Under the bill, before DNR promulgates its rule concerning a hazardous
substance for which a federal minimum reporting amount has been established, a
person is not required to report to DNR a discharge of that hazardous substance if
the amount of the discharge is less than the federal minimum reporting amount.
Under current law, the recycling market development board provides financial
and other assistance to improve the marketing of, and to develop markets for, certain
materials recovered from solid waste. The board consists of the secretaries of natural
resources and development and 9 members appointed by the governor. Under
current law, the board is attached to DOA. Under this bill, the board is attached to
the department of development (DOD), effective on July 1, 1996. The bill also
reduces the size of the recycling market development board by 4 appointees. The bill
terminates the membership of the 9 current members appointed by the governor,
allowing the governor to appoint 5 new members. The bill also eliminates the
position of executive director of the board.
Under current law, the board provides assistance for materials that are
recovered by recycling programs operated by local governmental units and that are
required to be recycled under this state's recycling law. This bill requires the board
to annually establish a list of materials recovered from solid waste that are eligible
for assistance from the board. The list must include the materials that are required
to be recycled under this state's recycling law.
Under this state's recycling law, persons are generally prohibited from
disposing of specified discarded materials in landfills and from incinerating specified
discarded materials. These prohibitions do not apply to discarded materials from an
area that has an effective recycling program. If the area is in another state, the state
must also have an approved landfill siting program.
In order to be an effective recycling program, a recycling program must require
persons in the area to separate the specified materials from their solid waste or send
their solid waste to a facility that separates the materials from solid waste, but DNR
may grant a one-year variance from that requirement with respect to a specified
material in the event of an emergency or if the cost of selling the material exceeds
specified amounts.
Current law also authorizes DNR to grant an exception from the disposal and
incineration prohibitions for a specified material to a local governmental unit that
operates a recycling program in the event of an emergency. An exception may be for
up to one year.
This bill requires DNR to review markets for the discarded materials to which
the landfill and incineration prohibitions apply, beneficial uses for those materials
and technologies for managing those materials in solid waste. If DNR finds that a
prohibition with respect to a specific material is not feasible or practical and that the
prohibition is not needed to achieve the goals of this state's solid waste management
policy, DNR may do one of the following:
1. Promulgate a rule specifying conditions under which the material may be
disposed of in a landfill or incinerated.
2. Exempt specified persons from the landfill or incineration prohibition with
respect to the material.
3. Authorize, for up to one year, the material to be disposed of in a landfill or
incinerated.
The bill also authorizes DNR to grant a variance so that an effective recycling
program need not require persons to separate a specified material from solid waste
if DNR takes one of the actions in items 1 to 3, above, with respect to the material.
The authority granted to DNR concerning exemptions from the landfill and
incineration prohibitions and variances for effective recycling programs replaces the
authority granted DNR under current law to grant exemptions and variances in
emergencies.
Under current law, DNR determines whether recycling programs are effective
and whether to approve other states' landfill siting programs. Under current law,
DNR may approve an out-of-state recycling program only by formal rule-making
procedures.
A federal district court has held that the procedural requirements (for escaping
the disposal and incineration prohibitions) imposed on out-of-state municipalities,
beyond those requirements placed on municipalities located within this state,
discriminates against out-of-state interests in violation of the commerce clause of
the U.S. Constitution. National Solid Wastes Management Assoc. v. Meyer, No.
94-C-0603-S (W.D. Wis. Dec. 15, 1994), petition for cert. filed.
Under this bill, an out-of-state municipality is not required to obtain DNR
approval of its state's landfill siting program before disposing of or incinerating
specified recyclable materials in this state. Under the bill, DNR is not required to
undertake formal rule-making procedures to determine that an out-of-state
municipality has an effective recycling program.
Current law generally prohibits the burning of yard waste without energy
recovery in a solid waste facility in this state. Current law authorizes DNR to grant
waivers to the prohibition on burning yard waste to allow the burning of brush or
other clean woody vegetative material no greater than 6 inches in diameter at wood
burning facilities licensed by DNR.
This bill provides that the prohibition on burning yard waste without energy
recovery does not apply to the burning of brush or other clean woody vegetative
material no greater than 6 inches in diameter at a wood burning facility that is
licensed or permitted by DNR.
Under current law, the council on recycling advises various state agencies, the
packaging industry, state and local authorities and others to promote the efficient
and prompt implementation of state programs related to solid waste reduction,
recovery and recycling. This bill abolishes the council on recycling and transfers the
functions of the council on recycling to the recycling market development board.
This bill authorizes DNR to seek funds from any source for the costs of
remedying environmental contamination if the activities being funded are part of a
cooperative effort by DNR and the person providing the funds to remedy the
environmental contamination.
Currently, with certain exceptions, no elective state official, candidate for state
office, legislative employe or official of a state agency who participates in the
rule-making process may solicit anything of pecuniary value from a lobbyist or
principal. This bill provides that this prohibition does not apply to the solicitation
by an agency official of DNR of funds to pay the costs of remedying environmental
contamination.
Under current law, the low-level radioactive waste council ceases to exist after
July 1, 1996. This bill extends the existence of the low-level radioactive waste council
to June 30, 2002.
Other environment
Under current law, the attorney general must designate an assistant attorney
general as the public intervenor. The public intervenor is generally authorized to
formally initiate actions and intervene in all proceedings before any state agency or
any court where the intervention is needed for the protection of public rights in water
and other natural resources. In addition, under current law, the attorney general
must appoint a public intervenor advisory committee. This bill eliminates the public
intervenor position and eliminates the requirement that the attorney general
appoint a public intervenor advisory committee.
Under the current hazardous pollution prevention assessment grant program,
DOD, in consultation with the hazardous pollution prevention program in the
University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW-Extension), awards grants to applicants
for the purpose of having an assessment conducted to determine the full costs of
using and producing hazardous substances, toxic pollutants and hazardous waste;
to identify processes that use or produce such substances, pollutants or waste; and
to identify options for the prevention of hazardous pollution. Also under current law,
the hazardous pollution prevention board, which is attached to DOD, has a number
of responsibilities related to hazardous pollution prevention.
This bill eliminates the board and replaces it with a hazardous pollution
prevention council in DOD. The bill eliminates DOD's hazardous pollution
prevention assessment grant program and, in its place, DOD is authorized to
contract with the board of regents of the UW System for business assessment
services from the UW-Extension solid and hazardous waste education center for the
same purposes as those for which assessments were conducted under the grant
program. In addition to authorizing DOD to contract for business assessments, the
bill requires DOD, in coordination with DNR, the UW-Extension and the hazardous
pollution prevention council, to conduct an education, environmental management
and technical assistance program to promote the prevention of hazardous pollution
among businesses in the state.
This bill creates an environmental science council in DOA, consisting of 9
members, appointed by the governor, who have expertise in the engineering sciences,
economic sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, human medical sciences or
statistical or risk assessment sciences. The council, upon the request of the governor
or the secretary of administration, is required to advise the governor or the secretary
on: issues affecting the protection and management of the environment and natural
resources in this state; proposed rules that establish environmental or natural
resources standards or other criteria; the scientific and technical adequacy of
environmental programs, methodologies, protocols and tests; scientific standards or
other criteria for protection of human health and the environment; the quality of
state agency environmental plans or programs of research, development and
demonstration; and the importance of natural and anthropogenic sources of
pollution. Also, the council, upon the request of the governor or the secretary of
administration, is required to consult with state agencies on any environmental
matter.
Currently, the recycling fund is used to finance programs and activities relating
to recycling, including grants to assist local governmental units to pay for their
recycling programs. This bill transfers $25,000,000 from the recycling fund to the
general fund.
Gambling
Under current law, the state levies a 2% tax on the total amount wagered on dog
races on a given race if the total amount wagered on all previous days during the year
is not more than $25,000,000; a 2 2/3% tax if the amount is more than $25,000,000
but not more than $100,000,000; a 4 2/3% tax if the amount is more than
$100,000,000 but not more than $150,000,000; a 6 2/3% tax if the amount is more
than $150,000,000 but not more than $200,000,000; a 7 2/3% tax if the amount is
more than $200,000,000 but not more than $250,000,000; and an 8 2/3% tax if the
amount is more than $250,000,000. This bill reduces the tax to a 1% tax if the total
amount wagered on all previous days during the year is not more than $25,000,000;
to a 2% tax if the amount is more than $25,000,000 but not more than $100,000,000;
to a 4% tax if the amount is more than $100,000,000 but not more than $150,000,000;
to a 6% tax if the amount is more than $150,000,000 but not more than $250,000,000;
and to an 8% tax if the amount is more than $250,000,000.
Under current law, a racetrack licensee is required to round down payouts to
the nearest 10 cents. This rounding down may result in surplus funds in the
wagering pool and is called the "breakage". Under current law, a racetrack licensee
is required to pay 50% of the breakage to the state. This bill allows a racetrack
licensee to retain 100% of the breakage.
Under current law, an intertrack wagering licensee (a person who is issued a
license by the gaming commission for the purpose of simultaneously televising —
that is, simulcasting — a race at one racetrack that is being conducted at a different
racetrack) may not simulcast and accept wagers on more than 9 races a year, nor
accept wagers on more than one race when 2 or more races are simulcast at the same
time. This bill eliminates these restrictions.
Under current law, an intertrack wagering licensee must pay 50% of the total
amount of intertrack wagers to the racetrack at which the race is actually conducted,
after making certain allocations. These allocations are as follows: a) on days on
which no racing is held at the racetrack, but simulcast races take place, the licensee
must distribute 3.5% of the total amount of intertrack wagers to the host track for
purses at the host track and must retain at least 1% of the total amount of intertrack
wagers for purses at the licensee's racetrack; and b) on days on which racing is held
at the racetrack, in addition to simulcast races, these percentages are 2.25% and
2.25%, respectively. This bill changes these allocations by requiring only that the
intertrack wagering licensee retain at least 1.5% of the total amount of intertrack
wagers for purses at the racetrack at which the intertrack wagering was conducted.
Under current law, a racetrack licensee must deduct 17% of the total amount
wagered on a straight pool race — that is, a race in which a person picks a single
animal to win, place or show — and 23% of the total amount wagered on a multiple
pool race — that is, a race in which a person picks 2 or more animals to finish in a
certain order — and pay the remainder to winning ticket holders. This bill allows
racetrack licensees to deduct up to 20% of the total amount wagered on a straight pool
race and 25% of the total amount wagered on a multiple pool race.
Under current law, the gaming commission consists of 3 full-time members
appointed for 4-year terms. This bill changes the composition of the commission,
effective on January 1, 1996, to consist of one full-time member, who is to be the
chairperson and who is appointed for a 4-year term, and 2 other members who are
to be appointed from the ranks of state employment for 2-year terms and who are
not required to be full-time members of the commission.
Under current law, the gaming security division in the gaming commission is
responsible for providing all security services for gaming operations, monitoring
regulatory compliance of gaming operations, auditing gaming operations and
investigating suspected violations of gaming-related laws. This bill abolishes, on
January 1, 1996, the gaming security division and requires the gaming commission
to enter into a contract with either the department of administration (DOA) or
another person for the performance of these functions.
Under current law, DOA is authorized to contract for management consultation
services to assist in the management or operation of the state lottery, but DOA is not
authorized to contract for financial auditing or security monitoring services for the
state lottery. Under this bill, DOA is not prohibited from contracting for data
processing auditing services for the state lottery.
Under current law, DOA must require separate bids or separate competitive
sealed proposals for management consultation services, instant lottery ticket
services and supplies and on-line services and supplies. This bill eliminates this
requirement with respect to on-line services and supplies and provides that instant
lottery ticket data processing services are not subject to these bid and concealed
proposal requirements.
This bill increases the compensation paid to a person who sells lottery tickets
from 5% to 6% of the retail price of the lottery ticket or lottery share sold by that
person. In addition, the bill eliminates the authority of the gaming commission to
pay an incentive bonus to a person who sells lottery tickets.
Under current law, the administrator of the lottery division in the gaming
commission and the administrator of the racing division in the gaming commission
are each authorized to appoint and supervise a deputy and assistant to serve outside
the classified service. This bill eliminates these deputy and assistant positions.
Under current law, there exists an executive assistant to the gaming
commission. This bill eliminates this position and creates a deputy to the gaming
commission. Also, the bill creates a director of a charitable gaming and crane games
subunit in the gaming commission.
Under current law, the gaming commission may establish a separate Indian
gaming subunit to coordinate the state's activities regarding Indian gaming.
Current law provides that the director of the Indian gaming subunit is in the
classified service. This bill provides that the director of the Indian gaming subunit
must be in the unclassified service.
Under current law, the gaming commission is required, immediately after
every race, to test the animal that won the race and an additional animal selected
at random for any medications or foreign substances that may have been
administered to that animal. This bill changes this requirement by providing that
the gaming commission must test only one animal.
Health and social services
Public assistance
Transfer of functions from the department of health and social services
Under current law, the department of health and social services (DHSS)
provides state administration of a range of economic support and work programs.
These programs include: the aid to families with dependent children (AFDC)
program; the job opportunities and basic skills (JOBS) program, which requires
certain AFDC recipients to participate in employment and training programs; the
work experience and job training program for certain noncustodial parents,
commonly referred to as the children-first program; the food stamp program, under
which certain low-income families are provided with food coupons; the general relief
program; the relief of needy Indian persons program (RNIP); the medical assistance
or medicaid program, which provides certain medical services to certain low-income
individuals and recipients of certain other forms of public assistance; the program
for providing state supplements to recipients under the federal supplemental
security income (SSI) program, which provides cash payments to certain aged and
disabled individuals; the low-income energy assistance program; and the program
for paying funeral expenses of certain public assistance recipients. DHSS annually
contracts with county departments of social services and human services for county
income maintenance administration of RNIP, AFDC and medical assistance. Under
these contracts, DHSS reimburses counties for certain administrative expenses and
for payments to recipients and providers of services. Among other duties, DHSS
submits to the federal authorities state plans for the administration of AFDC and
medical assistance, promulgates rules that establish standards for eligibility for the
programs, supervises cost accounting and management information systems that
monitor utilization of services by public assistance recipients, recovers
overpayments under these programs and conducts activities to reduce payment
errors.
This bill transfers from DHSS to the department of industry, labor and human
relations (DILHR), effective July 1, 1996, the powers and duties of state agency
supervision for the administration of AFDC, JOBS, and all of the AFDC and JOBS
pilot programs including learnfare, work-not-welfare and the parental
responsibility pilot program. The learnfare pilot program requires certain children
in families receiving AFDC to attend school as a condition of receiving AFDC
benefits; the work-not-welfare pilot program sets time limits on AFDC benefits and
requires AFDC recipients subject to the program to meet certain employment and
training requirements; and the parental responsibility pilot program limits AFDC
benefit increases for certain additional children born to AFDC recipients and
requires AFDC recipients to participate in certain training and parental education
programs. The bill also transfers from DHSS to DILHR administration of the food
stamps program and the employment and training program for food stamp
recipients; the children-first program; and the program for payment of funeral
expenses for recipients of certain public assistance programs. The bill also transfers
from DHSS to DILHR the responsibility for state supervision of income maintenance
administration by county departments of social services and human services for
medical assistance and RNIP. This includes supervision of county efforts to reduce
recipient fraud under medical assistance and RNIP. However, DHSS retains
responsibility for administering all aspects of medical assistance other than
supervision of county income maintenance administration. DHSS also retains
responsibility for administering general relief and RNIP which, as discussed below,
are combined into an emergency medical relief program, and the state SSI
supplement. Administration of the low-income energy assistance program is
transferred under the bill from DHSS to the department of administration (DOA).
General relief and RNIP
Under current law, a county is required to provide general relief to all eligible
dependent persons within the county. A similar program provides relief to needy
Indian persons residing on tax-free land. This bill combines the general relief and
RNIP programs into a single program called emergency medical relief, under which
benefits are limited to emergency medical services. Participation by counties and
tribal governing bodies in the program is optional. Under the bill, counties and tribal
governing bodies may establish their own relief programs that are more
comprehensive than emergency medical relief; however, partial state
reimbursement is provided only to counties that elect to provide emergency medical
relief and only with respect to eligible emergency medical relief costs. In particular,
the bill makes the following changes:
1. Eligibility. Under current law, eligibility for general relief is determined
primarily in accordance with written criteria, established by counties, to determine
dependency. However, state law provides that certain people who have recently
moved to the state are ineligible for general relief until they have resided in the state
for at least 60 consecutive days. State law also provides that no person is eligible for
general relief if the person is eligible for benefits under the AFDC or SSI programs,
if the person fails to comply with general relief work requirements, if the person is
removed from certain other public assistance programs as a result of sanctions or if
the person is ineligible for AFDC because of provisions under the work-not-welfare
pilot program, which provides AFDC benefits only for a limited time period.
Similarly, current law provides that a person is not eligible for general relief medical
benefits if the person is ineligible for medical assistance because the person has
divested resources.
Eligibility for RNIP is currently determined under state law. A person is
eligible if the person is an American Indian residing on tax-free land or is the spouse
or child of such a person residing in the same household, if the person is ineligible
for SSI, AFDC or medical assistance, if the person complies with RNIP work
requirements and if the person meets the financial eligibility criteria under the
AFDC program. A person is ineligible for RNIP if the person is ineligible for AFDC
because of provisions under the work-not-welfare program.
Under this bill, eligibility for the emergency medical relief program is similar
to eligibility under the current general relief program. A person is eligible for
medical relief if the person resides in a county or on tribal land that elects to provide
emergency medical relief and if the person qualifies under written criteria of
dependency established by the emergency medical relief agency in that county or on
that tribal land. The same state residency requirements which currently exist under
the general relief program apply to emergency medical relief, as do the provisions
requiring ineligibility of persons who receive other forms of public assistance or who
have divested themselves of resources. However, unlike the eligibility criteria under
the general relief program, persons who have been sanctioned under other public
assistance programs or who have become ineligible for AFDC under the
work-not-welfare program continue to be eligible for emergency medical relief.
2. Benefits. Currently, both the general relief and RNIP programs provide
eligible recipients with cash benefits or in-kind relief for nonmedical support. These
benefits are eliminated under this bill, as are nonemergency medical benefits. Under
the emergency medical relief program, recipients may receive only emergency
hospitalization and care when, in the reasonable professional judgment of a
physician, emergency medical treatment or hospitalization is necessary because
severe physical or psychological damage to the recipient will occur if the treatment
or hospitalization is withheld. DHSS is required to promulgate rules establishing
standards to be used by physicians in making this judgment.
3. Administration. Currently, there are a number of requirements that must
be followed by counties in administering general relief, including procedures that
must be followed by hospitals and counties that provide emergency medical
treatment or hospitalization and provisions granting applicants for, and recipients
of, general relief a number of procedural rights. These administrative provisions are
largely eliminated in this bill. Instead, like the RNIP program under current law,
many requirements concerning the administration of the emergency medical relief
program are left to DHSS to specify in rules. The bill requires DHSS to promulgate
rules regarding the administration of emergency medical relief, including
procedures for making eligibility determinations, procedures for counties and tribal
governing bodies to follow in obtaining partial reimbursement for emergency
medical relief expenses and procedures for appealing eligibility determinations.
4. State reimbursement. Under current law, the state reimburses a county for
up to 37.5% of eligible cash benefit costs under the general relief program. The state
also reimburses up to 40% of eligible medical costs incurred by the county for a
recipient that are not more than $10,000 and up to 70% of eligible medical costs over
that amount, except in a county that enrolls its recipients in a prepaid health plan
and meets certain additional criteria, in which case the state reimburses the county
for 60% of the enrollment costs. If there are not enough funds appropriated to pay
the maximum percentages permitted under current law, DHSS prorates the
available funds among the counties claiming reimbursement. Current law also
requires a county to accept, as payment of a claim for reimbursement of general relief
costs, certain payments made to county hospitals and county mental health
complexes under the medical assistance program. There is no reimbursement by the
state for administrative costs relating to general relief. Under current law, the state
reimburses elected tribal governing bodies for 100% of RNIP benefits and for 100%
of RNIP administrative costs.
Under this bill, reimbursement is provided only for eligible emergency medical
costs. For counties, the reimbursement percentages are the same as under current
law, except that if a county operates a comprehensive medical relief program and
enrolls its participants in a prepaid health plan, the state reimburses the county for
60% of the portion of the enrollment costs for all recipients that are attributable to
emergency medical services. Under the bill, DHSS is required to promulgate rules
for determining the portion of the enrollment costs that are attributable to
emergency care. Counties are required to treat certain payments to county hospitals
and county mental health complexes under the medical assistance program as
reimbursement for emergency medical relief. If there are insufficient funds
appropriated to pay counties the maximum reimbursement percentages, proration
among the counties is required. For tribal governing bodies, the state reimburses
100% of eligible emergency medical costs, but no longer reimburses tribal governing
bodies for any administrative costs. As under current law, reimbursement is made
to counties on a yearly basis and reimbursement is made to tribal governing bodies
in accordance with DHSS rules.
5. Repeal of general relief and RNIP work programs. Under current law,
recipients of general relief and RNIP may be required to participate in work or grant
diversion programs. Under the general relief grant diversion program, counties may
use a recipient's general relief grant to pay up to 50% of the wages that an employer
pays to the recipient for a period of up to 6 months. If the employer fails to retain
the individual as an employe for at least 3 months after the wage subsidization has
ended and the employe was not dismissed for cause, the employer must pay back the
wage subsidization that it received. As part of general relief work programs, the
general relief agency may require participation in educational or other programs
that, in the judgment of the general relief agency, can assist the recipient in achieving
financial independence. Current law provides for similar RNIP work relief and grant
diversion programs, as well as for tribal economic development projects. This bill
repeals these work and grant diversion programs. The bill authorizes counties to
operate their own county-funded relief programs and permits counties to include
work components in these relief programs.
6. Other changes. This bill makes a number of other changes related to the
elimination of general relief and relief of needy Indian persons and the
establishment of emergency medical relief programs and optional county-funded
relief programs. The bill repeals provisions governing recovery of cash
overpayments and repeals provisions that allow these amounts to be recovered by
withholding any state income tax refunds due the recipient. Currently, the
Wisconsin conservation corps and the Wisconsin service corps programs are required
to attempt to hire 50% of their corps members from among recipients of specified
types of public assistance. The bill changes these specified types of public assistance
to eliminate general relief and RNIP and to include optional county-funded relief
programs. The bill also amends a number of provisions exempting general relief and
RNIP benefits from attachment and garnishment to exempt optional county-funded
relief programs instead. Similarly, the exemption of general relief benefits from
income, for purposes of the Wisconsin individual income tax, is replaced with an
exemption for cash benefits provided under optional county-funded relief programs.
Under current law, the state provides funding to counties to provide certain
types of mental health and alcohol and other drug abuse treatment services through
what is commonly referred to as "community aids". Under the general relief
program, the state also reimburses counties for a portion of counties' general relief
medical costs. This bill provides that counties are not required to provide mental
health and alcohol and other drug abuse treatment services under the general relief
program or, after January 1, 1996, under the emergency medical relief program, and
prohibits state reimbursement for these services under these programs.
Aid to families with dependent children
Under this bill, DHSS is required to conduct a demonstration project, pursuant
to a waiver from the secretary of the federal department of health and human
services, that would permit DHSS to limit increases in an AFDC grant for certain
additional children. Under the demonstration project, in determining the amount
of the AFDC grant, DHSS would not consider a child born into a family more than
10 months after the date on which the family was first determined to be eligible for
AFDC, subject to certain exceptions. The demonstration project does not apply to
certain children who are conceived as a result of sexual assault or incest. It also does
not apply to a child who is born into a family that did not receive AFDC benefits for
6 months, other than as a result of being sanctioned, and who is born during that time
or not more than 10 months after the family resumed receiving AFDC benefits. In
addition, it does not apply to a child who does not reside with his or her biological
parents. If the waiver is granted, DHSS may award grants to counties to provide
family planning education services to persons covered by the waiver. The waiver does
not apply to persons subject to the parental responsibility pilot program. DHSS may
request that the waiver apply to all AFDC recipients or to a test group determined
by DHSS. If the waiver is granted and in effect, the bill requires DHSS to implement
the waiver.
Under the JOBS program, AFDC recipients who are not exempt are required
to participate in certain jobs-related activities. DHSS has received a waiver from
the federal government to permit the state to require participation in the JOBS
program of certain parents and other caretakers of children who would otherwise be
exempt from participation under federal law and regulations. Current state law
requires participation of parents and other caretakers of children who have attained
2 years of age. Current federal law now grants states the option of requiring parents
and other caretakers of children who have attained one year of age to participate in
the JOBS program. This bill eliminates the current provision regarding the waiver
and takes advantage of the federal law option to require JOBS participation of
parents and other caretakers of children who have attained one year of age.
In addition, the bill requires DHSS to request a waiver from the federal
department of health and human services to permit DHSS to require AFDC
applicants to provide verification of compliance with certain orientation and job
search activities before providing aid under the AFDC program. Under the waiver,
DHSS may require attendance at one or more orientation sessions during the 30-day
period beginning on the date that the applicant applied for AFDC. In addition,
DHSS may require participation in not more than 30 days of job search activities by
an AFDC applicant who is subject to the JOBS program. Exceptions to the
mandatory orientation and job search requirements may be made if a determination
is made that the AFDC applicant would not benefit from application of the
requirement. In addition, DHSS may not require participation in orientation or job
search activities for certain AFDC recipients who are subject to certain school
attendance requirements under the learnfare program, if the orientation or job
search activity would conflict with school attendance.
The bill also requires DHSS to request a waiver from the federal department
of health and human services relating to the AFDC and JOBS programs. Currently,
under the JOBS program, an AFDC recipient who is not exempt and who does not
participate may be removed from AFDC grant eligibility for a specified period.
The waiver requested under this bill would allow DHSS, in certain
circumstances, to reduce the amount of an AFDC grant based on the level of
participation in the JOBS program. The waiver would apply to an AFDC recipient
who is not exempt if: 1) the AFDC recipient is required to participate in a JOBS
activity for a regularly scheduled number of hours in a month; 2) the activity is
expected to continue for more than one month; and 3) the recipient fails to participate
in the activity for the required number of hours in that month without good cause,
as defined by DHSS by rule. If these criteria are met, for every hour that an AFDC
recipient is required to participate in a JOBS activity, does not participate and does
not have good cause for not participating, an amount equal to the federal minimum
wage is subtracted from the AFDC grant for the recipient's family for a subsequent
month.
Under current state law and the terms of a waiver from the federal department
of health and human services, certain AFDC recipients between the ages of 6 and 19
are required to attend school under the learnfare program. The school attendance
standard, which must be maintained in order for persons subject to the learnfare
program to avoid sanctions, is currently set by administrative rule. This bill provides
that an individual who is subject to the learnfare program fails to meet the school
attendance requirement if the individual is a habitual truant. "Habitual truant" is
defined as an individual who is absent from school without an acceptable excuse for
part or all of 5 or more days out of 10 consecutive days on which school is held during
a school semester or for part or all of 10 or more days on which school is held during
a school semester. Under current law, a school board must establish a written
attendance policy specifying the reasons for which pupils may be permitted to be
absent from a public school. Whether or not an individual has an acceptable excuse
is determined under this written attendance policy.
