BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair

                                          SB 320 (Wright)
          
          Hearing Date: 05/26/2011        Amended: 04/25/2011
          Consultant: Jolie Onodera       Policy Vote: Human Services 7-0
          
















































          _________________________________________________________________
          ____
          BILL SUMMARY: SB 320 would allow the Department of Social 
          Services (DSS) to develop policies for hearing settlements, 
          including the timely issuance of aid paid pending, and for the 
          expedited adjudication of cases where the county fails to meet 
          its burden of proof, provided the policies are cost neutral or 
          result in cost savings. The DSS would be allowed to set up a 
          workgroup to meet with stakeholders to develop these policies.
          _________________________________________________________________
          ____
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2011-12      2012-13       2013-14     Fund
           
          Policy development involving      Unknown; significant cost 
          pressure               General
          stakeholder workgroup                                       
          _________________________________________________________________
          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
          
          This bill has been substantially amended since passing out of 
          the Senate Human Services Committee, and as currently drafted 
          includes provisional language authorizing the DSS to develop a 
          revised state hearings process in coordination with interested 
          stakeholders. 

          In the absence of specific statutory language indicating the 
          degree to which these policies will change existing processes, 
          the level of workload that would be necessary to develop these 
          policies is unknown but could be substantial. Considering the 
          significant budget reductions incurred by DSS and existing 
          pressures upon the State Hearings Division, it is extremely 
          unlikely that development of the complex processes and the 
          establishment of a workgroup could be completed within the 
          existing resources of the department.

          The development of a revised state hearings process would 
          involve numerous parties including but not limited to DSS staff 
          from the State Hearings, Welfare to Work Legal, and 
          Administration Divisions, administrative law judges, judicial 
          staff, county welfare departments, county appeals 
          representatives, eligibility staff, information technology 
          staff, advocacy groups and claimants. Any proposed changes would 








          SB 320 (Wright)
          Page 3

          require consideration and analysis of the procedural and fiscal 
          effects upon current regulations governing state hearings that 
          cover who may request a hearing, timeframes for requests and 
          actions, when aid must be paid pending a hearing, when hearings 
          must be set, general rules as well as rules and procedures 
          related to the taking of evidence, postponements and 
          continuances for additional evidence, conditional withdrawals, 
          dismissals, examination of records, and issuance of subpoenas. 
          Further, the requirement to develop a policy that is cost 
          neutral or that results in cost savings could 

          require an extended period of time in excess of 12 to 18 months 
          to develop. Although permissive, the DSS authorization to 
          coordinate and complete this large-scale project places a 
          significant cost pressure on the General Fund.