Medicaid, prison funding challenges remain as Alabama House committee OKs barebones General Fund budget

Medicaid, mental health and other human services in Alabama would face yet another year of tight funding under the General Fund (GF) budget that cleared a state House committee Wednesday. The committee’s version was virtually identical to the one that Gov. Robert Bentley recommended last month.

The committee approved next year’s proposed $1.8 billion operating budget for Medicaid, public safety and other non-education services after little discussion or debate. The budget now goes to the full House, which could consider it as soon as next week.

Big challenges ahead for Medicaid, prisons

Medicaid and state prisons would get nearly half of the GF’s money next year under the House GF budget committee’s plan, continuing the recent trend of those agencies consuming an increasingly larger share of the budget’s dollars. Medicaid would receive a $70 million, or 11.4 percent, increase, while the Department of Corrections would face a cut of $6.8 million, or 1.7 percent.

The committee’s proposed funding level could make it a challenge for Medicaid to maintain current services. Medicaid would remain $15 million short of the $700 million that State Health Officer Don Williamson said last month that it needs from the GF. The agency, which insures about one in five Alabamians, already has cut reimbursements for dental services, dialysis and services from non-primary care doctors. Williamson said the agency could survive next year by looking for more ways to trim costs in the prescription drug program and other areas.

Funding challenges also would remain for the state’s prison system. The corrections cut would come even as state prisons face a shortage of guards and run at nearly twice their designed capacity. Alabama also faces growing demands to hire more female guards, install more cameras and make other prison infrastructure improvements. Rep. Steve Clouse, R-Ozark, who chairs the House’s GF budget committee, said he wants to work with lawmakers to find more money for corrections.

Flat funding the norm for many other services

Other critical social services would receive essentially the same amount of GF money next year under the committee’s plan. The Department of Mental Health would be funded at the 2014 level despite the increased demand for community-based mental health services following the closing of several state mental health hospitals.

The Department of Senior Services, which provides Meals on Wheels nutritional assistance to the homebound elderly, was similarly level-funded. State courts, which have cut hundreds of jobs in recent years, also would get much less money than they requested.

The Department of Human Resources (DHR) would receive 16.8 percent, or $11.8 million, less from the GF next year. DHR’s allocation in Bentley’s recommended Education Trust Fund (ETF) budget would nearly double to offset that loss. Between the two budgets, Bentley recommended about a 2 percent increase for DHR. Because the ETF budget has not yet won committee approval, it remains to be seen whether the Legislature will support this increase. DHR provides child welfare, child support collection and elder abuse services. The agency also administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in Alabama.

A children’s health insurance program would get a substantial funding boost next year to help cover higher enrollment. ALL Kids, which insures Alabama children whose low- and middle-income families do not qualify for Medicaid, would receive 28.3 percent more from the GF.

General Fund’s long-term structural deficit remains

Alabama is one of the only states with two major state operating budgets. The ETF budget funds K-12 schools, two-year colleges and public universities, as well as other state and local services related to education. The General Fund budget provides support for all other state services, including public health, public safety and child welfare.

Alabama has the highest rate of “earmarked” revenue in the nation. That earmarking forces lawmakers to spend certain tax proceeds only for very limited purposes. For example, individual income taxes and sales taxes are set aside for the ETF and can be spent only on education. Revenues from sales taxes and income taxes tend to rise and fall with the economy, allowing the education budget to make up for bad years during good years and to save some money for years when the economy is not doing as well.

The GF budget lacks this flexibility because it is funded from a variety of revenues that are not as responsive to economic changes and that do not grow quickly enough to keep pace with cost increases. That leaves the GF with a structural deficit, meaning it often is strapped for cash even when the economy is doing well. Next year’s proposed budget once again illustrates Alabama’s chronically inadequate funding for core services, ACPP executive director Kimble Forrister said.

Time is getting shorter for the Legislature to pass GF and ETF budgets for next year. Lawmakers will return Tuesday for the 17th of 30 allowable meeting days during the 2014 regular session, which is expected to last until early April.

By Carol Gundlach, policy analyst. Communications director Chris Sanders contributed to this report. Posted Feb. 20, 2014.

Alabama Senate panel OKs bill to lift lifetime SNAP, TANF bans for people with felony drug conviction

An Alabama Senate committee Wednesday approved a bill that would allow people who were convicted of a drug-related felony to regain eligibility for food assistance or cash welfare benefits. The Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability (FR&A) Committee voted 5-2 to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration.

Alabama is one of just 10 states where people who were convicted of a drug felony face a lifetime eligibility ban under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Alabama is also one of only 12 states to apply a similar ban to benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The bans apply even to people with a lone offense decades ago.

SB 303, sponsored by Sen. Linda Coleman, D-Birmingham, would allow otherwise eligible people to receive SNAP and TANF benefits even if they have a prior felony drug conviction, as long as they have completed their sentence or are complying with their probation terms, including any court-ordered drug treatment.

It was clear during the lively committee discussion of SB 303 that many people saw unfairness in a policy that denies eligibility only to those convicted of a felony drug crime. “A person that rapes, robs or kills can come out [of prison] and receive SNAP,” Coleman said. “This bill just levels the playing field.”

Another Senate committee last month approved a proposal – SB 63, sponsored by Sen. Trip Pittman, R-Montrose – to require drug testing for TANF applicants who had drug convictions within the last five years. Several members of the Senate FR&A Committee asked whether Pittman’s bill would apply to newly eligible people under SB 303.

Both Coleman and a representative of the Department of Human Resources agreed that SB 63 would apply to TANF applicants, but they said federal law forbids drug testing as a condition of SNAP eligibility.

After a minor, uncontroversial amendment, the committee voted 5-2 for SB 303. Voting in favor were Sens. Paul Bussman, R-Cullman; Coleman; Del Marsh, R-Anniston; Bryan Taylor, R-Prattville; and Phil Williams, R-Rainbow City. Voting “no” were Sens. Rusty Glover, R-Semmes, and Clay Scofield, R-Guntersville.

The Legislature will return Thursday for the 14th of 30 allowable meeting days during the 2014 regular session, which is expected to last until early April.

By Carol Gundlach, policy analyst. Posted Feb. 12, 2014.

Bills to shorten Alabama’s death penalty appeals process speeding toward committee votes

House and Senate committees are set to vote Wednesday afternoon on proposals to shorten the appeals process for people convicted of capital murder in Alabama. Members of both chambers’ Judiciary Committees gathered Tuesday to hear public testimony on the legislation – HB 216, sponsored by Rep. Lynn Greer, R-Rogersville, and SB 194, sponsored by Sen. Bill Holtzclaw, R-Madison – as well as other bills related to the criminal justice system.

Legislators heard from five speakers at the public hearing, which took place before a standing-room-only crowd. Many other speakers were hoping to be heard, but the committee adjourned after an hour because the House was going into session. Two speakers opposed HB 216 and SB 194, while three spoke in support. Two of the bills’ three proponents were family members of murder victims.

Before the public hearing began, the committees heard from Beau Brown, an attorney with the Alabama Office of Prosecution Services, which helped to draft the bills. Brown briefly explained each of the bills:

  • HB 216 and SB 194 would cause direct and collateral death penalty appeals to run concurrently, thus shortening the appeals process in capital cases. The legislation, labeled the “Fair Justice Act,” would accelerate the pace of post-conviction appeals known as Rule 32 appeals. Those appeals, which examine claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel, now occur after direct appeals that consider issues such as sufficiency of evidence. The bills also would require the state to provide lawyers for both sets of appeals if a defendant is too poor to afford a lawyer.
  • HB 217 would forbid a defendant’s attorney from contacting victims or their families without first giving the prosecutor a chance to ask the judge to forbid that contact. The bill would apply to all criminal cases, though Brown indicated he would be open to an amendment limiting the provisions to capital cases.
  • HB 218 and SB 193 would add additional types of murders to the list of those defined as capital offenses.
  • HB 219 would forbid contacting jurors in criminal cases without permission from the court. Gathering information from jurors is a technique that many defense attorneys use in determining whether there was any sort of improper behavior during trials. As with HB 217, Brown indicated he would be open to an amendment limiting those provisions to capital cases.

Greer sponsors the House bills, while Holtzclaw sponsors the Senate ones. Holtzclaw said he plans to introduce Senate bills that mirror the provisions of HB 217 and HB 219. The package of bills has the support of the Alabama District Attorneys Association.

‘You can’t imagine what you go through’

Walker County District Attorney Bill Adair was dismissive of the idea that the proposals could lead to additional costs for the state. “Those costs all exist now,” he said. Adair told a lengthy and graphic story about a 1988 murder in Cordova. Greg Hunt, convicted of the crime, has been on death row since 1990. Adair described that situation as an unconscionable delay in justice.

Denise Gurganus, the sister of the victim in Hunt’s case, said she had insight on criminal justice policy that most people cannot share. “Until you have lost a loved one to a murder, you can’t imagine what you go through on a daily basis, and it does not stop,” she said.

Sherrie Carter, whose brother-in-law was killed in 1996, was emotional in comparing the amount of time it took to commit the crime to the amount of time the person convicted of killing him has spent on death row. Carter described the state’s lengthy capital appeals process as “just so the defendant can grasp at a thread to get out of what he did.”

‘The cost of this bill will be huge’

Birmingham criminal defense attorney Richard Jaffe said HB 216 and SB 194 could place a tremendous strain on Alabama’s budget and could carry severe unintended consequences.

“You know, 45 percent of our reversals in death cases come because of inadequate assistance of counsel at the trial level, and that’s because of inadequate funding,” Jaffe said. “You get a few thousand dollars to do something that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we’ve already got a shortage of trained attorneys. The cost of this bill will be huge and end up hurting crime victims in the long run because of the reversals of all of these cases.”

Criminal defense attorney Bill Clark, a former president of the Alabama State Bar, focused on the lack of research that had gone into the bills’ potential effects. Clark asked why the bills have not been evaluated by the Alabama Law Institute or the State Bar.

“We have criminal procedure committees that are designed to examine just this sort of thing,” Clark said. “I don’t understand the rush to pass a bill that is difficult to understand. The Bill of Rights was passed to protect citizens from the power of government, and these bills don’t do that.”

Lawmakers will return Wednesday for the fifth meeting day of the 2014 regular session, which is expected to last until early April.

By Stephen Stetson, policy analyst. Posted Jan. 21, 2014.

Against the tide: The death penalty in Alabama

In Alabama, the death penalty is a curious exception to concerns about government efficiency. When it comes to executing people, a majority of Alabamians appear to trust the government to get it right every time. Lack of transparency in our capital punishment system prompts little public comment. Similarly, on the fiscal side, calls for reducing Alabama’s spending rarely include eliminating costly executions.

This fact sheet looks at Alabama’s death penalty through the lenses of governmental competence, transparency and fiscal responsibility.

A temporary halt: Alabama’s executions

Alabama has a long and tangled history with the death penalty. A Tuskegee University archive preserves the grim evidence of the “lynch law” that long terrorized African Americans. The state’s historic enthusiasm for legal executions, which remains strong, bears the stain of racism as well. One measure of the problem is the frequency of national court rulings that address Alabama’s capital punishment machinery.

This fact sheet examines the history of capital punishment in Alabama against the backdrop of national legal trends and the growing call for a moratorium.