April, 2023 - The Council of State Governments

Feed people, help farmers: How two nutrition programs have grown in two Midwestern states

This article, written in support of the 2023 MLC Chair’s Initiative of Michigan Sen. Roger Victory on “Food Security: Feeding the Future,” shows how Michigan and Minnesota have helped expand the reach of initiatives that expand the purchasing power of SNAP recipients at local farmers markets.

More than a decade ago, a program known as Double Up Food Bucks launched in a handful of local farmers markets in Detroit.

Not long after, a similar pilot initiative, Market Bucks, was up and running in Minneapolis.

With both initiatives, the idea was to boost the food-purchasing power of lower-income people getting assistance via the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), while also opening up new sales opportunities for local farmers. These were not state programs. Eventually, though, they got the attention of legislators who saw promise in an approach that could address three objectives at once.

“We feed people, we get money into our farmers’ pockets, and people are able to get fresh, healthy vegetables in a community-centered setting,” Minnesota Sen. Erin Maye Quade says.

Funding for Market Bucks began being included in Minnesota’s budget in the middle of the last decade; likewise, Michigan lawmakers started allocating dollars for Double Up Bucks. That has allowed for an expansion of both of these programs to locations across each state.

In Minnesota, for example, Market Bucks was available in 105 different farmers markets last year, says Jill Westfall, director of programs for Hunger Solutions Minnesota.

More SNAP purchasing power

Here is how Market Bucks works: For purchases of SNAP-eligible foods at a farmers market, a SNAP participant gets a dollar-for-dollar match, up to $10 per visit. Spend $10 at the farmers market, and you can get $20 worth of items. State funding is used to cover that match.

A federal grant provides another dollar-for-dollar match (also up to $10 per visit) for purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables. This program is known as Produce Market Bucks.

“That double match made it more attractive, especially for some of our smaller farmers markets,” Westfall says.

Demand for the program has never been higher, and it’s one reason why Sen. Maye Quade and other legislators want a funding boost in Minnesota’s new biennial budget. She has proposed an annual appropriation of $500,000, up from the existing $325,000 (SF 1927). Right now, Market Bucks is only available at farmers markets. Under Maye Quade’s bill, two other options would be added: one, direct sales from farmers; and two, sales based on a “community supported agriculture model,” in which individuals purchase subscriptions, or shares, of food produced from a local farm in advance of the growing season.

Michigan’s Double Up Bucks provides a similar dollar-for-dollar match. It only applies to purchases of fruits and vegetables, but sales are not limited to farmers markets. Grocery stores are able to participate as well. At these stores, during the heart of Michigan’s growing season (July through November), at least 20 percent of the sales for Double Up Bucks must come from state-grown products, says Nathan Medina, senior manager of state policy for the Fair Food Network.

Michigan’s most recent annual appropriation for Double Up Bucks was $900,000, but a supplemental budget proposal would mark a big shift in state support — a proposed $15.5 million in spending that would be spread over five years. Medina says that change would provide the program with more funding certainty and improve the chances of securing federal grants.

Since its start in Detroit, Double Up Bucks has expanded to more than 25 U.S. states, including most in the Midwest. The scope of these programs, as well as their sources of funding, varies from state to state. Federal support for nutrition incentive programs such as Double Up Bucks and Market Bucks began with the 2014 farm bill, and Medina says the next farm bill is likely to include additional funding opportunities and enhanced federal matches.

The post Feed people, help farmers: How two nutrition programs have grown in two Midwestern states appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Public funds for private-school enrollment? The question is getting a lot of attention this year in state capitols, and Iowa has a far-reaching new law

After years of failed attempts, Iowa lawmakers this session were successful in passing one of the most expansive education savings account (ESA) programs in the nation.

In contrast to previous session proposals — which based eligibility on family income levels, special-needs status, and attendance at a public school in need of “comprehensive support” — Iowa’s HF 68 provides universal eligibility.

Once the law is fully phased in, any Iowa family will have access to an ESA to pay for private-school tuition costs, as well as other education-related expenses (see graphic).

According to the school choice advocacy group EdChoice, of the 10 other states that provide ESAs (including Indiana, which supports qualified students with special needs), Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Utah and West Virginia are the only other states that currently or will soon provide for universal eligibility.

Additionally, the value of Iowa’s new ESAs will be equal to the per-pupil rate used for public schools — a higher amount compared to measures from previous sessions.

What made the difference this year?

Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem John Wills, who served as the floor manager of HF 68, points to events from the year prior. In 2022, Gov. Kim Reynolds extended legislative session by a month to try and get an ESA bill to her desk. When that didn’t happen, she publicly endorsed primary opponents of members of her own party who didn’t support the proposal.

“Out of eight people who weren’t school-choice folks,” Wills explains, “seven of them lost their election.”

With the support of newly elected proponents, as well as the creation of a five-member House Education Reform Committee (which included Wills as a member and Speaker Pat Grassley as chair), the 2023 proposal was introduced and signed into law within the session’s first two weeks.

Consequences of choice?

Legislative momentum for these types of measures has accelerated in recent years, partially due to the impacts of pandemic-related school closures along with a national spotlight on K-12 instruction.

“Parents [saw] what was going on, and they weren’t always happy with what they were seeing,” Wills says.

Both he and Reynolds also have emphasized the value of students’ enrollment in school being based not on ZIP code, but on a choice made by their family.

“Public schools are the foundation of our education system, and for most families they will continue to be the option of choice,” Reynolds said in signing HF 68.

“But they aren’t the only choice.”

Questions about the impact on public schools have been central to Iowa’s multi-year debate over ESAs. One particular concern has been the potential implications in rural areas if students leave for private institutions.

“I don’t expect that, all of a sudden, we’re going to hear this massive sucking sound out the front door of our rural schools,” Wills says.

As of the 2022-’23 school year, certified nonpublic schools were operating in 57 of Iowa’s 99 counties.

Under HF 68, public schools will receive categorical funding to offset student transfers to private institutions (around $1,200 per pupil).

Still, according to an analysis by the Iowa Legislative Services Agency, there will be an estimated net decrease of around $46 million for public schools by the fourth year of the law’s implementation (a 1.2 percent decrease compared to estimates without the ESA law in place). That analysis relies in part on an estimate of how many students will use ESAs and transfer.

Discrimination concerns

Opponents of such measures have also questioned whether state dollars should go to nonpublic and parochial schools that can legally deny a student admission due to a disability status or an LGBTQ+ identification.

On multiple occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in cases such as Carson v. Makin (2022) and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) that statewide student-aid opportunities that are available to public and private schools cannot exclude religious institutions.

In addition, the “free exercise of religion” clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means parochial schools cannot be compelled by government to violate their religious doctrine — a doctrine which may be interpreted as not accepting students who identify as LGBTQ+.

In Iowa, of the 183 certified nonpublic schools currently operating, 95 percent are religiously affiliated. In other words, the closest private school option for a gay or transgender student who wants to leave their public school could be an institution that does not allow them.

Wills says if there was a large enough group of these students, they would have the ability to start their own school, while acknowledging that, “it is a very expensive prospect to start a school and it is very tough to become accredited.”

Other proponents raised concerns that students with disabilities could also be denied admission. Federal code does not require private schools — even those that receive federal aid like the National School Lunch Program — to accept students with a disability or special needs if the resources needed to adequately care for such students are not offered at the school and go beyond minor adjustments. The NSLP also allows for religious exemptions to federal nondiscrimination laws that sometimes include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Wills says he has spoken with several private school superintendents throughout Iowa and, anecdotally speaking, found many do accept students with disabilities or IEPs.

Regardless, some states have taken efforts to enshrine in state statute anti-discrimination language applicable to private schools.

Nebraska Sen. Megan Hunt’s response this year was to introduce LB 487. It would bar public funds from going to schools that discriminate based on a young person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or special education status.

“We cannot allow this trend of just gesturing to the idea of religious freedom to grant automatic exemption from law,” Hunt says.

Entering this year, Nebraska did not have any school-choice programs in statute, according to EdChoice.

However, this year’s LB 753 (a bill advancing toward passage as of mid-March) would create a new tax-credit scholarship program. Individuals who donate to nonprofit, scholarship-granting organizations would get a tax credit from the state. These organizations, in turn, provide scholarships for students to attend private school.

During a February committee hearing, Gov. Jim Pillen testified in favor of the program by saying, “We cannot let financial burden of a family be an obstacle for these kids to get the best education that meets their needs.”

Tax-credit scholarship programs differ from ESAs in that the funds do not come directly from state coffers.

Still, Hunt questions the constitutionality in her state.

She says a mix of constitutional language, existing statutory definitions and state legal precedent over the meaning of terms such as “tax expenditure” and “to appropriate” support her claim that such scholarships should be considered “public funds” — funds that cannot go to private schools in Nebraska.

According to an analysis by University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law Associate Dean Anthony Schutz, “If one were to say that all tax expenditures are appropriations, it might cast too wide of a net, exposing all manner of tax expenditures to the substantive and procedural limits on appropriation. … None of the Court’s cases involve the question of whether forgone revenue through a tax-credit mechanism involves ‘public funds.’”

Schutz suggests LB 753 supporters may want to consider a ballot referendum asking voters to amend the constitution to more clearly allow for state dollars to go to private institutions — similar to previous attempts in the 1970s.

In Michigan this year, legislators passed a bill expanding the state’s existing civil rights laws to provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

As part of SB 4, signed by the governor in March, all educational institutions are prevented from denying services or admission based on these protected classes.

“Religion is already protected from discrimination … but adherents of a religion are required to follow neutral, generally applicable laws,” Michigan Senate President Pro Tem Jeremy Moss, the sponsor of SB 4, says. “If a good or service is available on an open market, there should be no allowance to discriminate.”

Indiana’s enrollment trends

Indiana has strongly embraced school choice for many years. Still, the presence of financial-aid opportunities in this state has not necessarily resulted in big boosts in private school enrollment.

According to a 2021 Ball State University report, between 2007 and 2020, private school attendance in Indiana dropped from 69,708 (6.3 percent of total state K-12 enrollment) to 55,348 (5.1 percent of the total).

Although the introduction of a voucher program in 2011 led to an initial increase in private enrollment, peaking at 80,523 (7.3 percent) in 2015, there has been a continual decline in each ensuing year.

One explanation for the drop could be that Indiana, like every Midwestern state except Illinois, allows for inter-district transfers to other public schools.

“The ability to send your child to another local public school proved so popular in Indiana that it led to the real financial stress, if not death, of a lot of local private schools,” explains Ball State economics professor Michael Hicks, a co-author of the study.

He adds that the absence of local property tax revenue and busing services for private schools also has contributed to lower enrollment numbers.

The post Public funds for private-school enrollment? The question is getting a lot of attention this year in state capitols, and Iowa has a far-reaching new law appeared first on CSG Midwest.

An assault weapons ban in Illinois and a constitutional change in Iowa highlight opposing views on 2nd Amendment, future of state gun laws

Early in 2023, Illinois became the first Midwestern state to pass legislation banning the sale and possession of assault weapons for most people.

Days after the bill signing, a cavalcade of lawsuits and restraining orders were filed in state and federal courts claiming the new law violates Second Amendment protections and conflicts with a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, has raised new questions about whether certain state-level gun regulations — including assault-weapons bans such as Illinois’ — will withstand court scrutiny.

In the Bruen majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of weapons that are “in common use” for self-defense and that this standard should be applied modernly, not just whichever firearms were considered common during the American colonial period.

Since the sale of assault weapons has been mostly unencumbered since the sunset of a federal ban in 2004, gun-rights activists argue such weapons should be considered “common.”

“The Bruen ruling clearly established there is no tradition of banning commonly possessed arms, and modern semiauto rifles are owned by millions of [U.S.] citizens,” Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb said in a statement.

According to a 2021 national survey of gun owners (referenced in multiple lawsuits against the Illinois ban), rifles are used in defensive incidents 13 percent of the time, whereas handguns are used in self-defense in 66 percent of cases.

How assault weapons are defined in Illinois

Illinois lawmakers’ passage of HB 5471 came six months after a gunman killed seven people with a semiautomatic rifle during an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, an affluent community north of Chicago.

“A semiautomatic rifle is designed for military situations,” Illinois Rep. Bob Morgan says. “The bullets themselves are designed to really ricochet within your body. It’s meant to destroy your internal organs.”

Morgan was at the parade, and in the aftermath of this mass shooting, he worked on crafting the assault-weapons ban with survivors, affected family members, law enforcement, fellow legislators and others.

Illinois’ new statutory language defines assault weapons, in part, as a semiautomatic shotgun with a fixed magazine (containing more than five rounds) and a semiautomatic rifle and pistol with either detachable magazines or fixed magazines (more than 10 rounds for rifles, more than 15 for pistols) that contain certain firearm attachments — for example, protruding grips for non-trigger hands, telescoping stocks, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, arm braces, or other attachments that can help a shooter better control recoil or avoid detection.

In addition, the law bans attachable switches that increase a semiautomatic firearm’s rate of fire.

The inclusion of some of these attachments in the state’s new ban has been criticized by some lawmakers for possibly discriminating against certain classes of individuals, including those with physical disabilities or injuries.

“I’ve had some shoulder surgery [on my] rotator cuff, and I’ve had three neck surgeries,” says Illinois Sen. Terri Bryant, who opposed HB 5471. “It’s very hard for me to hold my shotgun up with my left arm like I could before that accident. … My husband was born with a birth defect, his right arm is crooked, and that type of wrist grip does help [him to shoot].”

On the federal level, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced in January that certain firearm stabilizing braces for shoulder use would be subject to stricter regulations, and that firearms with these pistol braces would need to be registered by the end of May.

In response, several state attorneys general (some from the Midwest; see map) filed suit.

Morgan says he is sensitive to making adaptions for people with disabilities, and is open to potential modifications to the Illinois law.

Illinois requires reporting of ‘legacy weapons’

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Illinois joined eight other U.S. states with a general ban on assault weapons. (The center lists Minnesota as one of three states that imposes additional restrictions on these weapons, but not outright bans.)

Similar to the statutory language used in some of these states, under the Illinois measure, current gun owners can keep any existing firearms now on the banned list.

However, by the start of next year, they must report these legacy weapons’ serial numbers and other pertinent information to the Illinois State Police.

Morgan distinguishes such reporting from a “gun registry.” The intent is not to catalog a person’s entire firearms collection, he says, but rather to help law enforcement differentiate between weapons that are legitimately owned and those that are not. That includes tracking criminal firearms crossing state lines — a consistent problem that has plagued other states with assault-weapon bans.

“If we don’t have a serial number to track that, there’s literally no way to enforce it,” Morgan says.

This reporting of assault weapons will mean adding an endorsement affidavit to an individual’s Firearm Owner’s Identification licensing card.

Sen. Bryant believes recent cyberattacks of state databases — including a 2021 breach of the FOID database that accessed the personal information of more than 2,000 gun owners — will deter people from complying with the new law.

“State Police have made a lot of good changes, but I do know that the citizens of Illinois do not trust the state [with private information],” she says.

Statewide vote from 2022 impacts gun policy in Iowa

With the exception of Minnesota, every Midwestern state has constitutional language providing for a right to bear arms.

The most recent state to enshrine such a right was Iowa, through voter approval of a 2022 ballot measure. It also included language establishing a “strict scrutiny” standard, the highest level of judicial review.

“It puts the burden of proof on the government so that if you were to come in and change firearm regulations, the state would have to prove that it had a compelling government interest for the interest of the majority of the people,” Iowa Rep. Matt Windschitl explains.

In the wake of last year’s vote, Windschitl and other legislators took a closer look at Iowa’s existing statutes.

“There are still some things in our state law that have restrictions on where Iowans can carry, and how they carry,” he notes.

This year’s HF 654 and SF 543 aim to remove what Windschitl and others view as arbitrary restrictions that infringe on a person’s right to self-protection.

The post An assault weapons ban in Illinois and a constitutional change in Iowa highlight opposing views on 2nd Amendment, future of state gun laws appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Illinois adopts first law in Midwest requiring paid leave for workers

Starting next year, every worker in Illinois will have the chance to accrue at least 40 hours of paid leave annually. Signed into law in January, SB 208 allows individuals to begin earning paid leave on their first day of employment, at a rate of one hour of leave for every 40 hours worked. Illinois became only the third U.S. state (and first in the Midwest) with a law mandating paid time off. The language in SB 208 says workers can use these 40 hours to “maintain their health and well-being, care for their families, or … for any other reason of their choosing.”

In recent years, a more common state action has been to guarantee access to paid family and medical leave. According to a recent U.S. Congressional Research Service study, 11 states (none in the Midwest) either were running or were working to implement insurance programs that provide cash benefits to eligible employees who take time away from work due to caregiving needs or for qualifying medical reasons.

Under these state-run programs, 12 weeks or more of benefits are made available per year, with benefit amounts ranging from 50 percent to 100 percent of an employee’s average weekly earnings. Each program is financed in part or fully through the combined payroll taxes paid by employees; one variance in these state programs is whether employers also must pay into the program via the payroll tax.

Existing laws in Minnesota and Wisconsin ensure certain workers have access to unpaid family and medical leave, and governors in both those states introduced proposals in early 2023 to establish paid-leave programs. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers say one-time state funding is needed to get their respective state-run insurance programs up and running; ongoing revenue would then come from mandatory contributions made by workers and businesses.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem proposed an alternative approach: establish state grants to encourage businesses to offer paid family medical leave. These businesses would then enter the same insurance pool used by the state to offer paid family leave to public employees. This plan (SB 154) did not advance in the Legislature this year.

The post Illinois adopts first law in Midwest requiring paid leave for workers appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Capital Closeup: Do any Midwestern states require that all bills receive a legislative hearing and/or vote?

In most states, the introduction of a bill does not ensure that it will receive a formal hearing or vote. Instead, some discretion on what legislation gets considered often is left to legislative leadership, a special rules or assignments committee (typically composed of top caucus leaders and controlled by the majority party), and/or the chair of the standing committee that has been assigned the bill. However, there are exceptions.

For example, under the rules of the North Dakota House and Senate: “Every bill and resolution referred to committee must be scheduled for a hearing in committee, and a hearing must be held on the bill or resolution before the appropriate deadline for reporting the bill or resolution back to the [full chamber].”

Through a vote of its members, the relevant standing legislative committee in North Dakota recommends a “do pass” or “do not pass” on each bill. Regardless of that vote, though, every measure reaches the floor of the legislative chamber from which it originated. The result: All House or Senate members in North Dakota have the chance to vote on, and decide the fate of, every bill introduced in their respective chamber.

Under the rules of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, all bills and resolutions (with the exception of some technical legislation) must receive a public hearing from the relevant standing committee. Unlike in North Dakota, a Nebraska standing committee can vote to indefinitely postpone, or kill, a bill.

Rules in some states allow members of the legislature to get a bill withdrawn from a committee (after a certain period of inaction) and placed on the legislative calendar. The number of votes required for such a move varies from state to state. In South Dakota, if one-third of the members of a chamber vote to “smoke out” a bill that stalled in committee, the measure is sent to the floor for a vote by the full House or Senate.

Limits on bill introductions

Another variance among states: the number of bills being introduced during legislative session. In 2020, that number exceeded 9,000 in Illinois and Minnesota, compared to fewer than 500 in South Dakota. According to The Council of State Governments’ most recent “The Book of the States,” seven states in this region limit when bills can be introduced, either via rules adopted by the full legislative body or dates set by leadership (see map).

Legislation in Nebraska must be introduced by the end of the 10th day of session. After the 12th day of a 40-day session in South Dakota, members are limited to being the prime sponsor of three bills; they cannot introduce any legislation after the 15th day. Likewise, North Dakota stops the introduction of bills after the 13th day of session, and after the eighth day, members only can serve as the primary sponsor of up to three bills.

Additionally, the Indiana House and Senate cap how many pieces of legislation that individual members can introduce: in the House, no more than 10 bills in odd-numbered session years and no more than five in even-numbered years; and in the Senate, no more than 15 bills or resolutions in odd-numbered session years and no more than 10 in even-numbered years. How high should the bar be set for adding to or changing a state’s constitution?

Capital Closeup is an ongoing series of articles focusing on institutional issues in state governments and legislatures.

The post Capital Closeup: Do any Midwestern states require that all bills receive a legislative hearing and/or vote? appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Recent legislative actions mean lower taxes for retirees in several states

One tax-cutting idea that has gained momentum across Midwestern state legislatures in recent years: Allow people to keep more or all of their retirement income.

In 2022, Iowa lawmakers approved a sweeping measure (HF 2317) that excludes income from pensions, retirement benefit plans, annuities and IRAs. Nebraska, meanwhile, is ending its taxation of Social Security benefits by 2025 as the result of last year’s passage of LB 873. A proposal to accelerate elimination of the tax also was introduced this year (LB 641).

According to AARP, most Midwestern states already don’t tax Social Security benefits; Nebraska has been one of three exceptions, along with Kansas and Minnesota, where the benefits of some higher-income residents are subject to the state income tax. Along with the recent change in Nebraska, proposals to end all taxation of Social Security benefits have been under consideration this year in Kansas and Minnesota.

Michigan’s HB 4001, signed into law in March, phases out over the next four years a state “retirement tax” that had been implemented a decade earlier. As part of this new law, income from public and private pensions will be exempt from taxation, Mlive.com reports. This means public and private pension payments will not be taxed in four Midwestern states: Iowa, Michigan and Illinois, as well as South Dakota, which has no income tax at all. (Additionally, in Kansas, in-state, government pensions are not taxed.)

The post Recent legislative actions mean lower taxes for retirees in several states appeared first on CSG Midwest.

New bills and laws aim to stem rapid rise in fentanyl-related overdose deaths

In less than a decade’s time, the number of drug overdose deaths in the United States more than doubled, reaching nearly 107,000 by 2021.

One of the striking aspects of this increase: the role of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. They were involved in close to 70 percent of all deaths in 2021, compared to only 6 percent of the deaths nine years earlier, according to a recent Commonwealth Fund analysis of federal mortality data.

Anne Milgram, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, has said that fentanyl “is the single deadliest drug threat our nation has ever encountered.” This threat has received considerable attention in the Midwest’s state legislatures, with many of the new proposals taking one of two approaches — and sometimes incorporating a mix of both.

The first approach is “harm reduction”: change a state’s laws or invest in new programs that prevent overdoses by reaching and helping people who use drugs. A second strategy is to increase criminal penalties for individuals who manufacture or distribute fentanyl.

‘Numbers are startling’

An enhancement of criminal penalties is part of North Dakota’s SB 2248, a bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader David Hogue in early 2023. The measure also requires state-level reporting on fentanyl-related deaths as well as spending $1.5 million from the opioid settlement fund on a public awareness campaign.

“We’re now losing more people to overdose deaths than to motor vehicle fatalities,” Hogue says. “The numbers are just startling.”

Hogue’s hometown of Minot is one of the many communities that has been impacted. A college student there died in early 2023 when he took a drug that he thought would help him study; the drug was laced with fentanyl.

For deadly cases like this, whether they involve fentanyl or other drugs, SB 2248 spells out a stronger criminal penalty — a class A felony for any individual who “willfully delivers a controlled substance, or supplies another to deliver or consume a controlled substance.” Hogue says that language (particularly “supplies another”) reflects changes made to the bill since its introduction — a shift away from punishing lower-level dealers and instead trying to reach “intermediate and upper-echelon dealers.”

The measure also expands venue options for prosecutors. Filing charges in the county where an overdose death or injury occurred is one possibility, but another is for the venue of the offense to be based on where the drug was “directly or indirectly obtained.”

“That way, we can reach those upper-echelon dealers wherever they are,” including outside of North Dakota’s borders, Hogue says.

Another amendment to the bill ensures that individuals adhering to North Dakota’s Good Samaritan law are exempt from the new penalties. That law, a type of harm-reduction strategy in place in many states, provides immunity from prosecution for individuals who seek medical assistance for another person experiencing a drug overdose.

‘Change attitudes’

Last year in Wisconsin, legislators passed a pair of bills, one on harm reduction and the other related to criminal penalties. Wisconsin’s change in criminal code, SB 352, makes the penalties for manufacturing, distributing or delivering fentanyl as severe as those for heroin trafficking. A bill introduced this year, SB 101, would increase the penalty for supplying fentanyl or other drugs that lead to a person’s death, making it a Class B felony punishable by up to 60 years in prison. It is a Class C felony under the state’s current drug-induced homicide law.

The harm-reduction measure from 2022, SB 600, carves out an exception to Wisconsin’s general ban on the possession of drug checking equipment. Under the new law, the use of fentanyl testing strips — a type of drug checking equipment that shows whether a substance has fentanyl in it — was decriminalized.

“We had to change people’s attitudes and minds, because there was a thought that the fentanyl strips would be utilized by the dealers, so some folks didn’t want to decriminalize,” Sen. Van Wanggaard says. “But the bottom line is we don’t want somebody to make a mistake and die from it.”

Decriminalizing the fentanyl strips improves access to them, he says, and can save lives.

According to the Network for Public Health Law, as of the summer of 2022, most Midwestern states did not permit the possession of drug checking equipment, with the lone exceptions being Michigan and Nebraska. Wisconsin and Minnesota, though, did make exceptions for fentanyl testing strips, and Ohio joined these two states with the signing of SB 288 in early 2023.

Other measures to decriminalize the possession and use of fentanyl testing strips appeared likely to pass in multiple states this year.

“Where I think those laws can help is by allowing health departments, hospitals and other organizations to move forward with distributing [the strips],” says Corey Davis, the network’s deputy director.

This harm-reduction policy aims to prevent fentanyl-related overdoses; other policies are broader in scope.

For example, states have varying laws to expand access to naloxone, a drug that reverses an overdose from fentanyl or other opioids.

“Every state has done at least an OK job of trying to increase pharmacy [based] access to naloxone, so you can walk into a pharmacy without first having gone to a doctor and gotten a prescription,” Davis says. “Where it seems like there’s more variation is in permitting, encouraging or funding community groups to give out naloxone — whether that’s part of needle exchange programs, if the state has them, or through homeless shelters, health departments, or any other non-pharmacy places.

“Some states aggressively pursue that approach, to make sure that the naloxone is getting to the people at the highest risk [of overdose].”

Other harm-reduction options

According to the Commonwealth Fund, another option for states is to allow for “consumption sites,” where individuals can use drugs legally under the supervision of trained staff. At these sites, individuals also get connected to treatment and other services. Legislative proposals in Illinois this year (HB 2 and SB 78) would allow for such sites.

Among the 50 U.S. states, Davis points to Oregon as a potential model on how to approach the broader issue of opioid use disorder and its consequences — including the rise in overdose deaths. In that state, as the result of a voter-approved measure from 2020, the personal possession of drugs has been decriminalized, and revenue from marijuana sales is being dedicated to a Treatment and Recovery Services Fund. Money from that fund supports 15 addiction recovery centers as well as a grant program to improve access to community-based addiction services.

“If we really think of substance abuse disorder as a chronic, relapsing disease of the brain for which effective treatments are available, we should not be arresting people for having that condition,” Davis says. “We should be making sure that everybody who wants treatment can get it.”

The post New bills and laws aim to stem rapid rise in fentanyl-related overdose deaths appeared first on CSG Midwest.

Indiana Leverages ARPA Funding to Advance Competitive Integrated Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities

By Enmanuel Gomez Antolinez and Elise Gurney

States are increasingly leading a transition away from sheltered workshops – where businesses employ people with disabilities at less than minimum wage and in settings that primarily or exclusively employ individuals with disabilities – and toward competitive integrated employment (CIE). While thirteen states have passed legislation to eliminate subminimum wages, Indiana is taking a unique approach by leveraging American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to transition employers away from sheltered workshops and advance CIE. The goal is to increase CIE for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the state from 23% to 38% by 2027. This equates to a 68% increase in the number of individuals with IDD in the state employed in CIE by 2027.

Indiana’s Division of Disability and Rehabilitative Services (DDRS) has used ARPA funding to support the transition away from sheltered work and advance CIE outcomes through three main strategies:

Assessing and redesigning DDRS policies, procedures, systems and services to better support CIE;

Supporting and encouraging providers to transition away from sheltered work to CIE; and

Facilitating statewide transformations to enhance CIE outcomes.

Assessing and Redesigning DDRS Policies, Procedures, Systems and Services

DDRS has utilized ARPA funding to broadly reassess and redesign elements of its current operations to better support CIE. To do so, it has partnered with the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services’ Supported Employment Leadership Network, which has helped DDRS facilitate self-assessment and revision of DDRS systems, services and supports for CIE. Assessment and redesign efforts include:

Redesigning waiver services and supports to encourage, facilitate and maintain CIE. DDRS identified significant support needs gaps not covered by its existing prevocational operations (sheltered work), ongoing job supports and workplace personal care attendant services. It is therefore redesigning the state’s 1915c Medicaid waivers for individuals with disabilities to establish a wider, more flexible array of employment services (such as career exploration, benefits counseling, job development and other employment supports) and refocusing existing services to better support an individual’s CIE goals.

Developing policies and procedures to support coordination across DDRS. DDRS has three Bureaus that serve individuals with disabilities and their families throughout an individual’s life. Due to distinct federal program rules and oversight, these three Bureaus have historically worked in isolation. DDRS is working to align services and employment supports across the Bureaus so that consumers have a seamless point of entry and experience across DDRS and so that Bureaus can better coordinate program support and braided funding for CIE.

Developing and refining IT systems to improve customers’ ability to drive and engage in CIE services and supports. This aligns with broader DDRS efforts to make the individual the primary driver of their services and supports. To accomplish this, DDRS engaged in a multi-year-project to consolidate their current IT systems into a portal that allows state personnel, independent case managers and providers and eventually individuals to access, provide input and share information regarding the individual’s trajectory plan, services and support system. The final version of the portal will allow individuals to access their records and take ownership of their services and supports.

Developing a reimbursement system that incentivizes a team approach and rewards CIE outcomes. DDRS believes meaningful advancement of statewide CIE goals will only be realized when all parts of the system understand their roles and commit to shared responsibility in supporting CIE outcomes. To that end, DDRS is planning a systematic review of state policy to incentivize providers supporting these shared outcomes. This means revising provider expectations on collaborating with other service system providers and state program personnel when providing and planning service delivery to individuals. It also means evaluating the need for targeted incentives in current Home- and Community-Based Services waivers and Vocational Rehabilitation reimbursement structures and exploring value-based payment methodologies to drive focus on CIE outcomes.

Supporting and Encouraging Providers to Transition to CIE

In Indiana, 37 employment providers hold 14(c) certificates in sheltered workshop settings. To support these providers in transitioning away from sheltered work and in expanding their capacity to provide customized CIE services and supports, DDRS launched two two-year collaboratives in July 2022.

The first collaborative is designed to support providers who currently operate a sheltered work program in the transition to CIE, whereas the second is designed to support improved CIE services for providers that transitioned away from a sheltered work model within the last 24 months.

A variety of resources and supports are made available to providers throughout the two-year period to transform their business operations and/or enhance their capacity to support CIE. This includes:

Virtual and in-person trainings from national experts;

Technical assistance; and

Opportunities to receive peer mentorship and learn from one another.

Providers also receive a $50,000 stipend per year of full participation in the collaborative. Finally, collaborative participants are eligible to apply for a transformation grant of up to $400,000 to support their movement away from a sheltered work model and to develop innovative strategies to support CIE outcomes.

Strategies for supporting the transition to and improvement of CIE services include:

Engaging in a value stream mapping process, which helps providers identify what customers want and need and helps streamline processes to create a flexible, person-centered CIE service system;

Developing a roadmap and setting goals to transform services within three to five years;

Establishing partnerships with families to smooth the employment process and improve outcomes, including by raising family expectations that CIE is possible; and

Engaging employers in informational interviews to create a pipeline of CIE opportunities.

Facilitating Statewide Transformations to Enhance CIE Outcomes

Finally, DDRS has effectively engaged leaders and entities across Indiana to more broadly impact attitudes and systems relating to sheltered work and CIE. This includes:

Hosting an annual Employment Summit for leaders across agencies and systems to focus on improving CIE outcomes for individuals with disabilities;

Engaging the Indiana Department of Education and school systems to change the narrative and expectations regarding post-secondary pathways for individuals with disabilities; and

Collaborating with other entities – such as the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and advocacy organizations – to improve CIE outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

Other State Approaches to Eliminating Sheltered Workshops

Indiana is unique in using ARPA funds to transition away from sheltered work (though other states are also including people with disabilities in their ARPA-funded economic recovery efforts). Other states have eliminated subminimum wage and sheltered workshops through legislation, regulations and Executive Orders. For example:

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development adopted regulations in 2018 repealing authority to pay subminimum wages for workers with disabilities.

Hawaii enacted Senate Bill 793 in 2021, which repeals the exemption from the minimum wage requirement for persons with disabilities.

Illinois Governor Pritzker issued Executive Order No. 2021-26 in 2021, which specifies that all current and future State Use program contracts must provide for payment of no less than minimum wage for all employees performing work on the contract.