Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2010 House Bill 5882: Appropriations: 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget

Public Act 190 of 2010

  1. Introduced by Rep. Dudley Spade (D) on February 24, 2010, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget. This would appropriate $7.004 billion in gross spending, compared to $5.941 billion, which was the FY 2009-2010 amount enrolled in 2009. Of this, $959.2 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $860.2 million. $5.936 billion of this budget is federal money (of which $799 million is “stimulus” deficit spending) compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $4.974 billion.
    • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 24, 2010, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Democratic-majority in the House on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Dudley Spade (D) on June 10, 2010, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Democratic-majority in the House on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to revise a provision establishing that the department may not seek competitive bids on a contract with a service provider if the provider is "nationally accredited or is currently the only provider in the service area." Under the amendmentment, both conditions would have to apply. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to not include a provision prohibiting the department from conducting licensing reviews no more than once every two years for child placing agencies and child caring institutions that are nationally accredited and have no outstanding violations. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to prohibit the privatization of department services unless the savings to the state would be at least 10 percent of the cost of the same service being performed by government workers. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to remove language requiring that $500,000 appropriated to collect child support arrearages be spent on a contract with a private collection agency (rather than being done by government employees). The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to not extend an increase in private adoption agency reimbursement rates to an agency in which any employees receive annual compensation greater than that of the governor’s salary. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to prohibit using any appropriated money to fund the "Michigan Home-Based Child Care Council," which is an entity created to collect union dues from independent home day contractors hired by welfare recipients with government money provided for this (and is the subject of a Mackinac Center "stealth unionization" lawsuit). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Chuck Moss (R) on June 10, 2010, to require the department to file with the legislature a detailed monthly spending report. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to cut the department's budget by $2.57 million, which is approximately the amount that was extracted last year from the payments to independent home day contractors hired by welfare recipients and turned over to a subsidiary the AFSCME and UAW unions, and establish as the "intent of the legislature" that the cut be offet by getting the money back from the unions. This practice is the subject of a "stealth unionization" lawsuit filed by the Mackinac Center. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to require the department to create an automated database that cross-checks the appropriate State Police information on outstanding arrest warrants so that a person with an outstanding warrant is not allowed to collect welfare. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to strip out a $100,000 grant to an entity called "youthville Detroit". The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to cut $20 million for a government jobs training program ("JET Plus"). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to add $2 million and 20 employees to the department's inspector general office, and use the personnel and money to increase welfare eligibility screening. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on June 10, 2010, to add $3 million and require the money be used to add photos to “bridge cards” (welfare benefit and food stamp debit cards). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Alma Smith (D) on June 10, 2010, to prohibit the transfer of any foster care cases from the department to to private child placing agencies if this would that require a county contribution to the private agency administrative rate. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to not include a provision that would increase the daily rates paid to providers of residential services for juvenile justice and abused or neglected youth in recognition of increased requirements resulting from a children's rights lawsuit settlement agreement. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Roy Schmidt (D) on June 10, 2010, to increase from $200,000 to $300,000 a grant to the "kinship care resource center" administered by the Michigan State University School of Social Work. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on June 10, 2010, to not include a provision authorizing $2.5 million in spending "to facilitate the licensure of relative caregivers as foster parents". The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Tom McMillin (R) on June 10, 2010, to make it a felony for individuals in the department to attempt to use any appropriated money to fund the "Michigan Home-Based Child Care Council," which is an entity created to collect union dues from independent home day contractors hired by welfare recipients with government money provided for this (and is the subject of a Mackinac Center "stealth unionization" lawsuit). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 10, 2010.
  2. Passed 55 to 46 in the House on June 10, 2010, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget. This would appropriate $7.015 billion in gross spending, compared to $5.941 billion, which was the FY 2009-2010 amount enrolled in 2009. Of this, $959.2 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $860.2 million. $5.968 billion of this budget is federal money (of which $816 million is “stimulus” deficit spending) compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $4.974 billion.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on June 15, 2010.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 17, 2010, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 17, 2010.
  4. Passed 20 to 14 in the Senate on June 17, 2010, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget. This would appropriate $6.953 billion in gross spending, compared to $5.941 billion, which was the FY 2009-2010 amount enrolled in 2009, and $7.015 billion proposed by the House. Of this, $916.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $860.2 million. $5.933 billion of this budget is federal money (of which $819 million is “stimulus” deficit spending) compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $4.974 billion.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on June 17, 2010, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed 20 to 12 in the Senate on June 17, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  6. Received in the House on June 22, 2010, to concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. Failed 0 to 105 in the House on June 22, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Received in the House on September 29, 2010.
  8. Passed 63 to 42 in the House on September 29, 2010, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget. This would appropriate $6.9962 billion in gross spending, compared to $5.941 billion enrolled for the previous year. $5.921 billion of this budget is federal money (of which $775 million is “stimulus” deficit spending) compared to $4.974 billion the previous year. The budget adds hundreds of new child protective services workers due to a lawsuit settlement.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  9. Received in the Senate on September 29, 2010.
  10. Passed 21 to 17 in the Senate on September 29, 2010, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget. This would appropriate $6.9962 billion in gross spending, compared to $5.941 billion enrolled for the previous year. $5.921 billion of this budget is federal money (of which $775 million is “stimulus” deficit spending) compared to $4.974 billion the previous year. The budget adds hundreds of new child protective services workers due to a lawsuit settlement.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  11. Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 30, 2010.

Comments

Re: 2010 House Bill 5882 (Appropriations: 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget )  by MichiganVotes.org Editor on September 30, 2010 


Senator Hardiman asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.


The motion prevailed.


Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows:


This Department of Human Services budget is one of the most important that we will vote on. In these very difficult economic times, we have seen large increases in caseloads as our neighbors lose their jobs, homes, and struggle to get through. As a state, we are also challenged by the requirements of a federal court settlement on foster care. Much of this budget is driven by these two forces. This budget addresses those challenges.


There are other provisions that we can be proud of. There is more funding for online applications and a call center to help people access services, but relieves part of the strain on our local offices. I am told that our caseworkers have an average of 700 cases per caseload now. These measures in the budget will help us respond to that without adding more staff.


The budget also responds to public concerns by adding new inspector general staff and linking Bridges program with the LEIN system. Both of these measures will help ensure that the needy and deserving will get taxpayer assistance. The budget also makes contributions toward our welfare-to-work efforts and the scaled-down JET Plus. This is less than the Governor desired, but a reasonable outcome.


There are a lot of other good things in the budget, but there are also cuts. I will say that there is an item that I am not in favor of. It is the continued funding of the Michigan Home Based Child Care Council and withdrawing the union dues that come out of this budget. The Senate-passed version did not have this, but unfortunately, even with amendments, I was not able to put this in the conference report. Nevertheless, I ask for your support of this conference report.  




Re: 2010 House Bill 5882 (Appropriations: 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget )  by MichiganVotes.org Editor on September 30, 2010 


Senator Scott, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the first conference report on House Bill No. 5882 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the conference report be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”


The motion prevailed.


Senator Scott’s statement is as follows:


I am going to oppose this budget, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. While the budget is improved from the point when it left this body in Senate Bill No. 1158, there are still many flaws.


This budget continues to move all adoption cases to private agencies and increases by at least 15 percent the number of foster care cases moving to private agencies. There continue to be questions regarding the capacity and capability of these private agencies to manage this shift. At the same time, we are sending a 36 percent administrative rate increase to these agencies to try to help them accommodate the new caseload. Instead, I suggest we could keep state workers with good pay and benefits doing this work, rather than undercut state workers by moving the work to lesser-paid private positions with lower benefits.


I am grateful for hiring state positions elsewhere in this budget. However, many of them are limited term and are funded with temporary dollars, so their positions are threatened even as they begin work. Child care providers are having their training slashed by $12 million. The Maxey center is being cut again by $2 million, resulting in the layoff of 24 staff. Jet Plus did finally win some funding in this budget, but at $8.5 million, I am afraid this will not help this innovative job training program reach enough of our long-term unemployed. Remember, I always say me today and you tomorrow. Well, the tomorrow has caught up with a lot of folks.


On a more general level, I am disturbed by our lack of support for those in our state who have fallen on hard times and are struggling to make ends meet. Too often, they are met with hostility or disdain. I think with more training, lower caseloads, better technology, and greater effort at distributing our resources equally, this department could do a much better job, and our citizens could get the help they need without feeling degraded by asking for assistance.  Of course, these items mean we need to put more dollars, more resources into this budget. While I have great respect for the chairman of the subcommittee and his commitment to helping those most in need, I have to say that my concerns are not heard in the budget process. Too often, as was the case with this conference report, I am told what the result is rather than consulted about possible solutions to the problems addressed by DHS.


I hope that in the future, more focus can be brought to bear on delivering services with sensitivity and compassion. For now, I am left with voting “no” on this conference report.


 




2010 House Bill 5882 (Appropriations: 2010-2011 Department of Human Services (Welfare) budget )  by admin on January 1, 2001 
Introduced in the House on February 24, 2010, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 Department of Social Services (Welfare) budget. This would appropriate $7.015 billion in gross spending, compared to $5.941 billion, which was the FY 2009-2010 amount enrolled in 2009. Of this, $959.2 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $860.2 million. $5.968 billion of this budget is federal money (of which $816 million is “stimulus” deficit spending) compared to the FY 2009-2010 amount of $4.974 billion

The vote was 55 in favor, 46 opposed and 7 not voting

(House Roll Call 260 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.