Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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<.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