In addition to reports, the Offices of Research and Education Accountability provide research to legislators upon request. Following are summaries of some of the projects staff has completed.

Local Planning Assistance

Based on concerns that some of Tennessee’s mayors had expressed regarding Local Planning Assistance, Lt. Gov. John Wilder asked the Comptroller’s Office to examine the Office of Local Planning Assistance. The mayors were concerned about a shortage of planners in Local Planning Assistance while the fees that local governments were required to pay for assistance had increased. Office of Research staff spoke with officials from Local Planning Assistance, local government officials contracting with Local Planning Assistance, and employees of the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS), the County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS), the development districts, and the Comptroller’s Office of Local Government to determine what sort of planning assistance was available to local governments and how well Local Planning Assistance was meeting the needs of local governments.

In May 1996, staff sent a memorandum on the issue to Lt. Gov. Wilder finding that Local Planning Assistance staff, particularly planning positions, had decreased while local government fees had increased, and that the section’s budget had not decreased proportionally with the decrease in staff. Interviews showed that no other agency was comfortable assuming the responsibilities that the Local Planning Assistance left, that Local Planning had asked for more planning positions but had been denied, and that some of the mayors were willing to pay more fees to get more assistance. Based on these findings staff suggested these possible actions: Economic and Community Development could reallocate its resources internally to add additional planning positions to Local Planning Assistance, the Office of Local Planning Assistance could improve its efficiencies to provide better service to local governments, the state could allocate more dollars to ECD for additional planners, or fees charged to local governments could be raised to add additional planners.

"Fly by Night" Postsecondary Institutions

At the March 19, 1996, meeting of the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee in debate surrounding Senate Bill 2447 the Comptroller’s Office was asked to examine how postsecondary educational institutions are regulated; to determine to what extent “fly by night” postsecondary educational institutions constitute a problem; and evaluate recourse for students left with debt from attending institutions that have closed.

Office of Research staff met with officials from the Licensing Division of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) and spoke to representatives of the Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation, the Board of Law Examiners, the Board of Barber Examiners, the Department of Commerce and Insurance’s Division of Consumer Affairs, the Cosmetology Board, the Board of Nursing, the Tennessee Real Estate Commission, and the Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Protection.

In a memorandum to the members of the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee, staff defined “fly by night” institutions, explained the licensing procedure for post-secondary institutions, examined the requirements for licensure, determined what recourse is available to students who have been victims of educational fraud, and concluded that the operation of “fly by night” schools does not seem to be a large problem in Tennessee, but there are some areas for improvement. The following suggestions were made:

• Require cosmetology schools to either create their own tuition reimbursement fund or participate in the Tuition Guarantee Fund.
• Increase the coordination between the Higher Education Commission’s Licensure Division, individual licensing boards, the Division of Consumer Affairs, and the Attorney General’s Office of Consumer Protection.
• The General Assembly may want to consider allowing the licensing boards to perform background checks on individuals trying to license new schools.

Welfare Reform

Legislators asked the Office of Research to examine the Governor’s welfare reform proposal, Families First, at the beginning of the 99th General Assembly. Staff responded by providing legislative committee members with three memoranda that analyzed the governor’s proposal for sufficient funding and concerns that had not been addressed in the areas of child care, transportation, adult education, and job training.

In the first memorandum, staff provided a general overview of welfare in Tennessee. In November 1995, there were 93,421 cases or families that received welfare which consisted of 170,424 children and 74,325 adults. More than half of the children in these welfare families were under the age of three; three-quarters were under the age of nine. The average age of welfare recipients is 30 years of age, and a mother on welfare typically has no more than two children.

The memorandum included a brief description of the Families First program. Some of its provisions are:

• 18 month time limit for recipients to receive AFDC benefits and 5 year lifetime limit.
• Family cap. Women who become pregnant while receiving AFDC will not be eligible for additional aid.
• Teenage parents are required to live at home with parents unless this arrangement poses a threat to their well-being.
• Each participant will be evaluated to determine their level of education attainment.
• Each recipient is required to sign a personal responsibility contract.
• Parents must have children immunized and children must attend school.
• Parents must assist in establishing paternity of their children.
• Welfare recipients are required to work 40 hours unless exempt.
• Increased resource limits for recipients and extended transitional medical and child care benefits.
• Recipients with less than a 9th grade education are eligible for adult education and may apply this time toward work requirement.
• Counties with high unemployment rates may be exempt from time limits and work requirements.
• Parents that fail to pay child support will lose driving privileges and may have professional licenses revoked.

Staff raised concerns that no additional money had been earmarked for persons currently employed and receiving welfare who under this proposal would be required to work an additional ten hours per week on average, and that the state had not addressed the severe shortage of nonstandard hour child care in Tennessee. Other concerns raised were the need to extend transitional assistance to pay for transportation expenses to persons leaving welfare, and the state’s need to develop a comprehensive plan on how it intends to provide transportation to 34,000 new welfare recipients. Also, staff recommended that it may be more appropriate to exempt a county from time limits and work requirements when its monthly unemployment rate exceeds a fixed, arbitrary level such as 10 percent. Staff also considered the adequacy of the time proposed to receive the federal waiver.

The second memorandum described provisions other states have adopted to reform their welfare program. These provisions range from instituting family caps and increasing resource limits to establishing work requirements and instituting time limits of welfare recipients.

The third memorandum reported on the success of the wage subsidy pilot program in Mississippi called Work First.