a s

ho

rt

term

sh

elte

r fa

cili

ty

for

wom

en

ages

14

th

roug

h 18

. P

rese

ntly

no

shel

ters

av

aila

ble

in

the

area

fo

r fe

mal

es

unde

r ag

e 18

.

T"TA

i. ,H

I:.

PAGE

-.--.----

f,-

30·'1

()

fi-l

l1-'

1()

r,-Jfl

-'l(

)

$'19

76

-----

.. ---~-----.-.

,IE,;

.'0'1

'i

\)

!, ','

r" '];.

~.

I .

~'I

MIl

(;c!

t=:

r-.......

,.\

~

t,

j t.

Rl!

GJ

'f'i~1

~r\

IC

::-

r ,

r~G[

2 O

F 2

---I

·Pi s

tri

c tV

. Ql

!1J(

)...r!!!.rLiU~h

1!H~

·_-e

'{~'

1 !}Q

.x 22

89

Gre

at

Fal

l 5,

MT.

594QJ~lei"SJe~g!!fPr.

(!O_6

) •• ~1:!l.~~ __

--_-_

.-.... ,

-.,

1.'--I

' r I

. ,-

'r".

' ..

• -.--

.•..

-.---

Hi

.,. "

lui

[55

co

rIT 1

\( r

I'd~

)(Jf

l CA

T

iJlN

iE

tlljf·

:lkll

I)· I

t [I

r.

\/~

J n

f '.1

"

ELIG

IBLE

A

CrlV

ITY

Pro

visi

on o

f as

sist

allc

e to

allY

il

ltii

vidu

;ll

~ho

has

rece

ived

J

noti

ce o

f fo

recl

osur

e,

evic

tio

n,

or

tenn

indt

ion

of u

tili

ty

serv

ices

, if

-

(1)

The

inab

ilit

y o

f th

e in

divi

dual

to

m

ake

mor

tgag

e,

ren

tal,

or

uti

lity

pa

ymen

ts

is d

ue

to a

sud

den

redu

ctio

n in

in

com

e;

(2)

The

assi

stan

ce

is n

eces

silr

y to

avo

id

the

fore

clu

sure

, ev

icti

on

, or

te

rmin

atio

n of

uti

lity

ser

vic

es;

and

'""

(3)

The

r'e

is a

re

ason

able

pro

spec

t th

at

the

indi

vidl

ld I

wi"

be

ab

le

to

resu

me

the

paym

ents

w

ithi

n d

reds

onab

le

peri

od o

f tir

ole.

PllA

stl

llIT

HIT

DTs

Clfl

lrE

HO\-I

ACT

IVIT

Y

I-IlL

L llE

JlC

CO

flPLI

SilE

O

\ :i~ ..

, , "

}' ij

; 'I

Prov

ide

dir

ect

fin

anci

al

assi

stan

ce

to

ind

ivid

ual

s/fa

mil

ies

to

prev

ent

evic

tio

n

and/

or

tran

sfer

in

to p

erm

anen

t sh

elte

r.

TOTA

L TI

ll S

PAGE

DATE

M

fllEV

EO

BY

6-30

-90

~.lli.2.

..

,-

--Y

,:rJ

lrJS

ED

-co

s-r

-

$299

2

Jg'1/0~5

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) (p. B-71 LFA Budget Analysis, p. 19 SRS Budget Narrative)

PURPOSE

100% federally-funded program to alleviate the causes of poverty.

DESCRIPTION

Funds are distributed to the state's Human Resource Development Councils (HRDCS) based on a formula contained in state law ($50,000 base plus each HRDC's share of the state's low income and general population) to develop and implement local anti-poverty programs and strategies. SRS reviews work plans for consistency with purposes of block grant.

ISSUES

Federal law requires that at least 90% of the block grant be passed through to HRDCs. State CSBG legislation (page C-5) allows SRS to retain 5% for special projects.

SRS is requesting that it be allowed to retain such funds for FY93 biennium to help address statewide problems such as health care, hunger, homelessnessand energy costs.

Funding allocations reflecting setasides for special projects at 0%, 2.5% and 5% of total CSBG are listed on page C-2.

C-1

FY 1991 CSSG ALLOCATIONS

\11TH NO SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND

A B C 0

FY 1991 INCREASE AGENCY & INCREASE AS A % POPULATION FY 1990 FY 1991 OVER 1990 OF 1990 AVERAGE % ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION .. _- .. - ....... ----_ .. _-- --------------------------------AEM (13.63) $127,927 $188,173 $60,246 47.1%

DIST 4 (3.95) $72,553 $89,989 $17,436 24.0%

OP.INC.(14.81) $134,667 $200,124 $65,457 48.6%

• 6 (3.79) $71,638 $88,367 $16,729 23.4%

DIST 7 (16.3) $143,185 $215,228 $n,043 50.3%

RMDC (5.9) $83,730 $109,806 $26,076 31.1%

DIST 9 (7.23) $91,350 $123,319 $31,969 35.0%

N\lMHR (12.27) $120,146 $174,377 $54,231 45.1%

DST 11 (13.14) $125,'31 $183,216 $58,085 46.4%

DIST 12 (8.98) $101,360 $141,068 $39,708 39.2% ========= ===============================

$1,071,687 $1,513,669 $441,982 41.24%

C - J

\11TH 2.5% SPECIAL PROJECTS MONEY ($39,834)

E F G

FY 1991 INCREASE INCREASE AS A %

FY 1991 OVER 1990 OF 1990 ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION - .. -------------------------------

$182,744 $54,817 42.8%

$88,418 $15,865 21.9%

$194,225 $59,558 44.2%

$86,860 $15,222 21.2%

$208,735 $65,550 45.8%

$107,456 $23,n6 28.3%

$120,438 $29,088 31.8%

$169,490 $49,344 41.1%

$177,982 $52,851 42.2%

$137,489 $36,129 35.6% ================================ $1,473,836 $402,149 37.52%

III

II

\.11TH 5% SPECIAL PROJECTS MONEY ($79,667)

H • FY 1991 INCREASE INCREASE AS A % II

FY 1991 OVER 1990 OF 1990 ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ---------_ ...... ----------- ..... -------

$177,314 $49,387 38.6% III

$86,846 $14,293 19.7% .. $188,326 $53,659 39.8%

$85,352 $13,714 19.1% Ii $202,242 $59,057 41.2%

.<.~

$105,106 $21,376 25.5% ill

$117,556 $26,206 28.7% '>

~ $164,602 $44,456 37.0%

>"~

$172,747 $47,616 38.1% ~ $133,911 $32,551 32.1%

=============================== ~ $1,434,002 $362,315 33.8% ..

" i

wi

vo 'ij .. .i

i III

<, ..

.. ' . . 1 ... •· .'_ ' .. "'. . .......... _'

.•.. -: ... "

• to

..

HOUSE BILL NO. 659

INTRODUCED BY J. JENSEN, JACOBSON, MENAHAN, BERGENE, VIliCENT, MCBRIDE, CONNELLY, HAFFEY,

ADDY, NORDTVEDT, HANNAH, HEHSTAD, SHONTZ, WALDRON, KADAS, ECK, R. MANNING, CRIPPEN, GRAHAM, METCALF, QUILICI, HARRINGTON, KITSELMAN, J. BRONN, THOMAS,

WALLIN, DOZIER, WILLIAMS, RA}1IREZ, CONOVER, VAN VALKENBURG, SANDS, HART, PISTORIA, MARBUT,

HOLLIDAY, KEENAN, KOEHNKE, ZABROCKI, NORMAN, BENGTSON, ROUSH, J. HAMMOND, REAM, DRISCOLL,

VELEBER, WALDRON, HANSEN, LYBECK, KENNERLY, HALLIGAN

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STATE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL COHMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT FUNDS; DEFINING "HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL"; PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF FISCAL AND PROGRAH CONTROLS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LA~v; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

(-3 STATE Of MONTANA

~lLED ~~t.",A. 14, I (( ! )

JIM WALTC::RMJRE SECRETARY OF S;ATE • "

HB 0659

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STATE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT FUNDS; DEFINING "HUMAN RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT COUNCILft; PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF FISCAL

MiD PROGRAM CONTROLS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW; AND PROVIDING AN

EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the federal Community Services Block Grant is a

federal program designed to ameliorate th~ causes of poverty in

communities within each state; and

HHEREAS, Human Resource Development Councils are nonprofit

community organizations that have served multicounty areas of the

r state in the process of helping low-income persons; and

WHEREAS, it is the basic purpose of Human Resource

Oev210pment Councils to stimulate a better allocation of avanable"

local, state, private, and federal resources toward the goal of·

enabling low-income families and low-income individuals of all

agas, in rural and urban areas, to attain skills, knowledge, and

motivation and to secure the opportunities needed for them to

become self-sufficient; and

WHEREAS, it is recognized that these needs can be best

achieved by encouraging the participation of the private sector in"

the~eefforts; and

WHEREAS, to aChieve these goals it is necessary to strengthen

local community capabilities for planning and coordinating

[ fe~eral, state, and other resources so that duplication is

(' - Li . (

.".: .).

~~,.~~:.~. ~.-. j. ',1 .Ie_" .'_ J ' . . :~ .. ~' .. H8 0659

eliminated whenever 'possible through the efforts' of' local

officials. organizations, and interestad and affected citizens.

this. act is intended to achieve a 'better

allocation of available federal and state resources.

8E IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

Section 1. ·Oefinitions. As used in (this actJ~ the following

defi~itions apply:

(1) "Block grant" means the federal community services block

grant established under 42 U.S.C. section 9901, et seq. (95 Stat.

~ll, et seq.).

(2) . "Department" means the department of social and

rehabilitation services provided for in 2-15-2201.

(3) "Human resource development council" means a nonprofit

publ ic . or . private' community' organization serving low-income

persons in a multicounty area that has the same boundaries as one

or more substate planning dis~ricts established by executive order

of the governor.

Section 2. Allocation of federal community services block

grant funds. The d(!partmcn·t shall alloc.Jte the state's ·shclre 0 f

the block grant funds as follows:

(1) The department may retain 5% for administrative cost]

5~ for special projects.

(2) The balance of the block grant funds after any retention

(

(' "\ ..

pursuant to subsection (1) must be distributed to human resource "-

HB 0659

development councils that are eligible to receive such funding

under [section 3] as follows:

(a) $500,000 7 or if the balance of the block grant funds is

less than $500,000, then the entire balance of the block grant

funds, must be equally divided among the eligible human resource

development councils; and

(b) except as provided under [section 4(2)], the balance of

the block grant funds after' distribution under subsections (1) and

(2)(a) ~ust be divided among eligibl~ human reso~rce development

councils as follows:

(i) one-half based upon the population residing within the

~ ar~as of human resource development councils; and

(ii) one-half based upon the low-income population, as that

popula~ion may be determined under the provisions of the block

grant, residing ~ithin the areas of the human resource development

councils.

Section 3. Eligible human resource development councils. The

departmen't may nut distribute block grant funds unless the human

resource d~velopment council:

(1) meets the eligibility reqUirements set forth in 42

u.s.c. section 99047 including composition of the board; and

(2) has co~plied with federal and state fiscal control

requirements and agrees to comply with all fiscal and progr~m

- requirements of federal law.

Section 4. Block grant plan county and state approval.

r I

,,~·l ~ , ; .. ~,. .......

i' .. I.~ ....

HO 0659

(

(1) A human resource development council shall prepare a plan for

use of blOCK grant funds. The planned use must be in compliance

with block grant requirements, and the plan must be made to

further the goals stated in the block grant.

(2) The human resource development council shall submit the

plan to the county governing bodies ~ithin its multicounty area.

A county gov~rning body may approve, disapprove, or offer

amendments to the plan. If the county governing body and the

human resources development council cannot agree as to the plan's

components, the department shall prepare and approve a plan for

~uch county. The department shall then allocate bloc~ grant funds

to the appropriate human ·resource development council to (

administer according to the plan approved for such county by the '-

depart;tent.

(3) Tho;! pl an must be submi tted' to the department for

~pproval prior to distribution by the department of block grant

funds allocated to the human resource development council. Th~

department may disapprove a plan, in whole or in part, only if the

plan conflicts with a federal law or regulation. A disapproved

plan may be amended and resubmitted to the depurtment.

Section S. Fiscal and program responsibility_ The department

shall ensure state compliance in fiscal accountability and program

integrity relating to block grant funds and services. The

departm~nt shall audit the human resource dev~lopment councils as·

ma~ be required by s~ate and federal law.

(-7 -4- 118 659

· . ~ .. ,. ·.i . .

(~~ .... -~.., .. '" -. • "_:~ ...... __ • ~'0,,4 '0 .•.. . . ,.- . .' :.:.r<"- He 0659

Section 6. Effective date." This act is effective July' 1,

19U3---------------------------------------------------------~7

(

- / / ,. c- ~

-5- He 659

y .;;..;. .. _-_/~-.J B~ELL .. ·

Representing

I /.,.~ ./'::1 { /" -- 0 i .

/ . l-ft.l.~\.. .')€.Vv,

<:" , ,~LeV:> C _

Family Assistance Division Norman Waterman, Administrator

Penny Robbe, Bureau Chief Jack Lowney, Budget Officer

Jack Thompson, Supervisor

FOOD STAMP ISSUANCE

Congress has authorized the Food Stamp Program to help alleviate

hunger and malnutrition among our nation's low income households.

This program allows eligible Montana households to obtain a more

nutritious diet by trading Food Coupons for groceries. The amount

of food stamps households can receive is determined by federal

program guidelines.

In Fiscal Year ~990, a monthly average of 21,052 Montana

households received their food stamps in 45 Project Areas. The

dollar amount of food stamps paid was $39,347,072 for the year, or

a monthly average of approximately $3.3 million. These are 100%

federal monies.

The Department contracts with County Offices of Human Services,

County Treasurer offices, Human Resource Development Councils "'''-

(HRDC's), Armored Car services, Post offices, banks and Tribal

Reservations to provide the issuance of Food Stamps. In FY 90,

administrative issuance costs were approximately $550,000. These

costs are generally a 50-50 match.

The Department is currently within the Request For Proposal (RFP)

process to contract for a single Food stamp Issuance contractor for

100% Food stamp mail issuance to coincide with the implementation

of The Economic Assistance Management System (TEAMS). Pilot TEAMS

counties will begin issuing Food Stamp allotments through TEAMS

beginning May 1, 1991.

II II

FOO

D S

TA

MP

S

y II r:

-0-; • i

) (

.......

I J (J

--

II :1.

t"

i

~~ ri II~~ I

I I , L.

No

ve

mb

er;1

99

0

30

00

0

20

00

0

10

00

0

0 I FS CA

SE

S -FISC

AL YEAR A

VE

RA

GE

S'

~

N

M ~ ~

ID ~

ro m

0

ro ro

ro ro

ro ro

ro ro

ro m

[ FS FISC

AL Y

EA

R P

AY

ME

NTS

(MilliO

nS)",

$4

0

: ::::

-$

30

\H

-

$2

0 -

H-

-$

10

-:: : $

0 ..:::

~INIM'~'~'ID'~'ro'm'o

ro ro

ro co

ro ro

ro •

• Y

ea

r-Io-D

ale

··C

ou

po

n V

alue

ro ro

m

..-m

I FS MO

NTH

LY CA

SE

S'

;:::: :ffiHHfllillOO ftf[lli 1

80

00

-

16

00

0

14

00

0

12

00

0

"10

00

0

_ :

80

00

=

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I j

I I I I I I /'."1 I I I I I

60

00

:j

, ,

, ,

I , , , , , I I ,

, I

40

00

@

I I I I I I : : : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2

00

0 ~ I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I I

I I

I +-I

o -, , , , , , , , , , ,

ro m

ro

ro I

•

>

C

o C1l

Z

-,

m

m

ro ro

I I

~

>-C1l

C1l :!

~

m

m m

g co

I I

,

I a.

>

c 'S

Q

) 0

C1l -,

CJ)

z -,

o 0

m

m

I •

~

>-

C1l C1l

~ ~

o g

g m

.

• .

a.

>

-Q

) 0

~

(J) Z

-... -

-----~

_ .... -.....

GENERAL RELIEF ASSISTANCE (GRA or GA) PROGRAM

General Assistance (GA) is a 100% state funded financial assistance

program designed to meet the needs of individuals or families who

do not have sufficient income or resources to sustain themselves

and who do not meet eligibility criteria for other state and

federal assistance programs. GA is available in the twelve state

assumed counties.

The 51st Legislature made several drastic changes to the GA

program. Effective July 1, 1989 such changes were to:

- deny GA for three months to persons who

quit a job without good cause, or are discharged fron a

job for misconduct (SB 100);

provide greater financial incentives for GA

recipients to get a job (thirty and one third disregard

(SB 134);

- imposition of stricter sanctions for GA recipients

who refuse to look for work (SB 99); and,

revision & clarification of laws relating to

provision of GA (presumptive income, etc.--HB 723).

The other legislative changes which took place January 1, 1990,

were to the Project Work Program (PWP) of the GA System. These

changes required individuals to be classified as employable,

unemployable, or exempt. In February 1990, there were 732

individuals found to be employable, 433 found unemployable and 159

found exempt (ie., children in school). By November, 1990, a

change in the population served was evident. In that month, 301

persons were found to be employable, 441 classified were

unemployable and 85 were exempt. The employability classification

ties directly to the length of time that a person is eligible to

receive financial assistance. Those persons who are employable are

limited to either four or six months of assistance in a twelve

month period,. while those who are unemployable have no time limit

imposed.

The savings expected from the declining GA case loads are expected

to be approximately $5 million over the next biennium. As a

comparison figure, in February, 1990, there were 1,089 GA cases at

a cost of $234,899. In November, 1990, there were 664 GA cases at

a cost of $150,252. state Fiscal year 1989 had an average monthly

caseload of 1,860, while FY90 showed an average monthly case load of

1,227.

Ge

ne

ral

Assis

tan

ce

A

vera

ge

M

on

thly

Ca

se lo

ad

S

tate

F

iscal

Ye

ars 82

-90

2,0

00

-.

1,9

29

1,8

00

-r1 ------~-------+_------+-----~~

1,6

00

1,4

00

~ , I

I I I 141 I I~~I I I I 1:1 I r:~"~1 ,--l

.,~.' .~~~

~ii : . ~

if":"· ifil;~

1 .2 2 7

,,\ 1

,20

0

1,0

00

80

0

60

0 -t--

40

0 -

t--I

200~

o FY

82 FY

83 F

Y8

4

FY85

FY86

FY87

FY88

FY

89

FY

90

.-1

;. _I ii ~I

~-

'.11 r

I. --tt l'!

! II

I '\

.J II I BOO

70

0

60

0

50

0-+ 1-

--

40

0 -+-1 -

--

30

0 -t-I -

--1

20

0 -t-I -

--1

10

0 -

+-1

---

0-+

---

Ge

ne

ral

As

sis

tan

ce

in

S

tate

-As

su

me

d

Co

un

ties In

div

idu

als

R

eceiving

B

enefits

'I~' "

Em

plo

yable

No

n-E

mp

loyab

le E

xemp

t

1m Fe

b-9

0

II] No

v-9

0

MONTANA'S FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM

The Montana Food stamp Employment and Training Program combines two

programs, the Food stamp Job Search and the General Relief

Assistance/Project Work Program into a comprehensive service

delivery package that provides employment and training services to

both Food Stamp and General Relief Assistance recipients.

Food Stamp Job Search

The federal government requires that all states operate a Food

Stamp Job Search program. Montana operates this program for food

stamp only recipi~nts who reside in: Cascade, Custer, Deer Lodge,

Flathead, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Park,

Powell, Ravalli , Silver Bow, and Yellowstone Counties. These

counties were targeted because they are population centers as well

as employment centers for the state.

Food stamp Job Search consists of a single component called

Independent Supervised Job Search. Montana utilizes the maximum

federal limits for this component. These limits set participation

levels of at least twenty-four (24) job search contacts, but no

more than twenty-four hours of total participation each month

during their eight week Food Stamp Job Search period. Included in

the 24 hours participation a month are other activities designed to

help food stamp clients find a job or become more employable.

Food stamp Job Search will serve approximately 4,932 food stamp

only clients this federal fiscal year (October 1,1990 - September

30, 1991). Supportive services of up to $25.00 per month plus up

to $160 per month for child care are available to assist

participants in finding employment. This program, except for

supportive services, is 100% federally funded. Supportive Services

are funded at a 50/50 match.

General Relief Assistance/Project Work Program (GRA/PWP)

The 1989 legislature drastically changed the focus of the General

Relief Assistance/Project Work Program (GRA/PWP). It was

redesigned to become employment driven, while taking into account

the specific needs of both employable and unemployable individuals.

The project Work Program is mandatory for employable General Relief

Assistance recipients who reside in the 12 state-assumed counties.

Recipients are required. to participate for forty (40) hours per

week in the program. Employable persons are given four months of

participation and employable persons with serious barriers are

given six months of participation.. Participation is designed to

reflect the urgency associated with finding employment.

Unemployable individuals are not limited in duration for benefits.

county Task Forces were utilized in developing procedures for PWP.

They were also essential in identifyrng available, yet affordable

community services. Community participation has proven invaluable

_ • J' 1 .~.,~ I L .:.." ... h~b! ; .---~--'----OA:=-L __ ~.8_~!lJ-~~_jJwY\. ~0. ~Ir.

to the program. Articles in state newspapers recently headlined

how the GA welfare roles have been cut in half in the past year.

One of the largest successes has been in Park County where 61% of

their employable participants were placed into jobs.

Of the 2,973 persons found employable from January through

November, 1990, 699 found employment with wages ranging from $4.59

to $5.36 an hour. Not all employable persons chose to participate

in PWP or remain employed once finding jobs. Of those 2,973

persons who were employable, 818 were sanctioned for a failure to

comply with the program or a job quit. PWP participants who

exhausted their time limited benefits totaled 388.

F19/Legnar3 - .....

Pro

ject W

ork P

rog

ram

T

erm

ina

ted

fro

m

Ge

ne

ral

Assista

nce

Ja

nu

ary,

1990 to

No

vem

be

r, 1990

o Other

(33.3%)

13 Em

ployed (21.3%)

o Em

p.loyedtSanclloned

(3.0%)

I\~"

o San

cllon

ed

(27.8%)

II TIm

e L

lmlled

Ben

e''',

(14.6%)

..

PLACEMENT

PLACEMENT OF PARTICIPANTS IN UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT

There were 7,739 referrals to the Project Work Program (PHP) from

January through November, 1990. Of those 7,730 referrals, 2,267

were immediately terminated from PWP for such reasons as not

showing up for interviews, choosing transition to work benefits, as

well as other reasons. These immediate terminations equal 29% of

the total referrals.

Of the remaining referrals to PWP, 2,973 were classified as

employable and 699 of those individuals found employment. Of the

699 who found employment, 568 were terminated from the program.

Referrals 7,739

Immediate Terminations 2,267

Employable 2,973

Found employment 699

Found employment & terminated from PWP 568

AVERAGE WAGES --

Wages

Temporary part time $4.74-

Temporary full time $4.95

Permanent part time $4.16

Permanent full time $5.33

~

.. Transition to Work

*************************************************************** .. TRANSITION - TO - WORK EXPENDITURES

12/26/90 Report Date - (December figures incomplete)

105 individuals chose transition to work benefits iIIII

• Total expenditures $25,163.04

..

MIGP~TION COMPARISON SUMMARY

01/21/91 REPORT DATE

r1IGRATION (OUT-OF-STATE TO MONTANA)

This report compares clients with a residency status of 1 month or less to their reasons for coming to Montana. Since recent arrivals comprise a large portion of GRA/PWP recipients, it is important to see their reasons for coming to Montana.

Came from 48 different states or countries:

1 MONTH OR LESS RESIDENCY STATUS

Liked Montana To Live With Relatives Find Work Other Reasons

Total:

355 114 362 206

1037

34.23% 10. 9 9~(' 34.91% 19.86%

100.00%

The States with the highest percentage of movement into Montana are Washington (18%); California (10%); Idaho (8%) and Oreion (7%) .

. ..e.

RECIDIVISM

BY CLOSURE REASON

1/8/91 Report Date - (December figures incomplete)

The system was checked for the number of individuals who were

closed from General Assistance and then returned within a specified

number of months.

67 persons returned after being off GA for 1 to 2 months

45 persons returned after being off GA for 3 months

71 persons returned after being off GA for 4 to 6 months

36 persons returned after being off GA for 7 to 9 months

5 persons returned after being off GA for over 9 months

A total of 224 persons returned to GA sometime in the

calendar year.

Co

rnp

nri'lo

n 01 G

l'nrrn

l Rclll'l C

O'll'load

RE

PO

RT

or: ~'·Jan·9'

Fisc

al

Yl'a

rs

r I;'Ci\L YEi\n

19

B8

1

98

9

19

90

1

99

1 '\~ ~ ()

~

I (j~

'\ ~j ?

-...)1 ~ ... ~

\. ~

\~s.

,"ij \:~_

I

" I.'

00

·09

·90

-91

JULY tL

G

SEP CCT

~nJ

IXC

JAN

FEB M

AR APR

1,6

32

1

,64

5

1,6

46

1

,66

3

1,6

99

1

,91

5

1,9

49

2

,08

3

2,1

82

2

,09

2

1,7

49

1

,75

6

1,7

84

1

,72

8

1,7

49

1

,92

6

2,0

19

2

,03

2

2,1

03

2

,02

1

1,6

08

1

,56

2

1,4

90

1

,42

6

1,4

30

1

,36

6

1,2

87

1

,08

9

1,0

13

9

37

6

56

6

63

6

69

6

68

6

64

7

73

"------------------_

._--------------_

.----

--------

22

00

l,~ ~ ~ I

20

00

.,.~7"

" 1

80

0

~

"-I

&:1

"

,,~

-",

16

00

-1It"

U"

1I11111111

11

""

'11

111 "

11

'1

"' It'''''''IIIIIIIII 'III"

"II'n

llllll .!.!!.utlll"""'h 1

40

0

'1""11111111", "111111

12

00

1111 "11111 111

11'111111111111111

10

00

Iltl' "'11111111111 1111111111111111.

80

0

IIII~I

~

60

0

40

0

20

0

0 JULY ,IIIJ3

SEP CCT

I'D.!

a:c JA

N

FEB M

AR

APR M

AY JU

N

DA

TA

IS IN

CO

MP

LET

E F

OR

DE

CE

MB

ER

MAY

JUN

1

,95

8

1,7

38

1

,79

4

1,5

32

8

01

7

41

-1

98

8

-1

98

9

"'" 19

90

.... 19

91

lOTAL 2

2,2

02

2

2,1

93

1

4,7

50

4

,09

3

, ..

AV

GM

OO

TH

1

,85

0

1,8

49

1

,22

9

58

5 I ...... 9 ~.

Q

~ [

Co

mp

arison

of Gen

eral Reliel E

xp

end

llures

RE

PO

RT

OF:

21

-Ja

n-9

1

Fisc

al

Years

FY

88 F

Y89

FY

90 FY

91

88

-89

-90

-91

JUL

Y

/>lG

SEP

a:;r f'..D

/ a:c

JAN

FEB

M

AR

APR

r.MY

JU

N

$3

40

,34

5

$3

41

,78

5 $

34

6,4

88

$

34

1,6

41

$

35

3,2

01

$

40

4,4

65

$

40

9,4

11

$

44

0,1

40

$

46

7,8

79

$

43

1,8

66

$

40

3,5

40

$3

37

,80

4

$3

75

,57

1

$3

70

,47

4 $

37

0,0

38

$

36

1,5

57

$

37

9,1

89

$

43

0,9

06

$

42

4,6

55

$

43

0,3

50

$

44

2,7

72

$

42

1,7

84

$

37

2,0

64

$2

98

,88

3

$3

33

,45

1

$3

21

,88

5 $

30

8,4

81

$

30

0,5

56

$

30

5,0

01

$

29

3,6

25

$

27

5,3

12

$

23

4,8

99

$

21

9,7

94

$

19

8,3

34

$

16

8,8

00

$1

58

,67

6

$1

44

,07

4

$1

55

,02

0 $

15

7,4

84

$

15

7,1

49

$

15

0,2

52

$

19

7,7

89

$500.000-r----~----,-----~----._--_.----_r----_,----._----r_--_.----_,

$4

50

,00

0 1

$4

00

,00

0

$3

50

,00

0

I I

I 1

$2

50

,00

0

$3

00

,0

, -""""" ""'"

0

0 J

'''''''1",,,,,,,,,,., .""") J

I $

20

0,0

00

$1 50

, 00

0 ~':"":·:·:·:":':':'::'4··:·:,·~:::··t:::=:::::·:·······::::t·:·: .".",.

"It .. IIIIU'"1I1I11I

$100,OOO~1t----+----~----~---+----+----1-----r----t----t----t----l

$ 50

,00

0 -

-+

--II----_

t_

--

$O-l~--~----r_---+---r_--_t_----r_--_+----+_--_+----r_--~

JUL

Y

/>lG

SE

P

CC

T f'..D

/ a

:c JA

N

FEB

M

AR APR

r.MY

JU

N

,)'

DA

TA

IS IN

CO

MP

LET

E F

OR

DE

CE

MB

ER

-F

Y88

-F

Y89

.11. FY

90

,.,,,, FY91

TOTAL

$4

,61

8,5

65

$

4,6

78

,24

3

$3

,11

8,8

14

$

96

1,7

68

.,'

~ ~. 9 !:j-

f ~ rT

~ (J)

VISITOR'S REGISTER

__ \ ..... ~~'''Y\~(1 ..... ,n'''--''''~~'''-'1'--~_· =-____ SUBCOMMITTEE

AGENCY(S) "SRS DATE I -2-8-9 I

DEPARTMENT __________ _

NAME REPRESENTING SUP- OP-./"'"' PORT POSE

i/Ai ~ ~40ln--- .> I?" 5

~d~~~ st€s -~ f/C./h ~ g~

(/1 /.,.,~' ~ ~' A.~ I ~ /'-' i3ct/<eY i!wP "~~ ~(aj~L, [)lL~ "" ' .r:;;-Lu e:;/-nf

.J6 Il,k- L 0 l).} (1.evt/ / $P-5 j

h'J.d.e.t.J- O .. Jta..&l<-.r

jI1l'-,1~ ~ ~ I

LA.--Q. '- 'S. 0 " J ~RbC,

V~-\~\c..\" CG...\,\~~t." ....... "~~))c- - ~~ '\ .2 3

f3~h J

fJ1 c- L i4-v- G H t / tv' t1i?L;L- - P,s'" '-!

--:s:'-~ ~~ \(-\c~ ,'--.. \-t~~~-D\~ ~\ p/ /..fbl. Sal1..so~ ~ ~ DC - I) '5+, G; Le!fJ; 5 mtVA

( ~k //~ "4(~e' W. '-:Yd~ MlJ/Yl/fR - JftstlC- &~~/J ~ VI ~~9 .. J'~L/, .... j-;-J-;'"

/ . '1 hA'. ~ ~.Jl.J," J).D./\. ~~I /l .In 1~ ... f .0:. 1,-:JiU" J t i . r;i;;,

_\ .W Q J itu.;i4u f, .~,{ I H-ut~(4U() 'I~-wd(j .~ LRAA/ ,\L;;)~ ~y:I'r' II R ,rJc:.. thsf /1 A~~ .tf.

~'"\C' rc:c '-;- Ct

() \-C'\ ""' r I (' ~"'CO'-I , , ..... ,,~ ~ -....

I

IF YOU CARE TO WRITE COMMENTS, ASK SECRETARY FOR WITNESS STATEMENT. IF YOU HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS, PLEASE GIVE A COpy TO THE SECRETARY.

FORM CS-33A Rev. 1985