« PreviousContinue »
Question. Can you provide a credible estimate of the size of the LIHEAP-eligible population for the winter of 1991-92?
Answer. Such an estimate cannot be provided until data are available from the Current Population Survey that the Bureau of the Census will conduct in March 1992.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTTED BY SENATOR PHIL GRAMM
Question. To date, what is the cumulative total of State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) costs (from the end-ofyear reports and the FY 1991 application) that States have submitted for approval and that DSLA has approved? How do these costs compare to the total amounts of SLIAG funds available to states through FY 1991?
Answer. The total State SLIAG costs, comprising actual approved costs for FY8 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 and States' estimates for FY 1991, amount to $1.5 billion. Adding the $273 million of costs submitted but not yet approved for FY 1989 and 1990, results in a total amount of costs to $1.8 billion. The amount of funds available through FY 1991 is $2.4 billion. State costs through FY 1991 are $600 million less than SLIAG funds available.
Question. Do State SLIAG costs (both submitted and approved) exceed State drawdown levels? If so, by how much?
Answer. No, State drawdown levels exceed State SLIAG costs. As of December 1990, States had drawn down $1.1 billion. Approved costs total $798 million. Drawdown levels therefore exceed approved costs by $327 million. Submitted costs, including both approved and pending approval, total $1.07 billion; drawdowns exceed total submitted costs by $54 million. As of the end of December, 1990, therefore, States had drawn down more than the total amount of costs which they had submitted.
Question. How did the Department take costs (both submitted and approved) into account in its FY 92 SLIAG budget projections?
Answer. The Department, in requesting rescission of $1.1 billion in FY 1992, recognizes that by FY 1992 most of the objectives which congress set for legalization will have been met. State Costs have been much lower than both the Department and States expected back in 1986. Most of the direct impacts of legalization public health costs and education services to allow these aliens to remain in this country - have already been met with only part of the funds which states have already received. For instance, over 90 percent of all "Pre-82" legalized aliens and all "SAWS" (Special Agricultural Workers) who have been granted temporary resident status have now adjusted to permanent resident status. The remainder of funds still available are ample to carry out Congress' intent to mitigate some of the fiscal impact on State and local governments of the Federal decision to grant legal status to previously illegal aliens. These impacts appear to be less than Congress anticipated when it established the funding level for SLIAG in 1986.
Data available to us so far indicate that newly legalized aliens are accessing public services at rates less than those of the general population. In addition, some of the costs for which States are claiming SLIAG reimbursement are costs that would have been incurred even if Congress hadn't legalized aliens. Legal immigration status is not a precondition to receiving services and benefits under most State and local programs.
Additionally, data indicate that most legalized aliens are employed and do not rely on public services. Aliens were not eligible for legalization if they were likely to become "public charges", and data show low unemployment among legalized aliens.
This means that legalized aliens are taxpayers, contributing directly and indirectly, through their employers and their landlords, to State and local revenues.
Question. In the state SLIAG cost approval process, DSLA has frequently disallowed or "zeroed out" SLIAG costs submitted by states in their application and end of year reports. These costs have been excluded from the allocation formula pending resolution of policy mentodology, or documentation issues with states. Please provide the following information (at this point in time): the number of State programs where DSLA has "zeroed out" costs submitted by the States.
Answer. When States submit costs which are unacceptable, Division of State Legalization Assistance (DSLA) informs them of the deficiencies in their reporting and provides an opportunity for States to revise or properly document costs so that they can be accepted. Until States submit acceptable costs, reported costs are shown as "zero. DSLA provides several acceptable methods of submitting costs. All costs submitted using an acceptable method and sufficiently documented are accepted. We expect that most of these costs will be accepted prior to the FY 1991 funds allotments.
States which are unable to submit costs at the time costs reports are due submit zeroes for program estimates which subsequently may be revised when States have compiled costs and reported them. There are 239 State programs for which States have reported no costs. By contrast, there are only 48 State programs that DSLA "zeroed-out" while awaiting additional information or revisions from the States before accepting the costs of the programs for reimbursement.
Question. the costs, as submitted by the states, for programs where DSLA has "zeroed out" costs submitted by the States.
Answer. The costs submitted for these programs total $273 million. We expect that most of these costs will be accepted by DSLA prior to the FY 1991 funds allotments.
Question. the percentage of state-submitted SLIAG costs the "zeroed-out" programs represent.
Answer. The costs submitted for these programs total $273 million. This amount is 26 percent of the total submitted costs. We expect that most of these costs will be accepted by DSLA prior to the FY 1991 funds allotments. As noted above, even when the costs for these programs are included, the funds already available to States far exceed costs.
Question. the reasons that these programs remain "zeroed-out" by type and by program category.
Answer. Although there are no significant methodological questions, there have been minor problems with cost methodologies used by States, with the documentation provided by States, and with whether program costs were reimburseable under SLIAG. With regard to cost methodology, there are cost submissions for five public assistance programs, nine public health programs, nine education programs, and five submissions for SLIAG administration which are pending due to questions pertaining to the cost methodology used. There are also several submissions which are pending due to problems with the documentation provided; of these programs, three are public assistance programs, three are public health programs, eight are education programs, and four submissions for SLIAG administration. There is also one public assistance program and one submission for SLIAG administration which are pending due to questions concerning whether the costs are SLIAG reimbursable.
Question. the process and timetable DSLA is using to resolve these issues prior to running the FY 91 SLIAG allocation formula.
Answer. The costs submitted for these programs total $273 million. It is anticipated that 95 percent of these pending costs will be resolved before the FY 1991 allocation formula is run. It is expected that the formula will be run in mid-April.
Question. How much is the SLIAG federal offset for FY 88 FY 91? What percentage of cumulative SLIAG appropriation (FY 88 FY 91) does this represent? What are the corresponding aggregate State SLIAG costs for Medicaid? Since states will have Medicaid costs for SAWS and SSI recipients not allowed in the offset, it is my expectiation that state Medicaid costs should substantially exceed the federal offset.
Answer. Our current estimate for the Federal offset for FY 88 through FY 1992 is $460 million. The previous year's estimate for the offset for the period FY 88 through FY 91 was $948 million. However, the law requires that the amount of the Federal offset be estimated two years in advance for the President's budget and that it be adjusted subsequently as data on actual costs are received from States. The data received from States have indicated that the earlier estimates of the amount of the offset were overestimated; therefore, to adjust for the earlier overestimates, it is now estimated that the offset for FY 88 through FY 92 will equal $460 million.
The amount of the offset ($460 million) is 12 percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation for FY 88 through FY 91. This percentage is less than that which was anticipated when IRCA was passed. At that time, federal offsets were expected to reach 25 percent of the $4 billion available for appropriation.
States have not reported all Medicaid costs; the data provided are therefore underestimates by a large unknown percentage. The fragmentary data which have been reported indicate that State Medicaid costs are $201 million. In addition, it is estimated that Medicaid costs through FY 1991 will increase by $109 million. (This estimate is based on indications from States that $90 million in Medicaid costs will soon be reported. ) Additional components of the offset are estimated to equal about $40 million. The total figure for estimated Medicaid and other costs is therefore $350 million for FY 88 through FY 91, which equals the adjusted Federal offset for that period.
Adjustments made to the estimate for the offset, as described above, are necessary because Federal offset costs have not been as high as was originally anticipated, just as SLIAG State costs have been lower than estimated.
Question. Adding together the Federal offset and State Medicaid costs, what percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation is for Medicaid?
Answer. As noted above, Medicaid costs reported by States are incomplete. The costs reported by States total $201 million; and the Federal offset is $460 million. The total of the offset and the reported State Medicaid costs is $661 million; this amount is 28 percent of the $2.4 billion appropriated for SLIAG through FY 1991.
Question. For each of the following programs, please provide the aggregate State SLIAG costs through FY 91 and the percentage of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation this represents: a) public health; b)SSI/SSP; c) adult education; d) state and local indigent health care; and e) anti-discrimination education and outreach.
Answer. A) Public health costs for FY 88 - FY 91 are expected to total $134 million. This amount is 6 percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation of $2.4 billion. B) SSI/SSP is not a figure which is available as an aggregated amount. As an estimate, it is assumed that the figure reported by California ($41 million) is
80 percent of the total figure for SLIAG. The total amount is
Question. What percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation is channeled into Medicaid and the programs outlined in the question above?
Answer. Approximately 60 percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation has been channeled into Medicaid and the programs outlined in the question at the top of this page.
Question. To what extent has (or will) the uncertainty of SLIAG funding delayed or eliminated continuing literacy instruction for newly legalized persons?
Answer. It is unlikely that the uncertainty of SLIAG funding will delay or eliminate continuing literacy instruction for newly legalized persons. Declines in enrollment and the decline in costs are not inconsistent with the decline in the number of eligible aliens and the completion of the primary objectives of the program, i.e., to ensure the availability of classes necessary to enable legalized aliens to obtain permanent resident status. Even in the absence of SLIAG funding, legalized aliens still would be eligible for regular adult literacy and education programs on the same basis as other U.S. residents.
Question. What is the impact of State anti-discrimination education and outreach efforts? Have State Phase 2 outreach efforts increased use of services (especially education and health care) by the newly legalized population?
Answer. It is too early to determine the extent of the impact of State anti-discrimination efforts. It is not possible to determine the extent of the impact of Phase 2 outreach efforts on the use of services by the newly legalized population because there are no baseline data on the use of services by this population before legalization.
OFFICE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STATEMENT OF MARY SHEILA GALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT STOVENOUR, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MAN
BUDGET REQUEST Senator HARKIN. We will now hear from the Assistant Secretary for Human Development Services, Mary Gall.
The fiscal year 1992 budget request for the Office of Human Development Services is $8.8 billion, $5.1 billion of which is in entitlement programs. For discretionary programs, the 1992 budget requests about $3.6 billion, an increase of $205 million over 1991; a $100 million increase for Head Start; $90 million for child welfare services; and $16.2 million for program administration. No increases are sought for programs for the aging, native Americans, runaway and homeless youth, or for family violence and child abuse programs.
We are facing a very tight budget situation this year. I do not need to be told that again. We all know that. We also face some very serious problems, problems which, if we do not address them now, are going to cost us more later on.
We need to develop strategies to deal with the aging of America, with the increased incident of child and elder abuse, and with programs that provide early intervention strategies to mainstream America's disadvantaged children. You are going to hear me talk more about that as you just did with Mş. Barnhart.
So again, just to lead off, I know we have a tight budget situation, but I intend to have this subcommittee do everything we can to focus on early prevention, the early intervention programs. Quite frankly, I am not too happy with some of the freezes in these programs or some of the minimal increases in programs like Head Start.
There is a goal that has been enunciated by Members of the Congress, both Houses, and I think on both sides of the aisle, and by outside interests--I do not know exactly who they all are. I could probably get a list of them—who are pushing for full funding of Head Start by 1994.
Under the President's proposal for a $100 million increase in Head Start, you can correct me if I am wrong, but I think it would take about 60 years to get the full funding for Head Start if we continue down that path.
My overall question is, is this acceptable? Is this acceptable to you and to the administration that we continue on funding Head Start so that in about 60 years we may fully fund it, or do we want to have a shorter timeframe than that?