Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB166 | |
| HB103 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 166 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of
Health and Social Services; relating to training and
workload standards for employees of the Department of
Health and Social Services; relating to foster care
licensing; relating to placement of a child in need of
aid; relating to the rights and responsibilities of
foster parents; relating to subsidies for adoption or
guardianship of a child in need of aid; requiring the
Department of Health and Social Services to provide
information to a child or person released from the
department's custody; and providing for an effective
date."
Foster youth in Alaska are not getting the chances
they deserve. The Children Deserve a Loving Home Act
aims to increase the likelihood that foster youth will
have the same opportunities in life, and same health
and well-being, as their peers. When roughly 40% of
our foster youth end up homeless at some point in
their lives after leaving care, and roughly 20% end up
in jail, it's a call for reform. The nation's leading
foster care non-profit, Casey Family Programs, has the
correct goal to reduce the number of youth languishing
in foster care by 50% by 2020. Alaska should join that
effort. We should achieve it not by leaving youth in
neglect and abuse to keep our foster care numbers
down, but by getting neglected and abused youth out of
the foster care system, into a permanent, loving home,
much more quickly than we do now.
Many Alaskans recognize that our child welfare system
has room to improve; this bill seeks to make real
positive changes that support youth and families, as
well as the caseworkers who serve them. It's been well
documented by many sources that when case workers are
overworked, outcomes for children and families suffer.
The Office of Children's Services (OCS) recommends
standards of approximately 12 cases or families per
worker - but today, most caseworkers are carrying
caseloads that vastly exceed that amount (as high as
43 families in Wasilla, 36 in Homer, and 30 or more in
six of the state's main OCS offices). Conditions in
rural Alaska, especially the challenges of remote
travel, make even a 12-family caseload overwhelming
for workers in such regions. Beyond the risk of poorer
outcomes, high caseloads contribute to high worker
turnover, a costly problem that slows timelines to
permanency.
This bill seeks to improve both caseload levels and
worker retention by implementing significant new
training and workforce standards. New workers would
receive a minimum of six weeks of training and would
carry no more than six cases/families in the first
three months, and 12 families in the first six months.
These standards are recognized to improve outcomes,
enable faster timelines to permanency, and allow
caseworkers to perform their duties as intended.
In addition, this bill provides for a number of other
changes to support the well-being of youth in care,
and to promote quicker timelines for children
returning to, or finding new, permanent homes. The
bill extends subsidies for adoptions and guardianships
to age 21, to incentivize permanency and the closing
of cases, and promotes contact with siblings and with
previous out-of-home caregivers to promote the well-
being of children and maintain a network of support
for them. Another important tenet of this bill is
enacting timelines for waivers to licensing
requirements for relatives who may want to care for a
child, but are not licensed foster parents.
The bill also makes it easier for youth and foster
parents to engage in normal day-to-day activities,
such as going on vacation without prior caseworker
approval, with fewer requirements. In addition, youth
at age 14 are empowered to participate in their case
plan. This bill also strengthens the requirement to
search for relatives before placing a child with
foster parents, recognizing that placements with
family are often the best and most loving option for
youth.
Providing support, and a voice, for youth and families
who need our help is perhaps one of our most important
duties in public service. This bill seeks to give
caseworkers the tools they need to carry out their
duties to the best of their abilities, and it seeks to
support youth and families with provisions that
support well-being, make it easier for children to
move out of the system and into a permanent home more
quickly, and provide the necessary resources for a
system that can function well. This bill is intended
to create an environment where loving homes are the
priority for all youth.
4:32:35 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 151, Work Draft 30-LS0451\I (Glover,
4/17/17).
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR, DISTRICT 20, introduced
himself.
LAURA CHARTIER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GARA, would walk the
committee through the newest version of the bill, version
I.
4:33:52 PM
AT EASE
4:36:18 PM
RECONVENED
[Co-Chair Foster passed the gavel to Representative
Guttenberg]
Representative Gara indicated his staff would walk through
the committee substitute changes to the bill.
Ms. Chartier proceeded to explain that Section 1 provided a
short title. Section 2 reflected the main change made from
the previous committee substitute (CS) version. The section
provided for funding for adoptions and guardianships for
older youth. In the previous version of the bill it was
written in such a way that all youth who were adopted,
regardless of the age which they were adopted, would
receive subsidies for adoptions and guardianships up to age
21. The current draft specifies that those adoption and
guardianship subsidies would only apply only to youth ages
18 to 21. They were limiting it to the older youth
population, which was the original intent of the bill.
Also, the word "subsidy" was replaced with "stipend" to
differentiate from any federal language or federal
programs. She reiterated the most significant change from
the previous version of the bill was limiting those
adoption and guardianship subsidies to older youth, ages 18
through 21.
Representative Wilson asked if she was talking about
children who did not get adopted until they were 18. In
other words, if they were to get adopted at 18 they would
have the subsidy from 18 to 21 years of age. Representative
Gara responded that the language would likely remove this
portion of the bill. Currently, the state would pay a daily
rate if a person adopted or was a guardian for a youth but
only until age 18. The problem was that there was youth who
were 18, 19, and 20 who did not have a permanent home. The
goal was to extend the subsidies to age 21. However,
federal law prohibited states from doing that for just 18,
19, and 20-year-old youths. If a person was adopted at age
1 they would receive the subsidy through age 21 even if
they did not need the incentive. It became a $7.4 million
fiscal note, something the state could not afford. It was
not the priority piece of the legislation. Instead, as a
work around, he suggested coming up with a state program in
which federal law would not be used for youth 18, 19, and
20. However, it created a perverse incentive so that if a
person was thinking about adopting a child at age 16 they
might wait until age 18 to get 3 years of subsidies. There
was no way to make the provision work and would likely be
removed.
Ms. Chartier continued to Section 3 which enabled contacts
with previous out-of-home caregivers. She relayed there
were 2 pieces of the bill that encouraged contact with
people who might be close to a youth in their life and one
of them was a previous out-of-home care giver. Section 4
required that a supervisor had to certify in writing at
different times in the foster care process that a search
for relatives had been carried out. She relayed that what
was being added was that a supervisor had to certify in
writing at different points in the foster care placement
process that a search for relatives had been carried out.
In other words, a supervisor would literally sign off that
such a search had been carried out. Section 5 of the bill
included language on what was called a prudent parent
standard. It was language to make it easier for foster
parents to make day-to-day decisions involving a child's
activities. Section 6 engaged youth who were 14 and older
in their case planning process, something adopted from
federal language like the prudent parent standard.
4:40:41 PM
Representative Wilson was not aware of case plans for
adults. She wondered if there was a case plan for children.
Representative Gara responded in the negative. He explained
that youths 14 or older did not have the right to designate
certain people to be part of their case planning. Youth
over 14 years old would be able to nominate up to 2 extra
people important to them to be part of their case planning
team.
Representative Wilson asked if it was a different type of
plan than that of their parents. She agreed youth should
have a say on where they were going. She was trying to
figure out if there were two kinds of case plans.
Representative Gara indicated it was a hybrid case. The
case would involve both the interest of the child and the
parents. He believed the child had a right to have a say in
their future. In Section 6 it stated that a youth age 14
and older should be able to have a say in those involved in
their case plan. The change would allow for up to 2 other
people to be included in the case planning process.
Representative Wilson expressed confusion. She relayed that
she was only familiar with the way the case plans were run
where a parent had to attend a parenting class, get a
psychological evaluation, and follow an evaluation.
Hopefully, if a parent followed the plan, they would be
reunified with their child. If they chose not to
participate, it could result in adoption. She was trying to
better understand the section. She wondered if a child
would be able to request where they wanted to go.
Representative Gara responded affirmatively. He stated that
the early case plan that had to be filed within the first
60 days was to figure out if the child would be able to
return to their parents and what the parents would have to
do to get their child back. After the first 60 days, there
was still a case plan for a child. The Office of Children's
Services (OCS) could provide more information about the
later stages of the case plan.
Representative Wilson agreed with the concept. She just was
trying to figure out the mechanics. Representative Gara
responded that it was the same case plan. He was hopeful
that the result would be reunification early on.
4:45:26 PM
Representative Thompson mentioned that earlier in the
conversation the bill sponsor referred to a child over 14.
He heard the representative clarify that it applied to 14
years or older.
Ms. Chartier continued with Section 7. The section included
the language to promote contact between siblings. It
allowed for OCS to share contact information for siblings
if it was in the best interest of both parties involved.
Section 8 and 9 had a provision requiring a certification
that a search for relatives had been carried out. It
changed throughout the statute. In Section 10 there was a
minor change to statutory language replacing the phrase,
"One parent" with "Adult family member." She continued with
Section 11 was another mention about sibling contact
provisions. The main change in the bill could be found in
Section 12. The change reflected the implementation of new
training and workload standards for staff. She was sure
Representative Gara would discuss the information in more
detail. Essentially, it extended training for new workers
up to 6 weeks and lowered their caseloads. Workers in their
first 3 months would have 6 cases. Workers in their first 6
months would have a caseload of 12. There was a very minor
language change to the section from the previous version of
the bill. She referred to page 10 at the top of the page.
It clarified the staff that was covered by the section of
the bill. It was a small change to the language to make
sure all the staff would be covered under the training and
workload standards. She continued to Section 13 that
encouraged assistance with family members obtaining
variances to foster care licensing. If an adult family
member did not necessarily want to go through the typical
licensing process they could obtain a variance. Section 14
outlined that youth leaving care would be provided with
official documents or receive assistance in obtaining their
official documents. The bill contained a list of specific
documents that were covered. Section 15 implemented a
timeline for decisions to be made on applications for
foster care home licensing or on variances to that
licensing. They were not changing the process of applying
but adding a timeline for a decision to be made either way
within 45 days. Section 16 and 17 related to the
applicability of the act. In the final section, Section 18
on the timeline. In version N of the bill the training
standards were to be implemented in the first year and in
year 2 there would be enough staffing to meet the new
caseload standard. Version I pushed out the staffing to
year 3. The department would have 3 full years to meet the
staffing requirement. There were a couple of additional
provisions to be implemented in year 1 including the
involvement of children 14 years old and older in their
case planning and the prudent parent standard as well as
the certification of relative searches.
Alternate-Chair Guttenberg referred to Section 13. He asked
Representative Gara to speak to assisting a family member
and attaining a license or any variances.
4:50:04 PM
Representative Gara replied that it was a complicated
process. Sometimes there was a family that was not a foster
parent. He explained that there were 2 types of foster
parents - relatives and out-of-home caregivers. Relatives
did not need a license. There was a category of people who
might not receive the daily reimbursement rate. In rural
areas, especially in areas where there was little
caseworker contact, the application process was complex. He
hoped the bill would fix the caseworker contact issue. The
provision stated that an out-of-home caregiver should be
helped in the application process.
Representative Wilson asked whether Section 13 would
require family members to be certified or whether they
would be able to get help if they wanted to be certified.
She thought Representative Gara was responding
affirmatively, as his head was nodding up and down.
[Representative Gara nodded his head]. She also asked what
would prevent a family member from getting any funding
without being certified. Representative Gara deferred to
OCS for the answer.
Alternate-Chair Guttenberg asked if there were other items
Representative Gara wanted to discuss. Representative Gara
responded that he had reviewed all the changes from the
version that passed the Health and Social Services
Committee to the CS. It would be up to the committee to
adopt the CS, then he could explain the bill.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, the CS for HB 151 was ADOPTED.
Representative Pruitt commented that obviously Health and
Social Services (HSS) had reviewed the bill, yet there was
a CS. He wondered why some of the changes had not been
identified in the subcommittee process. Representative Gara
conveyed that the bill was his bill rather than a HSS bill.
However, he had worked with the department as much as
possible. The largest change was that there was a handful
of youth, ages 18, 19, and 20 who he wanted to see get into
an adoptive home or into a permanent guardianship. He
thought it would be great to be able to offer a subsidy to
families that could not afford to take children in. He
reported not being able to find a workable and affordable
way to do so. The big change came when he saw the $8
million fiscal note. He realized that by covering 18-year-
old children, the state would have to cover 1-year-old, 2-
year-old, and 3-year-old children as well which would be
too costly. He was unable to find an affordable way to do
it.
Representative Pruitt confirmed that because of the fiscal
note and the bill being heard in the House Finance
Committee, the section was pulled out along with the fiscal
note. Representative Gara relayed that the fiscal note came
out late in the HSS committee process. He indicated that
when he saw it he promised the committee he would fix or
get rid of it.
4:54:28 PM
Alternate-Chair Guttenberg OPENED Public Testimony for HB
151.
Representative Gara indicated Ms. Metivier and Ms. Rein
were online and could provide expert testimony. He asked if
they could elaborate on the bill.
4:55:07 PM
ROSALIE REIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was a
licensed social worker on the front lines of OCS. She
highlighted 2 components of HB 151 that were particularly
helpful in improving relationships between workers and the
families they served: training and caseloads. She reported
that caseloads were directly tied to the worker being in
contact with the children and families on a regular basis.
She had heard over 5 hours of testimony at a townhall
meeting held in Fairbanks. One of the main concerns raised
by parents was a lack of communication with their workers.
She could not adequately express the responsibilities of
caseworkers. There were not enough hours in a day to keep
good communication with invested parties. Many workers used
nights and weekends to respond to the most urgent phone
calls yet did not have time to do high level social work.
She explained that high level social work encompassed
fostering connections between siblings in separate homes
and diligent relative searches. She spoke to the advantages
of making these connections. Actual social work was about
educating the parties of the importance of providing each
child with a network of support. She reviewed the time-
consuming grunt work it took to facilitate connections. She
saw HB 151 as an opportunity to ensure that caseworkers had
the training they needed to develop a skill set specific to
child protection and to learn how to foster resiliency. She
reviewed research that suggested that caseworkers who had
social work education and appropriate training were better
able to facilitate permanency. Higher caseloads and the
high rate of frontline staff turnover was a growing problem
within OCS. She favored the caseload cap in HB 151 and
reviewed the consequences of staff turnover and the
associated domino effect.
Representative Gara indicated he had to attend another
meeting. His staff would remain available for questions.
4:59:15 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, FACING FOSTER CARE IN ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in support of HB 151. She
reported having been in foster care for 3 years and had
aged out of the system. She had been a licensed foster
parent for the previous 10 years to teenagers within OCS.
She highlighted a few things in the bill that were
recommended by youth in the foster care system presently.
Identifying relatives promoted kinship placement for
children. The bill added a provision that an OCS supervisor
had to certify that a relative search had been conducted.
By doing this early on it avoided the risk of having to
pull a child away from a foster parent they bonded with
because of a grandmother coming forward. Sibling contact
was a very important piece, as youth separated from their
siblings often experienced more trauma. Older siblings were
often caregivers to younger children. Being separated from
them felt like having one's own child removed. The bill
promoted ongoing contact with siblings. For example, if a
young child was adopted while the sibling remained in the
system, they would have the right to have their sibling's
information, maintain contact through phone calls and
social media, and have in-person visits to continue their
relationship. She has had contact with countless young
people who had been split up from their siblings in the
system. She shared a story about a child who had seen her
brother on the bus but had not spoken to him because she no
longer knew him. She continued that another large piece of
the bill dealt with older youth potentially being involved
with their case planning. It was about engaging older
youth, 14 and older, in the development and ongoing process
of their case plan. For young people 14 and older, they
should be at court hearings and attending team meetings.
The bill would give them the option of inviting 2 people to
be advocates on their behalf at meetings and to be a voice
for them. She suggested that young people engaged in their
plan were more likely to follow through and be onboard. She
mentioned the idea of normalcy, which came from the federal
language around the reasonable and prudent parent standard.
It would allow foster parents to do things like sign a
permission slip for a field trip. She provided an
additional example. The largest piece of the legislation
was the training and workload standards and burnout. She
provided an example.
5:04:30 PM
MARNA SANFORD, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), testified in favor of HB 151. She
expressed excitement about the bill. She highlighted a
provision related to youths remaining in state custody
until the age of 21. She supported the provision. She
stated that foster children were not allowed to do many
things such as attend sleepovers. She spoke about extremely
high caseloads for social workers in Alaska. She understood
state expenditures were under the gun, but she assured the
committee the bill was a good investment.
5:07:29 PM
TREVOR STORRES, ALASKA CHILDREN'S TRUST, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in strong support of HB 151. He
remarked that the most valuable resource in the state was
its children. Events such as child abuse and neglect had
great impacts on brain and social development. It created
more trauma for a child when OCS had to remove them from
their home. He spoke to ensuring that the system did not
hamper the treatment of trauma or add more trauma to a
child's life. He suggested that due to high caseloads and
the lack of training at OCS it was difficult to maintain
assurances. The bill ensured that OCS had appropriate
caseloads and training to provide the needed support for
children in the system. The things case workers dealt with
were difficult to manage with very high caseloads (2,3, or
4 times the national average). He discussed high staff
turnover rates. He spoke to additional benefits of the
legislation.
5:09:57 PM
PAUL D. KENDALL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), did
not have a position on the bill. He spoke to several items
unrelated to HB 151. He wondered if any of the children
were borderline babies or illegal aliens. He referred to
money paid monthly to foster parents. He continued to relay
testimony unrelated to the bill.
5:14:07 PM
BYRON CHARLES, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference),
relayed a personal experience where he witnessed a child
being told a GED was not enough. He did not understand why
the legislature could not make a right decision. He
advocated careful background checks and careful monitoring.
He thought the system was too cumbersome. He spoke of
having college students work with children.
Alternate-Chair Guttenberg CLOSED Public Testimony for HB
151.
Alternate Chair Guttenberg reported that amendments for HB
151 were due in the chairman's office by 5:00 PM Friday,
April 14, 2017.
5:17:27 PM
Representative Wilson asked for a moment to talk to the
department about a case plan and a 14-year-old.
CHRISTY LAWTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, introduced
herself.
Representative Wilson was unclear about children
participating in their own case plan. She asked about a
child that was 14 years old or older attending the team
decision making with the parents underneath the case plan
for the parents or another type of case plan. Ms. Lawton
responded that every child was provided a case plan when
they came into care in addition to their parents.
Representative Wilson wondered if the children would
participate in team decision making with their parents, or
just their own plan with 2 adults of their choice. Ms.
Lawton responded that typically team decision making
meetings were not about case planning. She believed the
provision of the bill was that when they were having a
meeting about case planning and talking about permanency or
services for youth that were 14 or older they could bring
in adult supports. Currently, they should be including
children in the discussion about their case planning
development as age appropriate. The Office of Children's
Services did that in various forms including home visits
and various means.
Representative Wilson asked if there were 2 separate
meetings. Ms. Lawton believed the intent of the sponsor on
the specific language was about a meeting for the child. It
might be possible that the parent would be there and
sometimes older youth participated in team decision making
meetings with their parents when they were discussing
placement. The preferred practice was for older youth to be
engaged in all the meetings as appropriate.
Representative Wilson asked if a case plan was written for
the parent. She had never known a child to be involved in
case plan meetings, as they were more about the parents
following through. She asked if there were currently older
children involved in the parents' case plan. Ms. Lawton
responded that typically a child did not participate in a
case plan meeting. However, she heard the representative
using the term "team decision making meetings" which were
different.
Representative Wilson would have a big problem with
children suddenly being in with their parents because it
could cause a significant amount of misunderstanding. She
did not have a problem if the child was having a meeting
separate from the one their parents had. She did not have a
problem with 2 separate meetings. Ms. Lawton responded,
"Correct."
Alternate-Chair Guttenberg reviewed the agenda for the
following day.
HB 151 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.