Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/15/2017 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 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | 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."
4:48:41 PM
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee had heard the
bill twice before.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 151, Work Draft 30-LS0451\E (Glover,
4/14/17).
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR, reviewed the changes from
the N version to the E version. The changes were primarily
pear downs of the bill to make it less costly. Version N
included a provision that would have granted adoption and
guardianship subsidies to families who adopted youth over
the age of 18. However, under federal law, he could not
find a way to make the provision work. the federal
government required the state to also extend the subsidies
to anyone adopted before age 18. It would have resulted in
an $8 million fiscal note. The provision was removed in the
newest version. He added that the previous $1 million
fiscal note was removed. He continued that in version E he
found a way to lower the cost of the bill. The department
recommended that caseloads, on average, be no more that 12
per case worker statewide. He saved about $1 million in a
way that continued to make the bill work and vastly improve
the system by increasing the statewide standard to 13
families instead of 12. Version E used 13 family. The
committee substitute also outlined that no one could sue
the department if that standard was not met. The standard
was subject to appropriation and recruitment efforts. Those
were the major changes in the bill.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, the committee substitute for HB
151 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster relayed the names of the testifiers
available online to answer questions. He indicated that
Representative Pruitt and Representative Tilton had joined
the meeting. The committee would be taking a brief "at
ease" in anticipation of the arrival of Representative
Wilson.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to ask Christy Lawton if the
department was okay with the changes made to the bill.
CHRISTY LAWTON, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), responded that the department was
satisfied with the changes. She elaborated that while the
department would like to see the additional subsidy
extended to 21 for all children, it realized it was not
fiscally possible was not currently possible in Alaska. She
noted the department appreciating the immunity clause that
was added to help give further protection given that there
were so many things regarding workforce that were beyond
the state's control. The department was satisfied with the
bill as written.
4:53:59 PM
AT EASE
4:55:01 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated there were several meetings
beginning shortly. The committee would stand at ease and
reconvene following the adjournment of the various
meetings.
4:55:18 PM
AT EASE
6:31:19 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated the amendments would be heard for
HB 151.
Representative Wilson reported the amendments had been
dropped off to Vice-Chair Gara's office.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
(copy on file):
Page 1, line 3, following "licensing":
Insert "relating to civil and criminal history
background checks for foster care licensing and
payments;"
Page 4, following line 8:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 47.05.310(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except as provided in <D of this section, the
[THE] department may not issue or renew a license
or certification for an entity if an individual
is applying for a license, license renewal,
certification, or certification renewal for the
entity and that
(1) individual has been found by a court or
agency of this or another jurisdiction
to have neglected, abused, or exploited a
child or vulnerable adult under AS 47.10, AS
47.24, or AS 47.62 or a substantially
similar provision in another jurisdiction,
or to have committed medical assistance
fraud under AS 47.05.210 or a substantially
similar provision in another jurisdiction;
or
(2) individual's name appears on the
centralized registry established under AS
47.05.330 or a similar registry of this
state or another jurisdiction.
* Sec. 5. AS 47.05.310(i) is amended to read:
(i) Except as provided in <D of this section, for
[FOR] purposes of (b) and (c) of this section, in
place of nonissuance or nonrenewal of a license
or certification, an entity or individual service
provider that is not required to be licensed or
certified by the department or a person wishing
to become an entity or individual service
provider that is not required to be licensed or
certified by the department is instead ineligible
to receive a payment, in whole or in part, from
the department to provide for the health, safety,
and welfare of persons who are served by the
programs administered by the department if the
entity, individual service provider, or person
(1) is in violation of (a) of this section
or would be in violation based on
information received by the department as
part of an application, approval, or
selection process;
(2) has been found by a court or agency of
this or another jurisdiction to have
neglected, abused, or exploited a child or
vulnerable adult under AS 47.10, AS 47.24,
or AS 47.62 or a substantially similar
provision in another jurisdiction, or to
have committed medical assistance fraud
under AS 47.05.210 or a substantially
similar provision in another jurisdiction;
or
(3) appears on the centralized registry
established under AS 47.05.330 or a similar
registry of this state or another
jurisdiction.
* Sec. 6. AS 47.05.310(k) is amended by adding new
paragraphs to read:
(4) "adult family member" has the meaning
given in AS 47.I0.990;
(5) "foster home" has the meaning given in
AS 47.32.900.
* Sec. 7. AS 47.05.310 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(l) The department may issue or renew a foster
home license under AS 47.32
or provide payments under AS 47.14.100(b) or (d)
to an entity, individual service provider, or
person if the applicant or a person who resides
in the home is barred from licensure or payment
under (c), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this section and
(1) a person in the home is an adult family
member or family friend of a child in the
custody or supervision of the state under AS
47.1 O;
(2) the department finds that placing the
child with the entity, individual service
provider, or person is in the best interests
of the child; and
(3) the conduct that is the basis of the
finding under (c), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this
section occurred at least 10 years before
the date the department receives the
application for licensure or renewal or
makes a payment to the entity, individual
service provider, or person."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 12, line 8:
Delete "Sections 3 - 8 and 10 - 16"
Insert "Sections 3 - 12 and 14 - 20"
Page 12, line 10:
Delete "secs. 3 - 8 and 10 - 16"
Insert "Sections 3 - 12 and 14 - 20"
Page 12, line 11:
Delete "9"
Insert "13" 13
Page 12, line 13:
Delete "9"
Insert "13"
Page 12, line 15:
Delete "9"
Insert "13"
Page 12, line 28:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 12, line 29:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 12, line 31:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 13, line 2:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 17"
Page 13, line 3:
Delete "secs. 1 - 12 and 14 - 16"
Insert "secs. 1 - 16 and 18 - 20"
Page 13, line 4:
Delete "secs. 1 - 12 and 14 - 16"
Insert "secs. I - 16 and 18 - 20"
Page 13, line 5:
Delete "Section 18"
Insert "Section 22"
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson explained the amendment. She relayed
that if a grandparent, aunt, or uncle wanted to have a
child placed in their home and a barrier condition was in
place a child would not be able to be placed with that
family member. A barrier condition was not the same as a
barrier crime. A barrier crime was a circumstance where a
person went to court, was found guilty, and was unable to
participate in certain activities thereafter for many years
or indefinitely. If a 21-year-old parent had their child
taken by the Office of Children's Services but completed
all that was required of them and had their child returned
to them in 6 months, they would have a barrier condition
attached to them. If that person's child were to get in
trouble and their child (grandchild) needed to be placed
somewhere, the child could not be placed with the
grandparent with a barrier condition. The department would
have to consider past circumstances. If a person had a
clean record for 10 years, then the barrier condition
should not matter. A large report was done by the
ombudsman's office that concluded the issue was significant
in Alaska. She mentioned other legislation in play dealing
with the major issue. She thought her amendment did not
force the department to do anything but asked that the
larger picture be reviewed.
6:34:33 PM
Vice-Chair Gara understood Representative Wilson's point.
He thought the issue was already covered with a waiver
system in place. He noted that when he first heard about
barrier conditions, he thought they were like an old DWI
[driving under the influence] or an old crime that did not
involve child abuse. However, he referred to Section 7 of
the amendment noting the statute reference: AS
47.05.310(C). The barrier conditions included neglecting a
child, abusing a child, or exploiting a child. Additional
conditions applied to persons committing medical assistance
fraud and abusing, exploiting, or neglecting a vulnerable
adult. He opined that waiving a person's barrier and
placing someone in their home was dangerous. The amendment
contained a provision about finding that it was in the best
interest of the child. He believed it created a presumption
that if a person abused a child or vulnerable adult more
than 10 years prior, the person would be able to provide a
good foster home. He did not like the idea, as he thought
that family member would be unsafe. Currently, the
department had a waiver system. If it was in the best
interest of a child to be placed with a family that had a
previous barrier condition several years prior, a waiver
could be issued.
Representative Wilson relayed that if a person abused a
child, they had not been found guilty of abusing a child.
If a child was taken out of a home and an emergency removal
was done, the adult was considered guilty, even if the
child was placed back into a home and the person never
appeared before a jury. She emphatically stated that there
was no waiver system in place. She indicated that there was
a waiver system for someone with a barrier condition to get
a job. A person could get a waiver to get a job at a day
care. However, there was no waiver system. She commented
that she had never seen documentation of a waiver system.
The amendment provided an option for the department to
reevaluate a person's case after 10 years. She relayed that
if a person committed a barrier crime, after ten years they
would be able to get jobs and be able to do other things.
In the instance she was referring to, the person was not
even found guilty, being a civil case. She argued that the
person should be criminally charged and if found guilty the
crimes would be barrier crimes. The amendment gave
grandparents, who might have made a mistake when they were
young and were currently outstanding citizens, the option
of being able to step in to help a grandchild. Many times,
a child that had been involved in an instance ended up
being a parent later that repeated the cycle. She did not
want to continue to punish someone who was never charged
criminally. There was a waiver for a job but not for foster
parenting.
6:39:44 PM
Representative Kawasaki read a portion of the amendment. He
thought, because of the use of the word "may", the
department would not be forced to issue a waiver.
Representative Wilson responded that the people being
discussed would not be foster parents. Rather, they would
be relative care givers. Section 7(3) would allow an
option. If a person was providing care as a job, there was
a waiver system process they went through. The person
turned in paperwork to the department, which would then
decide whether the person could take the job they applied
for.
6:40:32 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked for the opportunity to ask the
department. Ms. Lawton clarified that variances, not
waivers, that were applied for by relatives with child
protective services histories whose children were in foster
care were reviewed. She reviewed all variance applications
and made determinations for the division prior to them
going to the department level for final approval. She
indicated that, often, the variances were approved,
especially in cases of grandparents whose histories were
old could clearly demonstrate that there had been no
additional concerns. She noted that Assistant Attorney
General Stacey Kraly would be the best person to respond to
some of the aspects of the bill.
Representative Wilson asked how the amendment would impact
what the department was doing since there was a variance
option available. She noted she had never seen a variance.
Ms. Lawton deferred to Ms. Kraly.
6:42:51 PM
STACIE KRALY, ATTORNEY, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), indicated that the department did not
think the amendment was necessary for a couple of reasons.
First, within the current regulatory framework and as
authorized by statute, the department could adopt
regulations to implement the background check process which
included criminal bars and civil bars or conditions. She
continued that within the framework the department had a
variance review process, which was in state regulation
found in 7ac.10.935. Under the regulatory framework, any
individual who had a baring condition or a baring crime,
with very narrow exceptions, could seek a variance. Some
variances that the department would not allow included
someone convicted of sexual misconduct. She reported that
90 percent of the things the department found as baring
conditions were subject to a variance.
Ms. Kraly continued that one of the things the department
did recently, in light of Representative Wilson referencing
the Ombudsman Report, was to engage in a candid and through
review of the process over many years and proposed
legislation through the governor's office addressing some
of the concerns raised in this amendment. The legislation
was pending in the current session. The department hoped
the legislation would be taken up in the spring. More
importantly, because of the Ombudsman Report, the
department crafted a robust revision of its regulations.
She reported that within the framework the department
addressed several concerns that had been raised. In most
instances, a baring condition was considered a permanent
bar subject to a variance. The department, under
regulations that would be adopted and effective within a
couple of months, stated that the civil bars were 10-year
bars except for those instances where an individual had
either had their parental rights terminated or they had
relinquished their parental rights. In such circumstances,
the department stated that those sorts of bars should be
permanent bars subject to a variance. She believed the
department had already addressed the representative's
concerns through a regulation process that would be
activated shortly. She reported that the department did not
believe the changes proposed in the amendment were
necessary, as they were already addressed.
Vice-Chair Gara suggested that if the amendment passed it
would address a broader group of people rather than just a
relative who had a history of abuse, exploitation, or
neglect. He asked if it applied to a non-relative as well.
Ms. Kraly responded that the amendment, as crafted,
included family members and family friends. It was much
broader. Additionally, she was concerned with the
amendment's impact on other provider types. She was unclear
if it also included baring conditions and crimes under
these circumstances for individuals who wanted to operate
other types of license provider types and individual
service providers like personal care attendants. She
continued that the lead-in language on page 2, lines 18-21,
of the amendment was not clear if it was limited to foster
homes. She thought the amendment would have a broader
application and could raise some other issues. She thought
the intent of the amendment would only apply to foster
homes, but it was not clear.
6:47:31 PM
Representative Wilson clarified that she was talking about
conditions rather than crimes. She opined that Ms. Kraly
was interchanging the two terms. Ms. Kraly responded that
she was correct. In terms of the current amendment and the
central registry, civil conditions were not crimes.
Representative Ortiz referred to Representative Wilson's
question about how the amendment would affect the process
or the department's ability to do its job regarding the
issue. Ms. Kraly answered that the concern the department
had with the amendment was that it was not clear that it
only applied to foster homes. She elaborated that the civil
background and civil condition process in which the
department reviewed an individual's history to determine
whether there was a pattern or practice potentially
problematic in providing care to vulnerable adults or
children, looked at all sorts of provider types. The types
of providers included Medicaid providers, child care
providers, foster care parents, respite providers, and
personal care attendants. The department was concerned
whether the amendment applied to all types of providers or
just foster parents. If the legislator was attempting to
target foster homes, she did not believe the amendment met
the intent. She thought it could create confusion about the
application of the rule. She also noted that while the
amendment somewhat replicated the variance process already
in regulation, the department felt that providing the
framework and having an additional consideration lead to
more confusion. She mentioned the department having a
broader array of information to look at to determine
whether to grant a variance.
Representative Wilson did not feel the amendment was
confusing. She read from the amendment (see above). She
highlighted that it had to do with the issuance of a foster
home license. She reported 3 criteria as noted in the
amendment. The waiver system would still have to pass all
three tests. The amendment only pertained to foster care.
She thought the provisions needed to be in statute versus
regulations. She reiterated that the amendment was about
the person in the home.
6:53:12 PM
Co-Chair Seaton was trying to follow Representative Wilson.
He read from line 19 of the amendment. He thought it was
unclear whether it applied to a service provider, a service
entity, or a foster home. He thought the amendment covered
a broader aspect than just the home.
Representative Wilson suggested going to 1, 2, and 3
[Representative Wilson was referring to Section 7 of the
amendment]. She read from the amendment (see above). She
had thought she was working with Vice-Chair Gara on the
amendment. She remarked that had she known her amendments
would be brought forth in the present day she would have
prepared differently. She was only notified in the morning
that her amendments would be brought forth. She wanted to
provide hope to some grandparents that they would not be
penalized for the rest of their lives.
Vice-Chair Gara read the statute related to the conduct of
a potential foster parent. He indicated that the amendment
would allow an individual found by a court or agency to
have neglected, abused or exploited a child or vulnerable
adult to become a foster parent. He believed these were the
people that the amendment would allow to become foster
parents under the standards in the amendment. He understood
the frustrations of the representative. However, he thought
the current variance process, as it was being amended, was
cleaner. He suggested that someone who had neglected,
abused, or exploited a child had been caught once, which
did not mean they had not been doing it since; It just
meant they had been caught once.
6:56:06 PM
Representative Ortiz asked if the amendment applied only to
grandparents or to friends and others as well.
Representative Wilson responded that that it applied to
individuals. It could apply to a family friend. Typically,
grandparents came forward. The grandparents were not
considered because of something that had occurred in the
past.
Representative Thompson was curious about the agency that
was being referred to in the amendment. He provided an
example having to do with a Down Syndrome child that snuck
out of the house and went down the street to a grocery
store. A person found him and notified the police. The
police picked up the child, notified the agency that then
conducted a house inspection. The family was told that the
state was thinking about taking the child away. It was the
only time the family had ever had any problem. However, the
incident was a hassle and the folks had a barrier condition
on their record. He admitted not understanding the issue
completely, but he thought the amendment was good.
Representative Wilson wrapped up by discussing the
downfalls of the system in place. She mentioned a person
not being able to go in front of a judge or have a court
hearing. She reiterated the amendment had 3 provisions and
OCS made the decision. She believed that after 10 years
grandparents should not automatically be denied. She was
simply trying to change the automatic denial currently in
place.
Vice-Chair Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Foster, Seaton
Representative Grenn and Representative Pruitt were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1 PASSED (5/4).
Conceptual Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2
(copy on file):
Page 1, line 7, following "custody;":
Insert "relating to the definition of child
neglect;"
Page 4, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 47.10.014 is amended to read:
Sec. 47.10.014. Neglect. For purposes of this
chapter, the court may find neglect of a child if
the parent, guardian, or custodian fails to
provide the child with necessary [ADEQUATE] food,
clothing, shelter, [EDUCATION,] medical care, or
supervision to the degree that the child's
health, safety, and well-being are threatened
with substantial harm [ATTENTION, OR OTHER CARE
and CONTROL NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD'S PHYSICAL
AND MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT], though
financially able to do so or offered financial or
other reasonable means to do so."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 11, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec.16. AS 47.17.290(11) is amended to read:
(11) "neglect" means the failure by a parent,
guardian, or custodian of a child [PERSON
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD'S WELFARE] to provide
the child with necessary food, [CARE,] clothing,
shelter, [OR] medical care, or supervision to the
degree that the child's health, safety, and well-
being are threatened with substantial harm
[ATTENTION FOR A CHILD];"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 12, line 8:
Delete "Sections 3 - 8 and 10 - 16"
Insert "Sections 3 - 9 and 11 - 18"
Page 12, line 10:
Delete "secs. 3 - 8 and 10 - 16"
Insert "secs. 3 - 9 and 11 - 18"
Page 12, line 11:
Delete "9"
Insert "10"
Page 12, line 13:
Delete "9"
Insert "10"
Page 12, line 15:
Delete "9"
Insert "10"
Page 12, line 28:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 12, line 29:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 12, line 31:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 13, line 2:
Delete "sec. 13"
Insert "sec. 14"
Page 13, line 3:
Delete "secs. 1 - 12 and 14 - 16"
Insert "secs. 1 - 13 and 15 - 18"
Page 13, line 4:
Delete "secs. 1 - 12 and 14 - 16"
Insert "secs. 1 - 13 and 15 - 18"
Page 13, line 5:
Delete "Section 18"
Insert "Section 20"
Representative Wilson explained the amendment. She relayed
that the amendment aligned the state's definition with the
federal definition for neglect. She read the definition.
She spoke of children being turned into OCS for missing so
many days of school. Nothing else was the matter with these
children other than them not attending school. There had
been other cases where harm had not occurred but there
seemed to be neglect. The Office of Children's Services was
not supposed to remove a child from a home unless there was
a threat to their health, safety, wellbeing, or if they
were threatened with harm. She reported that by changing
the definition of neglect there would be several cases
opened by OCS.
Representative Kawasaki asked Ms. Lawton about the word
"education" being struck from the statute definition for
neglect. He queried if missing school was a trigger for a
finding of neglect. Ms. Lawton Responded that the number of
cases OCS responded to that were strictly for educational
neglect was slim. Typically, when OCS was receiving calls
about educational neglect there were other forms of neglect
being reported as well.
7:01:50 PM
Representative Kawasaki wondered if, for a child who missed
several days of school, it would trigger an investigation.
Ms. Lawton responded that OCS would have the authority to
open an investigation based on educational neglect.
However, she could not recall a single case where OCS filed
for custody of a child based solely on educational neglect.
Typically, when there were several absences from school,
there were other issues going on in the home that were more
of a primary concern for OCS.
Representative Wilson did not have a problem with
reinserting the word "education." She literally mirrored
the definition used by the federal government. They did not
have it in theirs. She did not have a problem with it being
in the definition. Her largest concern was tying the
definition back to the health and safety of the child.
Vice-Chair Gara responded that he could live with the
previous amendment if it could be fixed so that it only
applied to foster families. However, in the current
amendment, it required a significant amount of damage to a
child before they could be removed from the home. He
pointed to line 10 suggesting that a child's health,
safety, and wellbeing would all have to be threatened
before a child could be placed into a safer home. He
suggested that the purpose of the underlying bill was for
staff to have the time to make sure they were not making
mistakes and taking children out of homes in the first
place. He was advocating for more time to assess a home. He
thought that was key to fixing the problem.
Representative Wilson MOVED to AMEND Conceptual Amendment
2.
Vice-Chair Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson suggested changing the word from
"and" to "or" in the amendment on line 10.
Vice-Chair Gara had seen a pamphlet using the words in the
amendment but had not seen the federal statute. He did not
believe there was a problem with the existing law. He did
not want to adopt a new standard until an expert confirmed
that it was a good standard. He argued that it was not the
words in the statute, where a child had been abused or
neglected, that were a problem. He clarified that the
problem was that currently case workers did not have enough
time to investigate a case and would sometimes error on the
side of removing a child. The goal of the bill was to have
enough staff to properly analyze, work with, and keep a
family together whenever possible. He asserted that coming
up with a new standard on the fly was not the solution. He
thought testimony and documents from experts were necessary
to design a new standard.
7:07:02 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked Ms. Kraly about the items
being removed. He read the language being removed (see
above). He noted the words physical, mental health, and
development were connected by the word "and." The question
before the committee was that each of the three items had
to be threatened with substantial harm. He wondered how the
language was interpreted before. Ms. Kraly deferred to Ms.
Lawton.
Ms. Lawton responded that OCS had a much different view of
the federal definition versus the state definition. The
division viewed the state's definition as far narrower than
the federal definition. She continued that OCS thought the
federal language was much broader and would give the state
much greater authority to remove children. An example was
the use of the word "wellbeing." The state could deem
certain situations where wellbeing was a concern. It could
potentially open a door in a way she did not think the
sponsor of the amendment intended. She reiterated that OCS
thought the state's definition was much narrower than the
federal definition.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW the conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 2. She wanted it on record that, in
terms of rushing the issue, she had submitted the amendment
to the representative quite a while back. A discussion
could have occurred in finance at a time where the
committee had more time. She did not want to rush the
issue; that was not her intent.
Representative Wilson also WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment 2.
7:09:53 PM
At EASE
7:10:08 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster clarified the results of the amendments to
HB 151.
Vice-Chair Gara commented that currently the House budget
was about $3.29 million to achieve caseload standards for
new workers, adequate training for new workers, and a
reduction in caseloads that went up to 43 cases per worker
in the valley. He suggested that if they were to remain in
the budget, in year 2 and 3 it would be about $800 thousand
per year to finally get caseloads to standards that would
make a difference. He reviewed the fiscal notes:
Fiscal Impact Note [10]:
Department: Department of Health and Social Services
Appropriation: Children's Services
Allocation: Front Line Social Workers
OMB Component Number: 2305
FY 2018:
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) $1339.4 million, 1003 G/F Match (UGF)
$2013.6 million, 1004 Gen Fund (UGf) $863.4 thousand, a
total of $4216.4 million
FY 2020:
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) $2001.6 million, 1003 G/F Match (UGF)
$3227.8 million, 1004 Gen Fund (UGf) $1383.3 million, a
total of approximately $4000.6 million(GF).
Vice-Chair Gara reported that the cost estimates remained
stable in the out years.
Fiscal Impact Note [9]
Department: Department of Health and Social Services
Appropriation: Children's Services
Allocation: Children's Services Training
OMB Component Number: 2667
FY 2018:
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) $279.9 thousand, 1003 G/F Match (UGF)
$211.5 thousand, 1004 Gen Fund (UGf) $159.6 thousand, a
total of approximately $370.0 million (GF).
Vice-Chair Gara relayed that the training would happen in
the first year. The cost estimates remained stable in the
out years. However, it went down slightly. In the first
year the total was $651.0 thousand and went down to about
$560 thousand by FY 2023. The training would be extended
from 2 to 3 weeks to a minimum of 6 weeks, closer to the
gold standard.
Representative Thompson had a difficult time adding to the
budget. He thought the budget was in a "free fall."
7:14:29 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to report CSHB 151 (FIN) out of
Committee as amended with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Wilson opined that the legislation was a big
band aid being placed on a huge issue. She thought the
legislature would be putting more money into an agency that
took more children every time the state increased funding.
Some people believe that if the state invested money into
the program more families would be put back together again.
She did not believe the issue was simple. She suggested
that if the legislature truly wanted to discuss the issue
then it should include all concerned parties including the
public defenders, the guardian ad litems, the Department of
Law, and other parties in the discussion. She thought if
the state wanted to make a change and keep families from
being torn apart, taking the time to talk about the real
issues and how to fix them was key. She thought more things
were being given to foster parents than biological parents
which she had a problem with. She thought that giving a
dysfunctional agency more money and expecting different
results would be fruitless. She continued that likely more
children would be out of the house. She hoped she was
wrong.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
7:16:42 PM
Vice-Chair Gara responded to Representative Thompson's
concern. He indicated that, assuming the House budget item
remained, there was a net neutral in the amount of $3.29
million. The amount was a savings from Adult Public
Assistance that moved over to caseworkers. He indicated
that the amount was cost neutral to the governor's budget
which was a $30 million cut to DHSS. If that amount
remained over the following 2 years, in year 2 and year 3 a
total of $1.6 million would facilitate caseloads such that
case workers, when they visited a family to see whether a
child should be taken out of the home, could spend time
with the family and work to keep the family together. In a
60-day period, if a child was taken out of a family, it
allowed the caseworker to do as much visitation with the
family with the child as possible. He believed the more
visitation with a family, the more likely the family would
be reunified. However, presently, caseworkers were spending
their time working from crisis to crisis to crisis. The
legislation would also allow family members to find other
family members who might be good adoptive options. He
continued that case workers were not conducting the family
searches needed to find a good grandparent or other family
member. Right now, OCS was a crisis-driven agency. He noted
that there were several best practices adopted by the bill.
He reported that the state was burning out 50 percent of
its case workers. Each one that burned out cost the state
about $50 thousand to get rid of, recruit for, and to
train. He believed the system was wasting money. Additional
case workers would be better for all parties. He mentioned
the Casey Family Foundation, the leading foster care non-
profit in the country. The entity suggested that what
should be done was customer service for children rather
than claims processing. He thought claims processing was
being done presently.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
Representative Grenn and Representative Pruitt were absent
from the vote.
The MOTION to REPORT OUT CSHB 151(FIN) PASSED (6/3).
CSHB 151(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do
pass" recommendations, one "no recommendation"
recommendation, and four "amend" recommendations and with a
new zero fiscal note by the Department of Administration
and two previously published fiscal impact notes: FN1(DHS)
and FN2(DHS).
7:20:39 PM
AT EASE
7:21:45 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster relayed that it was possible the meeting
for the following day would be cancelled. However, he would
keep it on the schedule presently.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB105 Sponsor Statement2.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 151 CS version E 4.14.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Letters of Support 5.13.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Explanation of Changes 5.12.17 version N to E.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Sponsor Statement version E.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 105 - Amendment 5.10.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 151 - Amendments 5.15.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Brief Explanation (bullet points) Version E.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Operating Budget Amendment Explanation.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 151 |
| HB 105 - Support Documents 5.15.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/15/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 105 |