March 28, 2009

Missouri’s Stimulus Dollars get Priority Attention

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), popularly know as the “federal economic stimulus package” makes no specific references to substance abuse or addiction, but it is a major factor in Missouri FY2010 budget development this year. The Senate Select Committee on Oversight of Federal Stimulus is chaired by Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) and vice chair is Sen. Rita Heard Days (D-St. Louis). Members are Sens. Purgason, Schmitt, Pearce, Schaefer, Ridgeway, Dempsey, Goodman, Callahan, Justus, Stouffer and Crowell. The committee is charged with analyzing strategies for securing the maximum amount of federal dollars for Missouri from the ARRA.

Some legislators would like to spend State General Revenue dollars and then supplant those funds with federal dollars, so that the money could then be used for one-time expenditures. Governor Nixon’s policy director, Jeff Harris, cautioned the committee that Missouri should “proceed carefully and conservatively and not attempt to play any games or appear to be appropriating money in ways contrary to the spirit and letter of the law of this act (ARRA).”

The Missouri Department of Mental Teleconference Sessions for

Department of Mental Health Providers

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

Maximizing Opportunities

Session 1 April 68:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (FULL)

Session 2April 63:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. (FULL)

Session 3April 109:00 a.m-10:30 a.m.

Session 4April 102:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a number of federal funding streams have opened up for state government, including some that may advance mental health supports and services for Missourians. The Department of Mental Health strongly encourages consideration of opportunities for state-level funding as well as opportunities for local partnerships supported by funding through local entities (such as school districts, workforce investment boards, caring communities, etc.)

NOTE: Registration for this event is required. Space is limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. You may register by sending your name, organization, address, telephone number, preferred time and email address to . Please make every effort to only use on line per organization. Telephones with mute capability must be used for this teleconference. Calls from cell phones will not be accepted. Q and A session will be held at the end of the teleconference. Additional information will be sent to confirmed attendees prior to the teleconference. For questions, call (573) 751-7033.

Registration Deadline is 12:00 Noon on April 8, 2009.

Governor Nixon created by executive order a council to review and make recommendations on ARRA. The Economic Stimulus Coordination Council was tasked with review and providing a framework for the Governor’s Office, General Assembly, and various political subdivisions, but will not be involved in any specific project recommendations or funding decisions. The Council’s February 27 report to the Governor makes no mention of DMH or its programs, which are apparently not in the purview of the ARRA. The Council identified 10 “points and recommendations:”

  1. Time is of the essence.
  2. A cooperative effort is needed.
  3. Missouri should have one application for competitive dollars.
  4. A specific state agency must be assigned to each appropriation resource.
  5. A statewide focus is required (urban, suburban, rural)
  6. Twinning (coupling programs that are interactive) increases the impact.
  7. Recommendations by individual Council members are submitted.
  8. Sustainable jobs and programs should be created.
  9. An opportunity exists for long term planning.
  10. Accountability and transparency are required.

The Council foresees that a large number of notices, rules, RFQs and RFPs will be issued by the federal government, and that state agencies will need to remain alert and be able to respond quickly. It emphasizes that Missouri must “get its fair share of these dollars or else Missourians will be subsidizing other states.” It also notes that the ARRA “delegates to the Governor the leadership role and statutory duties, and still more duties to the Executive Branch for implementation.” Specifically, the report recommends that, “given the complexity of this implementation, it is critical that Missouri establish a temporary Washington D.C. presence focused on Missouri’s interests and issues under the ARRA and work closely with the Missouri Congressional Delegation.”

or many years, Missouri did have an office and staff in the nation’s capital. This in effect served as the state’s lobbying presence there. The position, and the office, were closed as a cost-cutting move during the Holden administration, after legislators argued that the state already had 11 lobbyists, i.e. nine U.S. House members and two members of the U.S. Senate. Gov. Nixon has not yet responded to the Council’s recommendation in this regard.

Missouri has received almost $269 million in the first three rounds of federal ARRA dollars. Also received are additional unemployment benefits, but these are deposited into the Unemployment Trust Fund. The total projected amount is $4 billion to $6+ billion, when all of the other aspects of the ARRA are taken into account.

The money will be separated into two funds: the Federal Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, and the Federal Stimulus Fund. These funds were opened by executive order in late February, and the two funds were codified in law on March 26, when Gov. Nixon signed SB 313, which had bi-partisan support. “The funds we receive under the federal recovery act are intended to create jobs and transform Missouri’s economy, and I am committed to ensuring that each and every recovery dollar is used in an open and accountable manner to accomplishments,” Nixon said in a news release. “These funds will be an important tool to help state officials, government agencies and all Missourians ensure that our recovery funds are put to the best use possible to help turn our economy around.”

Governor Nixon has established a website where citizens can submit their ideas about how to best use of the ARRA money: The “Transparency” section of that website intends to provide current information on amounts received, federal source, where deposited, and “items for which those funds were spent.” Missourians are also encouraged to share their proposals and their ideas. More than 3,300 ideas and proposals have been submitted. On the federal level, is the portal for information on ARRA, including a link to the full text of the legislation.

Senate Passes DUI Roadside Memorial Sign Legislation

Senate Bill 84, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Purgason (R-Caulfield), was passed by the Senate on March 4, by a vote of 32-0, and sent to the House. The bill originally designated a bridge in Laclede County as the Specialist James M. Findley Memorial Bride. It was amended on the Senate floor by Sen. Tim Green (D-St. Louis), who sponsored SB 93, which contains the “Drunk Driving Risk Reduction Awareness Program.” SB 93 itself has been given first-round approval and is on the calendar for a final vote.

The legislation was inspired by Hazelwood resident Gail Rehme, whose 19-year old brother, David Louis Poenicke, was killed in 1984, in a DUI crash, when Gail was 10. Gail went to her mayor with her idea several years ago, and the mayor directed her to her Senator and Representative. This is the third year for the legislation. It was passed by the House last year but failed in the Senate. You can read Gail’s story, and the nonprofit organization she has established to help other families cover the MoDOT cost of the signs, at the Internet site she has created: This is an example of what can be accomplished with initiative taken by a citizen activist, and legislators who are responsive.

SB 84 requires the MoDOT to establish and administer a drunk driving risk reduction awareness program, in the form of memorial signs, to be know as "David's Law." Signs are to be placed at or near the scene of the accident, attached to an existing highway sign, street light, or guard rail. The bill requires MoDOT to adopt, by rules and regulations, guidelines for implementation of the program.

Any person may apply to MoDOT to sponsor a drunk driving victim memorial sign in memory of an immediate family member who died as a result of a crash caused by a person who was shown to have been operating a vehicle in violation of an DUI law at the time of the crash.. On request of an immediate family member of the deceased victim involved in a drunk driving crash, MoDOT shall place a sign. A person not a member of the victim's immediate family may also submit a request, if that person provides written consent of a victim's immediate family member. MoDOT shall charge the sponsoring party a fee to cover the cost in designing, constructing, placing, and maintaining the sign. Signs remain in place for ten years, and may be renewed for another 10 years after payment of appropriate maintenance fees.

The signs developed by the department shall resemble a Missouri license plate and feature the words "Drunk Driving Victim!", the initials of the deceased victim, the month and year in which the victim of the drunk driving accident was killed, and the phrase "Who's Next?" All private roadside memorials or markers commemorating the death of a drunk driving victim are prohibited. No person, other than a MoDOT employee or the department's designee, may erect a drunk driving victim memorial sign.

Meanwhile, in the House, Representative Bill Deeken’s HB 213, which contains identical language, received a “do pass” recommendation from the House Committee on Transportation on March 3. We can expect SB 84 to be referred to that committee by the Speaker.

Drug Testing of TANF Families Approved by House Committee

Drug testing proposals are popular this year. A dozen bills propose required drug testing under certain conditions. Five of them target applicants and for and recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Two Senate bills, SB 73 (Stouffer) and SB 86 (Crowell) were heard by the Senate Committee on Progress and Development on February 11, but no action has been taken since then. SB 183 (Bartle) has not been scheduled for a hearing. HB 949 (Gatschenberger), introduced recently, has 44 co-sponsors. However, the lead bill in the House, HB 30 (Brandom), was given a “do pass” recommend-ation by the House Committee on Children & Families on March 12, reported out and referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill for March 30.

The committee vote was 7-4, along party lines, with one absentee. Voting “aye” were Reps. Cynthia Davis (R-O’Fallon), the Chair; Ervin, (R-Kearney) the Vice Chair; Wayne Cooper (R-Osage Beach), Ed Emery (R-Lamar), Jeff Grisamore (R-Lee’s Summit), Mike McGhee (R-Odessa), and Therese Sander (R-Moberly). Voting “no” were Reps. Tom McDonald (D-Independence), Margo McNeil (D-Florissant), Jill Schupp (D-Creve Coeur), and Steve Webb (D-Florissant). The committee clerk, Rep. Davis’ legislative assistant, reports that the committee did not look at the Fiscal Note on the bill before the vote was taken.

In the Fiscal Note, both the Office of the Attorney General and the DSS Division of Legal Services suggest that lawsuits may be filed in state and federal courts challenging the law on constitutional grounds. The AGO reports that “aside from the costs of making changes to the implementation of the program, AGO assumes that this proposal has the potential to be the subject of state and federal litigation. Potential costs for such defense is unknown.”

The Fiscal Note on HB 30 shows an Estimated Net Effect for FY2012 on the General Revenue Fund of “Unknown but Greater than $5,098,715.” The DSS Family Support Division estimates that the average yearly cost to do drug testing of ALL recipients and applicants, using “a private vendor” to administer its program, with data provided by the private contractor for DOC, would be $4,392,900.

Ed. Note: The text of the bill makes a distinction between “screening and testing” and that testing is to be based on screening: “… The department of social services shall develop a program to screen and test each work-eligible applicant or work-eligible recipient who is otherwise eligible for (TANF) and who the department has reasonable cause to believe, based on screening, engages in illegal use of controlled substances.”

The Oversight Division, which issues fiscal notes, “assumes per phone conversation with DSS that a savings might be realized. The average TANF grant is $292 for a family of three (a parent and two children). If the parent tested positive and was declared ineligible for TANF benefits the grant would decrease to $234 and a $58 savings would be realized. Based on the 7.9% statistic used by DMH in 2008, Oversight believes the DSS could have a saving of $0 to $1,869,456 ($58 X 2,686 X 12).”

The bill requires DSS to refer applicants who test positive for drug use to appropriate treatment approved by DMH. DMH reports: “DMH is currently utilizing all current treatment capacity. A significant cost would be incurred if DMH were to be required to treat all referred applicants/recipients. The division (ADA) does not know the number of TANF clients that will test positive for drugs or the number of those that test positive for drugs nor the number of those that test positive that will present for treatment. Treatment costs per person (based on FY07 data) in a Primary Recovery (General Revenue) program is $1,070. Treatment costs person in a CSTAR program is $2,511 …. If only an additional 100 persons were treated, it would cost between $96,400 and $107,000.”

Interestingly, the Fiscal Note on SB 73 and SB 86 (filed by Oversight 6 days later) shows a Total Esti-mated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund of “Unknown but Greater Than$21,101,074 for FY2012. Again, DSS/FSD states that it is “responsible for testing all applicants,” but adds that each application has an average of three (3) people (total of 231,192 annually) and “it may be necessary to test recipients on an annual basis,” so the average yearly cost is calculated at $17,339,400. Oversight estimates a saving of $0 to $5,603,496, created by ineligibility of 8,051 persons. The text of the Fiscal Note is at

Opposition to Drug Testing of TANF Applicants and Recipients

Mandatory testing of welfare recipients is opposed by the American Public Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project, National Association on Alcohol, Drugs & Disability, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Black Women’s Health Project, Legal Action Center, National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, and the American Civil Liberties Union (list accessed on April 8, 2008).

An ACLU summary, makes the follow-ing points in opposition:

  • Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically, fiscally and constitutionally unsound.
  • Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population (NIAAA).
  • Seventy percent of all illicit drug users age 18-49 are employed full-time.
  • Resources could be allocated toward better training for workers to detect signs of substance abuse and mental disorders and to greater assistance and treatment for those who need help.
  • Drug testing is expensive, and the cost to “catch” drug users is not warranted, based on findings reported by private employers.
  • Most types of drug tests fail to detect alcohol abuse, the most commonly abused substance among Americans (none of the Missouri bills include alcohol in drugs for which to be screened or tested).
  • Many states have rejected random drug testing as impractical and fiscally unjustifiable.
  • A Michigan drug testing law was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. U. S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts ruled that the state’s rationale “could be used for testing of parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.” (Marchwinski v. Howard)

For a more comprehensive review of these issues, see “Addressing Substance Abuse Problems Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators – Final Report” (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 19, 2000):

Missouri Budgeting: A “Flawed Process”??

At a time when access to information, accountability and “transparency” are watchwords, both inside and outside government, it is not surprising that Missouri’s budget-building process should come under greater scrutiny than ever. The blogosphere contains frequent commentary that calls into question public confidence in the processes and procedures that create confusion, and are either partly understood or misunderstood. Even veteran Capitol-watchers often shake their heads. For example, the nonprofit advocacy organization Missouri Budget Project ( writes of the March 11 Budget Committee marathon:

NOTE: Relevant Missouri blogrolls

(compilations of lists of links to other blogs or websites) can be found at and

“During the mark-up, Committee members offered 107 amendments. Most were defeated. If a Committee member proposes to increase funding for a specific program or service, the Budget Chair’s rules require a member to first identify a line item to decrease, and get Committee approval for that. Since there are a small number of programs that can realistically be decreased, several areas took big hits. For example, 26 amendments were proposed that used information technology in the Office of Administration as the source for their funding. Ten of these amendments passed, and Chair Icet said that he probably would have to revisit these cuts because they appear to be too deep.”

“Thiszero-sum approach is a flawed process. It allows for no way to prioritize the importance of the proposed amendments. Amendments that are offered first have the best chance of passing, even though later amendments may address a much more pressing need.”