Joint Legislative Budget Committee meeting notice, agenda and minutes

              STATE OF ARIZONA







STATE SENATE RANDALL GNANT CHAIRMAN 2000 GUS ARZBERGER RUSSELL W. "RUSTY" BOWERS SCOTT BUNDGAARD EDWARD J. CIRILLO JACK C. JACKSON JOE EDDIE LOPEZ JOHN WETTAW







Joint Legislative Budget Committee



1716 WEST ADAMS PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007



PHONE (602) 542-5491 FAX (602) 542-1616







HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BOB BURNS CHAIRMAN 1999 BARBARA BLEWSTER LORI S. DANIELS SALLY ANN GONZALES BILL MCGIBBON JEAN HOUGH MCGRATH BOB MCLENDON CHRISTINE WEASON







JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE Monday, January 31, 2000 5:00 p.m. Senate Appropriations Room 109







AGENDA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Call to Order Approval of Minutes of December 14, 1999. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Department of Administration, Risk Management Services Consideration of Proposed Settlements under Rule 14. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (if necessary). ARIZONA LOTTERY COMMISSION - Approval of Retailer Incentive Plan. SCHOOL FACILITIES BOARD - Approve Index for Constructing New School Facilities. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - Review Private Prison Contract. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY/ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - Approval of Workers' Compensation Coverage for Arizona Works. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY A. Review of Federal Social Services Block Grant FY 2000 Expenditure Plan. B. Review of Plan to Provide Matching Monies to Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tribe to Operate a Tribal Cash Assistance Program. C. Arizona Works Bimonthly Review







The Chairman reserves the right to set the order of the agenda. 01/24/00



People with disabilities may request accommodations such as interpreters, alternative formats, or assistance with physical accessibility. Requests for accommodations must be made with 72 hours prior notice. If you require accommodations, please contact the JLBC Office at (602) 542-5491.







STATE OF ARIZONA







STATE SENATE RANDALL GNANT CHAIRMAN 2000 GUS ARZBERGER RUSSELL W. "RUSTY" BOWERS SCOTT BUNDGAARD EDWARD J. CIRILLO JACK C. JACKSON JOE EDDIE LOPEZ JOHN WETTAW







Joint Legislative Budget Committee



1716 WEST ADAMS PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007



PHONE (602) 542-5491 FAX (602) 542-1616







HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BOB BURNS CHAIRMAN 1999 BARBARA BLEWSTER LORI S. DANIELS SALLY ANN GONZALES BILL MCGIBBON JEAN HOUGH MCGRATH BOB MCLENDON CHRISTINE WEASON







MINUTES OF THE MEETING JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE December 14, 1999 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 14, 1999, in Senate Appropriations Room 109. Representative McLendon requested the Committee recess until the Democratic Caucus had adjourned. The meeting reconvened at 9:43 a.m. The following were present: Members: Representative Bob Burns, Chairman Representative Blewster Representative Daniels Representative Gonzales Representative McGibbon Representative McGrath Representative McLendon Representative Weason Senator Randall Gnant, Vice-Chairman Senator Arzberger Senator Bundgaard Senator Cirillo Senator Jackson Senator Lopez Senator Wettaw Senator Bowers Richard Stavneak, Director Sharon Savage, Secretary Steve Schimpp Patrick Fearon Tom Mikesell Brad Regens Greg Gemson Eileen Klein Wendy Kim Debbie Johnston Reed Spangler Kristine Ward Philip E. Geiger Greg Fahey Dick Roberts Tim Brand Art Ranney John Kelly Jennifer Vermeer, Assistant Director Lynne Smith Gretchen Logan Paul Shannon Stefan Shepherd Rebecca Hecksel House of Representatives House of Representatives House of Representatives Senate Senate OSPB School Facilities Board University of Arizona University of Arizona ADOA GITA GITA







Absent: Staff:







Others:







JLBC Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES







-2-







December 14, 1999







Hearing no objections from the members of the Committee to the minutes of November 17, 1999, Representative Burns stated that the minutes would stand approved. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Richard Stavneak, Director, JLBC Staff, mentioned that some of the members had been involved in an issue over a number of years which has finally been resolved, regarding the constitutionality of using the Miners' Fund for the Pioneers' Home. The Arizona Enabling Act, which is a federal piece of legislation, did not allow us to use that money. That legislation has now been amended so that the Miners' Fund can now be used for issues at the Pioneers' Home. Senator Gnant asked if any members of the Arizona delegation were partially responsible for the amendment. Mr. Stavneak said that the Congressman Stump and Senator Kyl sponsored the legislation. He added that his office was proceeding with the thank-you letter requested by Senator Gnant. SCHOOL FACILITIES BOARD ? Review of Statewide Assessment Contract Ms. Lynne Smith, JLBC Staff, said that this was a review of the School Facilities Board's statewide assessment contract. Updated information had been given to members of the Committee. The reason for the update was that the contract did not exist when the JLBC book was sent to the members. Ms. Smith said that the JLBC Staff is recommending a favorable review; however, they did have several issues that they wished to bring to the Committee's attention. The Students' FIRST legislation appropriated $2 million for the contract and the State Procurement Office received proposals from six different vendors. The State Procurement Office had an RFP review committee that went through the proposals from the six vendors and awarded a $1.8 million contract to Flex-Tech Professional Service. That information was sent to the members of the Committee on Friday, December 10. Shortly thereafter, Flex-Tech called the Procurement Office and reported an error in the contract. There were two different square footage figures in the RFP. One was an old 62,628,900 square foot number for total state school space and Flex-Tech had based their price on that number. An RFP amendment clarified that another number in the RFP of 96,978,874 square feet is actually correct. The Committee is being asked to review the $1.8 million contract. If they give a favorable review to the contract, they will also be asked to review a second contract to make up the remainder of the square feet. It will be contingent upon additional funding because the total price would be $2.7 million. Ms. Smith clarified that at today's meeting they are only being asked to review the initial contract, which is for about 2/3 of the school space. The full Legislature will be asked to look at funding for the additional square feet. The Executive is recommending that the money come from the Deficiencies Correction Fund. The JLBC Staff wanted to point out that this is basically General Fund money because any money going into the Deficiencies Correction Fund is diverted from the General Fund and will have to be made up with General Fund money. Representative McLendon said that the summary said it would "ultimately" be made up with General Fund money. He asked what "ultimately" meant. Ms. Smith explained that any money in the Deficiencies Correction Fund comes from the General Fund. Each year the School Facilities Board is charged with reporting to the Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) and then instructing the State Treasurer to transfer money into that fund. At this point, the School Facilities Board has asked for $150 million and they do not anticipate that it would change this year. If any money were instead used for the assessment contract, we assume that amount would be added to the General Fund money transferred into the Deficiencies Correction Fund next year.







JLBC Meeting







-3-







December 14, 1999







Representative McLendon asked if statutory language is needed that states that this fund will be replenished in a certain way and at a certain time. Ms. Smith said that at this time there is no authority to spend the money. The Legislature would have to take action and at that time determine if any additional appropriation would come from the Deficiencies Correction Fund or the General Fund or if the assessment would not be finished. That is a policy issue that the Legislature will need to address. If the Legislature takes the Executive's proposal to use Deficiencies Correction Fund monies, they would need to decide whether it gets paid back and when. That is separate from the contract that they are reviewing at this meeting. Representative McLendon said that he needed some assurance that this will be done. He asked if someone from JLBC Staff could see him about this issue. Mr. Stavneak explained that he thought the board would ask for that additional amount of money from the State Treasurer at some point. They have the ability to automatically withdraw funds from sales tax revenues without an appropriation. He assumed that if they were going to take the $800,000 from the Deficiencies Correction Fund, they would adjust the request from State Treasurer by that amount. It is also something that could be specified in statute, but could also be done by the action of the board and their instructions to the State Treasurer. Senator Cirillo said that he noticed the reluctance of the vendor to supply a performance bond. The vendor eventually said they would supply a bond at 3.5% of the total bid price. He wondered if that raised any red flags to anyone. Ms. Smith said that she understood that when the Evaluation Committee looked at the vendor, they saw that they had done large projects but none that were educational in nature. The Evaluation Committee looked into getting a performance bond. The Procurement Office said that a bond could be procured for 3.5% of the price, which is $93,333. The vendor said they would be happy to purchase the bond if the money would not come from their profits. The reason for the performance bond was that there were questions about the timely completion of the project. Senator Cirillo noted that the vendor is a small business with less than 100 people and less than $4 million of gross revenue. He wondered if they had the necessary competent people to do the job. Representative McGrath expressed her concerns with the contract, the change in price, and the company's unwillingness to purchase a bond. Mr. Stavneak said that the JLBC Staff shares some of these concerns. However, the other bids would cost anywhere from a minimum additional amount of $1 million above the $2.8 million to $2 million. The policy issue in front of the Committee is whether they want to delay the process, which may require bidding again and could cost the state from $2 million to $3 million more than was currently appropriated. Dr. Philip Geiger, Executive Director, School Facilities Board, said that their concern when requesting a bond was that the company's bid was $3 million less than the next lowest bid and $47.5 million less than the highest bid. They also were concerned with the ability of the contractor to perform and decided that it was best to have a performance bond issued even if they had to pay for it out of the $2 million available. They plan to work with the vendor, knowing that the next vendor is $3 million higher, which is more than double the cost of the study. Dr. Geiger explained that none of the vendors have permanent staff available to do the evaluation of all Arizona's schools. More than 100 people are needed to visit the 1,210 schools in Arizona. Any vendor would need to hire temporary employees to complete the project by April 30. Flex-Tech is basically a construction or contractor staffing company, and this is the first evaluation of this type that they will be doing. The most experienced vendor was the one that estimated the price between $40 and $50 million.







JLBC Meeting







-4-







December 14, 1999







Representative McGrath expressed her concern that the contract stated that the vendor was only going to spot check the school square footage. She asked if that was the contract that was put out to all the vendors or did this vendor bid the contract on only spot-checking. Dr. Geiger said that all vendors were asked to submit a base bid of 10% of the schools and also give them an alternative price for evaluating all the schools. The lowest price to do the actual square footage of all the schools was an additional $1 million. Senator Gnant asked if it was worth spending $2 million if it does not get them all the way to their goal. Dr. Geiger replied that is was worth it. He had visited and looked at the schools in all of Arizona's counties. There are deficiencies and in some instances districts simply live with the deficiencies because they have no other options available. The $2 million will help them provide a standard of measurement and enable them to evaluate the actual cost. They will be using a standard that in the construction business is used to determine what it will cost for roof repairs, plumbing, or heating changes. It will enable the state to have some sense of the magnitude of the problem. Representative Daniels asked if they were going to primarily visit the older, rural schools and the older schools in the metropolitan areas, since they can only visit 10% of the schools. Dr. Geiger said that the requirement is to measure 10% and if there is an error of 2% or more, they will need to measure an additional two schools until they find two consecutive schools that are accurate to 98%. If there is an inaccuracy in the first school, potentially the vendor will have to actually measure all the schools in the district. Each school will be visited and the information derived from that visit will be about the entire school and all the conditions at that school. Representative Daniels asked if they were going to gather data from the different school boards prior to going to the schools. She knew of four or five new grade schools in her district built all within the last three years. These schools should have the architectural plans with the square footage. Dr. Geiger explained that all school districts have received three different forms. One form contained the data that the Schools Facilities Board already had on file and asked the districts to verify the information. The second asked them to identify and define all the problems that they know of. The third document is to be completed by the inspector to create a standard report. Senator Lopez said that he hoped they would give a favorable review to this recommendation. He noted that one reason they need the square footage for all the schools is for the Building Renewal Fund. The Capital Facilities Board has already made some estimate of this square footage and he wondered if Dr. Geiger expected that figure to change drastically as a result of the reassessment. Dr. Geiger said that they didn't expect any substantial change in the figures. However, they are still uncertain if they are exact. They believe that with the 10% inspection they will be able to feel that the numbers are reasonably credible. It did not appear to be justified to spend an additional $1 million, however, to measure each school precisely. Senator Lopez requested that the Capital Facilities Board keep this committee updated as they do their assessment, so that the committee will not be surprised at the findings and recommendations. If they were to get a monthly analysis, they would be in a better position to plan both financially and budget wise. The Capital Facilities Board is going to request $150 million this year, but experts suggest it is only a very small portion of what is going to be required over the next two fiscal years to accomplish this job.







JLBC Meeting







-5-







December 14, 1999







Representative McGrath asked Mr. Stavneak if they were meeting all the requirements as handed down in the judges' decision. She wondered if Mr. Hogan would take the state back to court since they are only doing a small percentage of the schools. Mr. Stavneak replied that Mr. Hogan was never shy in letting them know if something concerned him with the school facilities process. He had not heard of any concerns from Mr. Hogan. Mr. Stavneak asked how they plan to choose the schools to be assessed and wondered if this would be done randomly across the state or were they just going to choose older schools? Dr. Geiger said that 56 million square feet of the total 96 million square feet is located in Maricopa County, which is also the location of the most modern schools. If the schools were built after 1985 and it was verified that they were built in accordance with state requirements, they would not need to be fully examined. Mr. Stavneak said that there is currently a plan to provide the Legislature with a sample of the results sometime if February. He asked if that sample would lean toward the most significant costs since the 32 million square feet of newer schools in Maricopa County will not be included. Dr. Geiger confirmed this. REPRESENTATIVE DANIELS MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE GIVE A FAVORABLE REVIEW TO THE STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT CONTRACT FOR THE SCHOOL FACILITIES BOARD. The motion carried. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY A. Consideration of Requested Transfer of Appropriations Mr. Stefan Shepherd, JLBC Staff, said that this item was a technical request by the Department of Economic Security (DES) to transfer funds in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Cash Benefits Special Line Item in the Division of Benefits and Medical Eligibility. The transfers will ensure the state meets its federal TANF Block Grant maintenance of effort requirements. The transfers are as follows: Budget Affected DBME Operating DCYF Operating Administration Operating DBME TANF Cash Benefits SLI DCYF Children Services SLI DCYF Attorney General Legal Services SLI TOTAL General Fund $(10,000,000) (6,220,700) (1,400,000) 21,228,500 (2,607,800) (1,000,000) $ 0 TANF Block Grant $10,000,000 6,220,700 1,400,000 (21,228,500) 2,607,800 1,000,000 $ 0 Total $0 0 0 0 0 0 $0







REPRESENTATIVE MCGIBBON MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE APPROVE THE REQUESTED TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN TANF CASH BENEFITS. The motion carried. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY B. Arizona Work Bimonthly Review Mr. Stefan Shepherd, JLBC Staff, explained that this item was not in the original booklet sent to the members and was for information only. The vendor for the Arizona Works Program, MAXIMUS, is required to provide the Committee a report every two months on its activities. This report covers the period of September 15 through November 15. At the last review by this Committee, Senator Lopez had requested some comparative data with DES. DES is still working out some computer issues regarding putting the requested data in the report. For example, the way DES measures job placement is not the same as how Arizona Works reports job placement. MAXIMUS and DES expect that the report to be submitted on January 15 will contain all the requested data. The MAXIMUS report also lacks some information concerning sanctions and funding issues.







JLBC Meeting







-6-







December 14, 1999







The JLBC Staff recommends that the Committee reiterate the importance and the desire to see the comparative DES sanction data from MAXIMUS, as well as the funding expenditure data from MAXIMUS. Mr. Stavneak said that they would reiterate in the letter sent to DES and the Arizona Works program the desire to have the comparative data, as well as the other information that was stated in the memo. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY (GITA) ? Y2K Status Report Gretchen Logan, JLBC Staff, said that this item is the GITA Y2K Status Report. At the October meeting, questions were asked regarding the Y2K readiness of cities, counties, and utilities. The Southwest Risk Pool has compiled information on the Y2K readiness of 61 of Arizona's smaller jurisdictions. To date, these smaller jurisdictions are about 95% compliant, with a few tasks remaining such as compliance testing, documenting their efforts, completion of their contingency plans, and communicating to citizens that they have indeed addressed Y2K and that there are emergency plans in place. The Arizona League of Cities and Towns surveyed the larger jurisdictions. Attachment A is the summary of responses of a survey taken of those jurisdictions on their Y2K readiness. Ms. Logan said that GITA has also provided information on the state's Y2K emergency operations center. GITA, the Department of Emergency Military Affairs, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Transportation, the Land Department, and the National Guard will staff the center. In addition, the center will have representatives from utility companies, telephone companies, and the Red Cross. Other agencies will be in close contact with the command center. The attachment also includes a report card that shows where the different agencies are. As of the prior day, they are 100% compliant except for the Department of Revenue (DOR). Ms. Logan said that they also provided information on the Y2K expenditures. The total amount spent in GITA Y2K funding from FY 1998 to FY 2000 is $44,857,900, of which $250,000 is allocated for contingency plans. Representative McGibbon asked how far DOR was from being 100% compliant. Ms. Logan explained that DOR would be receiving the last set of modules for the data entry system on Friday. However, they would still require testing and making any corrections that may be needed. If the system is not ready by January 1, DOR plans on resetting the computer's date to the previous year and using a date modification system that will run in the background that will correct the date. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ? Report on K-12 Transportation Formula Mr. Steve Schimpp, JLBC Staff, said that this item deals with a report on the K-12 transportation funding formula. It is for information only and no action is required by the Committee. The report was requested by House Leadership, based on complaints with the current formula. One of the complaints was that the current formula is based directly on route miles and does not provide direct funding per pupil. This is said to be a disadvantage to some districts that transport a large number of students but do not travel many miles. Another complaint is that there are two funding rates per mile ? $1.59 per mile and $1.85 per mile. There is an incentive to drive more miles to get to the higher rate. A packet was distributed to the members of the Committee that provided numerous tables, based on the JLBC Staff analysis (A copy is on file at the JLBC). After Mr. Schimpp gave an explanation of how the existing formula works, which drives off route miles, he discussed an alternative formula suggested by the data. Representative Blewster asked who was responsible for the sizes of the buses purchased. She thought there was a great deal of money wasted in the size of school buses purchased.







JLBC Meeting







-7-







December 14, 1999







Mr. Schimpp said that district's boards make the decisions on the buses. However, at some point the new School Facilities Board should have a formula for funding replacement buses and would be involved in the decision making process. Senator Jackson said that there was no mention of the weather and road conditions that the buses have to go through each day, which has a great deal to do with buses breaking down. He asked if these factors were taken into consideration. Mr. Schimpp explained that with this analysis, they had the computer use only two factors, route miles and students transported. One caveat would be road conditions, which is not included in this analysis because the data are not commonly available. They obtained some information from the Department of Education, as reported by districts on route conditions. However, they are not sure how often it is updated and how accurate it is. This is something they could work on over the next few weeks. Representative McLendon agreed that any formula should take road conditions into consideration. It should also take into consideration the number of student on the buses. He wondered how a formula would drive that area, if you were in a rural area and only need to transport 15 students compared to an urban area where you are transporting a busload. Mr. Schimpp said that the concept of the really densely populated urban elementary areas being underfunded under the current formula has to do with certain fixed costs, such as bus dispatchers. You need a dispatcher whether you have 10 students or 500 students. If you have a district that is picking up a large number of students who are located barely over a mile from the school, the school does not generate many route miles. The cost of the bus dispatcher's salary is spread over a few route miles even though he is responsible for a great number of students getting transported to school. Representative McLendon asked if any thought had been given to any form of consortium as far as buses were concerned. Mr. Schimpp said this analysis deals only with the Maintenance and Operation not the capital side. They had tried to take the data that is available and used commonly accepted statistical procedures to have the computer generate the formula. These are all valid points and if there are other variables, such as road conditions, the formula may be slightly different. However, data reported by the Department of Education focus mainly on students transported and route miles driven. Representative McLendon asked if the JLBC Staff had spoken to any school administrators to find out what their main problems were. Were they going to show these computer generated programs to them to see if they actually work. Mr. Schimpp said they view this analysis as exploratory in nature and will see wider input if the matter is pursued further. Representative McGibbon asked if there were any actual figures on what it would cost if they were to privatize the system and what it would cost per mile if a district subcontracts their transportation to a private enterprise. He wondered if the district was making money on what they are reimbursed by the state or did they have to supplement it. Mr. Schimpp said that the Department of Education does not report data broken down in that manner. However, there are some districts that do hire private companies. They can look into that and see if they are willing to share their cost information and make a comparison. Senator Lopez asked how much the state would save under the new model.







JLBC Meeting







-8-







December 14, 1999







Mr. Schimpp said the state would have saved about $1.5 million in FY 1998. However, for FY 1999 the new formula might have cost the state more money. Senator Lopez asked if the districts getting less money under the new model were mostly rural or urban districts. Mr. Schimpp explained that because it is a route mile based formula, typically the rural districts would lose money under the new formula. Surprisingly though, there are some urban districts that drive a lot miles, like Tucson Unified and Phoenix Union, that would also lose money. Representative McGibbon asked if there was a generally accepted accounting principle on how the districts arrive at headcount. Mr. Schimpp said they have average daily route miles but not average daily eligible students. He will have to look into it and get back with Representative McGibbon. Senator Cirillo suggested that there must be other projects that JLBC could work on that would have more hope for success than this project. Whenever you try to change a formula, there are always going to be winners and losers and you will be involved in creating a hornet's nest that he did not think worthwhile. Senator Gnant said that the JLBC Staff did this study at the request of House Leadership. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS ? Report on Proposed Relocation Plan Ms. Rebecca Hecksel, JLBC Staff, said that this item was for information only. The Board of Medical Examiners was reporting on the proposed relocation to new office space and the related expenditure of $400,000 appropriated from the State Medical Examiners Board Fund in FY 2000. This is pursuant to a footnote in the General Appropriation Act. Senator Gnant asked if there were any questions. There were none. Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted: ______________________________________________ Sharon Savage, Secretary _______________________________________________ Richard Stavneak, Director _______________________________________________ Representa tive Bob Burns, Chairman







NOTE: A full tape recording of this meeting is available at the JLBC Staff Office, 1716 West Adams.







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Request







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Jim Rounds, Senior Economist ARIZONA LOTTERY COMMISSION ? APPROVAL OF RETAILER INCENTIVE PLAN







The Arizona Lottery Commission requests Committee approval of an incentive plan that would allow for an additional 0.5% of total Lottery ticket sales to be distributed to retailers if specified sales related conditions are met. The approval of this plan would allow for a maximum of 7% of total ticket sales to be distributed to retailers. The Commission also requests that the increase in retailer compensation related to the proposed plan be retroactive beginning January 1, 2000. Recommendation The JLBC Staff recommends the Committee approve the submitted retailer incentive plan, and approve that the performance based increase in retailer compensation be retroactive beginning January 1, 2000. Analysis Laws 1997, Chapter 214 increased from 6% to 7% the percentage of total ticket sales that the Lottery could return to retailers. However, the legislation requires that half of this increase be based on performance measures that are approved by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The Lottery is currently distributing 6.5% of total ticket sales to retailers. The original legislative intent of this compensation rate change was to provide monetary incentives for Lottery ticket sales increases. The attached incentive plan requires retailers to achieve a 5% annual increase in ticket sales to be eligible for the additional 0.5% compensation. In addition, the plan requires retailer participation in various promotions, and requires the display of certain advertising materials. Since the above legislation provides monetary incentives to boost Lottery ticket sales, tying the performance measures to sales increases appears to be consistent with the original intent. (Continued)







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman 2Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







January 25, 2000







The JLBC Staff currently forecasts total Lottery ticket sales of $237,900,000 in FY 2000. Applying 0.5% to this sales forecast yields an estimated $1,189,500 that would be available for distribution. The Lottery reported that historically only one-third of its retailers achieved a 5% annual increase in sales. If this trend continues, only $198,300 of the available $1,189,500 will actually be distributed in FY 2000 (this also accounts for the program being implemented in the middle of the fiscal year). Furthermore, the JLBC Staff forecasts total Lottery ticket sales of $230,700,000 in FY 2001. Using the same analysis as above, an estimated $384,500 will be distributed to Lottery retailers in FY 2001 under the proposed compensation plan. Currently all Lottery monies are used for state profit, administration, or prizes. If additional monies are distributed to retailers, fewer monies will be available for the current uses unless the incentive plan leads to an overall increase in sales. JR:ag Attachment xc: Richard Stavneak, Director







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Request







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Lynne Smith, Senior Fiscal Analyst SCHOOL FACILITIES BOARD - APPROVE INDEX FOR CONSTRUCTING NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES







The School Facilities Board requests that the Committee identify an index for adjusting the cost per square foot for new school construction. The School Facilities Board recommends that the Committee select either the Consumer Price Index or Marshall Evaluation Service index. Recommendation The JLBC Staff recommends that the Committee approve the use of the inflation index published by the Marshall Valuation Service (by Marshall and Swift, L.P.). As of January 1, 2000, the new school construction per square foot costs would be adjusted by the change in the comparative cost multiplier for Phoenix from July 1998 to July 1999 for construction indicator class C (masonry bearing walls). This index will result in a 3.5% increase in the per square foot cost guidelines for new construction. Analysis A.R.S. ? 15-2041 D3c provides that the cost per square foot for new school construction "...shall be adjusted annually for construction market considerations based on an index identified or developed by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee as necessary but not less than once each year." In the attached letter, the School Facilities Board has recommended that the Committee consider either the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Marshall Evaluation Service index. Students FIRST (Laws 1998, 5th Special Session, Chapter 1) establishes cost guidelines for new school construction. The initial rates and the JLBC Staff recommendation for adjusted rates are as follows: Grade Level Preschool with Disabilities, Kindergarten to Grade 6 Grades 7 to 8 Grades 9 to 12 Urban Cost per Square Foot Initial Adjusted $ 90.00 95.00 110.00 $ 93.15 98.33 113.85 Rural Cost per Square Foot (Urban x 1.05) Initial Adjusted $ 94.50 99.75 115.50 $ 97.81 103.25 119.54 (Continued)







JLBC







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







- 2-







January 25, 2000







The JLBC Staff recommends using the Marshall Evaluation Service index because it is a nationally recognized construction index that the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) has used for ADOA building renewal for approximately the last 30 years. ADOA subscribes to the service, has found it to be reliable, and has agreed to make the quarterly reports available for use in determining the School Facilities Board index. The JLBC Staff does not recommend basing the school construction index on the CPI. The CPI is a measure of prices paid for a general mix of goods and services, while the Marshall Evaluation Service provides an index specific to building construction. The percent change resulting from use of these 2 indices varies from year to year. The following table shows the differences over the last 10 years. In total over the 10 years, the CPI would result in an 11.8% higher adjustment than the Marshall index. However, this is primarily due to 1990 and 1991 when Arizona experienced high general inflation but a slow economy with relatively low demand for construction. Marshall Evaluation Index Index Change Consumer Price Index Index Change Difference: Marshall - CPI







July-99 1.032 3.5% 168.9 2.8% 0.7% July-98 1.068 1.7 164.3 2.0 (0.3) July-97 1.086 3.2 161.1 2.0 1.2 July-96 1.121 1.5 157.9 2.9 (1.3) July-95 1.138 6.5 153.5 3.6 2.9 Jan-94 1/ 1.212 3.1 148.1 2.3 0.8 Jan-93 1.250 2.2 144.7 3.5 (1.3) Jan-92 1.277 (0.8) 139.8 2.8 (3.6) Jan-91 1.267 1.2 136.0 6.4 (5.2) Jan-90 1.282 (0.5) 127.8 5.0 (5.6) Jan-89 1.275 n/a 121.7 n/a n/a Cumulative Difference (11.8)% ____________ 1/ July data for the Marshall Evaluation Service was available starting in 1995. For comparability January data is shown for both indices prior to 1995. The JLBC Staff recommends that July 1998 be the starting point for the index because 1) the Students FIRST legislation which set the initial cost per square foot was adopted in July 1998, 2) the state fiscal year begins July 1, and 3) the ADOA building system uses the July 1 date for this same index for ADOA system building renewal. For this first adjustment, we recommend an effective date of January 1, 2000. This will include all new school funding that is distributed by the School Facilities Board this year. In future years, we would expect the adjustment to be effective each July. The JLBC Staff recommends using the index for Phoenix. The Marshall index includes rates for selected cities in Arizona, including Phoenix, but does not include an overall "Arizona" rate. We believe the Phoenix rate is appropriate because statute already provides a 5% increase for rural schools. In addition, statute provides that the School Facilities Board may modify the cost per square foot for particular schools based on geographic or site conditions. Finally, the JLBC Staff recommends using the index for "Class C," which is defined as follows "Class C buildings have masonry or concrete exterior walls, and wood or steel roof and floor structures, except for concrete slab on grade." The board has advised us that a majority of Arizona schools fit this description. Further, the Class C index tends to fall in the middle of 5 ranges published in the Marshall Valuation Service. These other classes include A) fireproofed steel frame, B) reinforced concrete frame, D) wood frame, and S) metal frame and walls. The School Facilities Board anticipated adoption of an index and has indicated that it does not plan to change its FY 2000 or FY 2001 budget estimates based on the index. RS:LS:ss







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Request







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Brad Regens, Senior Fiscal Analyst



DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - REVIEW PRIVATE PRISON CONTRACT







The Office of the Attorney General requests Committee review of the inclusion of a purchase option within a contract between the Department of Corrections (DOC) and Management Training Corporation (MTC) for 450 privately-operated treatment beds. Recommendation The JLBC Staff recommends a favorable review of the DOC private prison contract, including the purchase option. In addition, the JLBC Staff recommends that DOC seek approval from the full Legislature prior to exercising the purchase option. Analysis DOC's FY 2000 and FY 2001 appropriations include General Fund monies to enable the department to contract for 450 privately-operated treatment beds. The contract for those beds expired on October 6, 1999 and a Request for Proposal (RFP) was published July 29, 1997 to solicit bids for providing 450 treatment beds. A.R.S. ? 41-1609.01 requires that any RFP, regarding an adult incarceration contract, issued by DOC shall be provided to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee for its review. As required, DOC submitted the RFP for review July 1997. MTC, which operated the 450 beds under the old contract, was selected as the successful respondent to the RFP and continues to operate the beds until a new contract is signed. The proposed contract includes a purchase option that identifies $4.64 of each per diem as a capital expense and allows that these monies be used to pay down the purchase price should DOC ever exercise the purchase option. (Continued)







JLBC







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman -2Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







January 25, 2000







A.R.S. ? 41-1609C requires the Office of the Attorney General to determine if private prison contracts are within the authority granted under the laws of the state and in proper form prior to DOC finalizing the agreement. To date, the Attorney General's Office has not approved the new private prison contract because the office believes the purchase option constitutes acquisition of equity by DOC and is similar to a lease-purchase. As DOC's appropriation does not specify whether per diem costs may include capital expenditures, the Attorney General's Office requests that the Committee review the inclusion of the purchase option in the new private prison contract. Legislative Council, however, believes that because the purchase of the facility is an option and not a requirement, DOC does not acquire equity until the purchase option is exercised. Furthermore, Legislative Council holds that DOC must receive authorization from the full Legislature prior to purchasing the facility. To satisfy the opinions offered by the Attorney General and Legislative Council, the JLBC Staff recommends the Committee give a favorable review to the private prison contract. The JLBC Staff recommends a favorable review for three reasons. First, DOC has previously entered into private prison contracts that contain purchase options, which were approved by the Attorney General's Office. Second, the previous contract's per diem rate included amortized capital costs. Third, favorable review of the contract will enable DOC to finalize the contract and ensure continued private-operation of 450 treatment beds. While the contract includes a purchase option, we do not believe that the Committee's action constitutes an approval for any purchase. The Committee is simply providing its guidance that the inclusion of the option in the contract is acceptable. Pursuant to A.R.S. ? 41-791.02, the JLBC Staff recommends that DOC, in conjunction with the Arizona Department of Administration, seek approval from the full Legislature prior to exercising the purchase option. RS :BR:ss







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT:







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Stefan Shepherd, Senior Fiscal Analyst Lynne Smith, Senior Fiscal Analyst DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY/ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION - APPROVAL OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE FOR ARIZONA WORKS







Request Pursuant to a request made by the Committee at its March 30, 1999 meeting, the Department of Economic Security (DES) and Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) wish to report to the Committee on the workers' compensation coverage provided through DES for level 3 and 4 participants in the Arizona Works pilot welfare program operated by MAXIMUS. DES and ADOA are also requesting an extension of the existing agreement until September 30, 2000 or such time as legislation is enacted to resolve the issue. Recommendation The JLBC Staff recommends that the Committee approve the request extending ADOA's authorization to provide workers' compensation coverage through DES for level 3 and 4 participants in the Arizona Works program operated by MAXIMUS through September 30, 2000. If legislation is not enacted to resolve the issue by that date, the JLBC Staff recommends that DES and ADOA report to the Committee with their recommendation on a permanent solution. Analysis The Arizona Works pilot program was established by Laws 1997, Chapter 300. The pilot program requires the state to contract with a private vendor to provide eligibility determination and job placement services to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefit recipients residing in DES' District I-E, centered around eastern Maricopa County. The Arizona (Continued)







JLBC







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman -2Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







January 25, 2000







Works vendor is required to provide workers' compensation coverage to level 3 and 4 participants in the program. Level 3 placements are unsubsidized, unpaid trial jobs. Level 4 placements are community work experience jobs. Before the program began on April 1, 1999, MAXIMUS had been unable to obtain workers' compensation coverage. Insurance carriers, including the State Compensation Fund, declined to cover the program, citing the lack of an employee-employer relationship between MAXIMUS and Arizona Works participants. Without the workers' compensation coverage required by statute, MAXIMUS might have had trouble placing clients into work experience placements. A.R.S. ? 41-621D provides that ADOA, with the approval of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, may obtain insurance or self-insure for workers' compensation claims against contractors doing business with the state. Under this provision, at its March 30, 1999 meeting, the Committee approved 8 months of coverage through the state's self-insurance program operated by ADOA. To allow the state and MAXIMUS to study various options and determine a long-term solution, the Committee also directed ADOA and DES to report back to the Committee prior to the expiration of the 8-month coverage period. For the 9-month period covering April through December 1999, MAXIMUS (through DES) paid ADOA approximately $3,800 for workers' compensation coverage. For the 7-month period during which MAXIMUS has been actively placing people in levels 3 and 4 positions, an average of 38 people per month have been covered through this agreement at an average cost to MAXIMUS of $14.35 per person per month. So far, no workers' compensation claims from Arizona Works participants have been reported. The attached report from DES and ADOA requests an extension of the current agreement until September 30, 2000 or such time as legislation is enacted to resolve the issue. Both HB 2199 and SB 1063 contain provisions that would permit the State Compensation Fund to offer workers' compensation coverage to Arizona Works level 3 and 4 participants. The JLBC Staff recommends that the Committee approve the request extending ADOA's authorization to provide workers' compensation coverage through DES for level 3 and 4 participants in the Arizona Works program operated by MAXIMUS through September 30, 2000. If legislation is not enacted to resolve the issue by that date, JLBC Staff recommends that DES and ADOA make another report to the Committee with their recommendation on a permanent solution. RS:SS:LS:ss Attachment







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Request







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Pat Mah, Senior Fiscal Analyst Stefan Shepherd, Senior Fiscal Analyst DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY -- REVIEW OF FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT FY 2000 EXPENDITURE PLAN







Pursuant to a footnote in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 General Appropriation Act, the Department of Economic Security (DES) wishes to again report to the Committee the intended distribution of federal Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) monies for FY 2000. The initial report was submitted in July, but the Committee deferred reviewing it since the federal government had not yet determined the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2000 allocations for SSBG monies. Recommendation The JLBC recommends a favorable review of the department's expenditure plan for SSBG monies in FY 2000 because it follows legislative intent in that it "minimizes the overall reductions in funding to state-planned and locally-planned providers," as required by a footnote in the General Appropriation Act. We would note that DES' proposal eliminates the reduction in SSBG funding for FY 2000 through the use of surplus Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant monies. Analysis Last session, the Legislature approved a transfer of monies from the federal TANF Block Grant to offset expected federal cuts in SSBG funding. The SSBG is a federal grant given to states to provide a variety of social services intended, in part, to maintain self-sufficiency, reduce and prevent dependency, and prevent and remedy neglect and abuse. In 1998, Congress and the President reduced SSBG funding for both FFY 1999 and FFY 2001 and beyond. The Legislature responded by approving the transfer of money from the TANF Block Grant to the SSBG in FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001. The additional funding was intended to cushion the impact of the federal reductions, making up 100% of the cut in FY 1999, 67% of the expected cut in FY 2000, and 33% of the expected cut in FY 2001. The Legislature also directed the department to use the funding in a manner that minimizes the overall reduction in funding to local and state service providers. The Legislature included a footnote in the General Appropriation Act so that it could review DES' plans if the actual SSBG allocation differed from that assumed in the budget. In July, the department asked us (Continued)







JLBC







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







-2-







January 25, 2000







to review its SSBG FY 2000 expenditure plan. We deferred until we had the final FFY 2000 SSBG funding allocation, which is $(2,487,500) below the FFY 1999 allocation. The following table shows the approved funding, along with the expected federal allocations. It also shows the now known federal SSBG allocation for FY 2000, which is reflected in the department's SSBG planned expenditures. The actual FFY 2000 allocation is $30,452,000, or $(520,800) less than the $30,972,800 that was anticipated in the approved budget.



Approved FY 1999 $32,939,500 3,990,100 0 $36,929,600 Approved FY 2000 $30,972,800 4,186,600 0 $35,159,400 SSBG Plan FY 2000 $30,452,000 4,186,600 2,291,000 $36,929,600 Approved FY 2001 $29,508,800 2,581,300 0 $32,090,100 SSBG Plan FY 2001 $29,361,500 2,581,300 1,612,700 $33,555,500







Federal SSBG allocation TANF/SSBG appropriation Expected Surplus TANF Total Funding Level







As mentioned earlier, the approved FY 2000 funding included $4.2 million from TANF/SSBG to offset 67% of the federal cut in SSBG funding. After adjusting for this transfer, the department's total FY 2000 SSBG available funding is $2,291,000 less than in FY 1999. Under the department's newest FY 2000 SSBG plan, this entire reduction would be offset by using $2.3 million in TANF funds. The $2.3 million is part of a TANF appropriation to the Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (DERS) for job training and job search services. According to the department, year-to-date expenditures through about half of FY 2000 (November 30, 1999) were just $3.4 million, or 27.5% of the total $12.4 million TANF appropriation to the JOBS Special Line Item within DERS. The reason for the surplus is because the number of clients is lower and their stay in the JOBS program shorter than anticipated. The department's expected TANF surplus at the close of FY 2000 is projected to be $2.5 million. Based on the information provided, the projection of surplus funds appears reasonable. However, we do not have a recent 25t h of the Month Financial Report from the department to fully substantiate the figures. The latest expenditure information we have is for February 1999 in a report dated May 1999. Of the $2.3 million in expected surplus TANF, $256,800 would be for providers under state contract for delivering services to the elderly population. The remaining amounts of $995,300 would be for the cost of employees in the Division of Child Support Enforcement and $1,038,900 would be for grants to the Councils of Government for services to local communities. (Please see Attachment 1 for the department's breakdown of the grant funding.) The department also plans to use surplus TANF for FY 2001. The amount of surplus TANF would drop from $2.3 million to $1.6 million. Total funding would be $33.6 million, for a reduction of $3.3 million or 9.1% from the FY 2000 proposed level. However, this information is preliminary and an actual report for FY 2001 is not due to the Committee until June 1, 2000. We found the FY 2000 DES SSBG plan to be consistent with legislative intent in that state-planned and locally-planned providers will not lose funding because of federal reductions to the SSBG grant. The department's plan, however, requires the use of surplus TANF monies. There are at least four appropriations bills so far this session to spend TANF balances. (The estimate for TANF balances is $61 million at the end of FY 2001 under the JLBC budget recommendation.) The use of these surplus TANF monies in FY 2000 means that they will not be part of a reversion at the end of the fiscal year to add to available TANF balances for any future legislative initiatives. RS:PM:SS:ss Attachment







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT:







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Stefan Shepherd, Senior Fiscal Analyst DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY -- REVIEW OF PLAN TO PROVIDE MATCHING MONIES TO SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA TRIBE TO OPERATE A TRIBAL CASH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM







Request Pursuant to a provision in Laws 1997, Chapter 300, the DES requests Committee review of a plan to provide matching monies to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa tribe to operate a tribal cash assistance program. Recommendation The JLBC Staff recommends the Committee give the proposal a favorable review. Analysis The 1996 Federal welfare reform legislation (P.L. 104-193) allows Native American tribes to petition the Federal government to operate their own tribal family assistance program. Those tribes with an approved plan may directly receive and administer Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant monies; a state's TANF Block Grant distribution is reduced by the amount of money passed on directly to the tribe. Laws 1997, Chapter 300, Section 35 states that if a tribal government elects to operate a cash assistance program, the state shall provide matching monies "at a rate that is consistent with the applicable fiscal year budget and that is not more than the state matching rate for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program as it existed on July 1, 1994." Laws 1997, Chapter 300 requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to review any plan to provide matching monies. In June 1999, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tribe began operating their own cash assistance program as permitted by P.L. 104-193. The tribe currently receives its TANF Block Grant monies directly from the federal government, but has not yet signed an agreement with DES for the matching monies. The Tribe currently employs its own TANF eligibility workers and job counselors, but contracts with DES to provide Food Stamp and medical assistance eligibility. DES is proposing to give the tribe 80% of the state GF expenditures for administrative functions and cash benefits in FFY 1994, or approximately $314,000 GF. This amount is consistent with DES' budget and is (Continued)







JLBC







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman -2Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







January 25, 2000







close to what DES is currently expending on services to the tribe. In addition to this GF amount, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tribe receives approximately $710,000 of TANF Block Grant monies yearly. The combination of the TANF Block Grant and GF monies proposed to be passed through to the tribe in State Fiscal Year 2000, approximately $1,024,000, reflects a decrease of approximately 8% from the amount spent on the tribe in FFY 1994, the year upon which the tribe's TANF Block Grant amount is based, pursuant to federal law. DES estimates that it provided Aid to Families with Dependent Children cash assistance to an average of 277 Salt River Pima-Maricopa cases in FFY 1994. The caseload of Salt River Pima-Maricopa tribal members in June 1999 was 162, or a decrease of 42%. Given this caseload decrease, we believe 8% total funding decrease will not adversely affect the tribe. RS:SSH:jb







Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff Memorandum



1716 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-5491 Facsimile: (602) 542-1616







DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUBJECT: Request







January 25, 2000 Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee Richard Stavneak, Director Stefan Shepherd, Senior Fiscal Analyst DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY - ARIZONA WORKS BIMONTHLY REVIEW







Pursuant to a provision in A.R.S. ? 46-344, the vendor for the Arizona Works pilot welfare program is providing its bimonthly report on the Arizona Works program. Recommendation This item is for information only and no Committee action is required. Caseloads in the Arizona Works pilot welfare program have shown some decreases not exhibited in caseloads in the remainder of Maricopa County; without additional information, however, JLBC Staff cannot make judgements about the relative success of the Arizona Works program. Analysis The Arizona Works pilot program, which replaces the Department of Economic Security's (DES) EMPOWER Redesign welfare program in DES District I-E (eastern Maricopa County), is operated by the private vendor MAXIMUS. The attached report covers the period from November 15 through January 15. Due to computer problems, the previous report did not have DES comparative data as previously requested by the Committee. At its last meeting, the Committee reiterated its desire to have DES comparative data in the report, and expressed the desire that the MAXIMUS report include sanctions data and financial expenditure data. Although there are still some problems with the information presented in the report, much of the information sought by the Committee is now included in the attached reports from MAXIMUS and DES. DES is still working to obtain the comparative data for months prior to October. This historical comparative data should be available by the time next report is submitted on March 15. We believe it is important to have several months of data before presenting comparisons between Arizona Works and EMPOWER Redesign. We also need to explore further issues related to differences in how child-only cases are counted by Arizona Works and EMPOWER Redesign. In our review of the March 15 report, we hope to provide the Committee with some comparison data reflecting trends in both programs. (Continued)







JLBC







Senator Randall Gnant, Chairman -2Members, Joint Legislative Budget Committee







January 25, 2000







The table below provides information on the total number of cases by type for the last four months. The table shows that there has been a slight decrease in the number of total cases. At the same time, the number of cases for whom no work participation is required, i.e., child-only cases, has risen slightly. ARIZONA WORKS PROGRAM: TOTAL CASES BY TYPE Month August September October November TANF 2,011 1,994 2,027 1,848 No Work Participation 1,473 1,483 1,516 1,542 New Transfer In 59 51 50 56 Total 3,543 3,528 3,593 3,446







The MAXIMUS report provides results of customer satisfaction surveys, which show no significant change in customer satisfaction with the program, which has ranged between "Good" and "Excellent." It also mentions that although the Grant Diversion program (which provides persons eligible for cash benefits a one-time upfront payment in lieu of cash benefits) was implemented on October 1, 1999, no participants have been determined eligible for the program. The following chart updates information provided in our memo on the November report. It compares the total number of cases in the Arizona Works program with the caseload in the rest of Maricopa County. For the most part, caseloads trends in both programs are similar, although the Arizona Works caseload has decreased a couple times without a similar decrease in the caseload in the rest of Maricopa County. As we noted in our last review, however, we cannot make judgements about the information reflected in the chart without additional information (e.g., whether the increase occurred more in child-only cases or in adult cases.) We also noted that the table "cannot, by itself, give an indication of the relative success of each program." The evaluation to be conducted by JLBC Staff this year, and the evaluation to be conducted by an independent evaluator hired by the Arizona Works Agency Procurement Board will look into the issues of program success in greater detail.







Maricopa County Welfare Cases



3,750 Arizona Works Cases EMPOWER/Tribal 12,350 3,500 Arizona Works 3,250 11,700 11,050 10,400



Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99







13,000 EMPOWER and Tribal Cases







3,000 Months Arizona Works EMPOWER and Tribal