Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
02/22/2022 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB297 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 297-MILITARY MEMBER CHILD PROTECT; ADOPTION
1:22:05 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 297, "An Act relating to the duties of the
Department of Health and Social Services; relating to child
protection; and relating to children of active-duty military
members."
1:22:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRIER HOPKINS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 297. He said that his sponsorship of HB
297 is part of an ongoing collaborative effort in the Fairbanks
area with its Tiger team and the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) to make Alaska one of the best places in the nation to
conduct missions and activities. He explained that there is no
requirement on civilian authorities to notify DoD when a
military child is involved in a case involving abuse or neglect.
He said HB 297 would put into statute that, when a report of
harm to a military dependent child is made to civilian
authorities, the appropriate military defense office would be
notified as well, ensuring that families have access to military
family resources and that DoD is a local partner in the health
and welfare of its members.
1:24:43 PM
TANIA CLUCAS, Staff, Representative Grier Hopkins, Alaska State
Legislature, provided information regarding HB 297 on behalf of
Representative Hopkins, prime sponsor. She said the proposed
requirement for civilian authorities to inform military
authorities of harm to a child of a military member would be
inserted into AS 47.13.030. She said there is a zero fiscal
note; the bill will have no fiscal or problematic impact on the
Office of Children's Services. In response to a question
regarding mismatched titles, she clarified that the PowerPoint
presentation, titled, "House Bill 97 Military Member Child
Protection" addresses HB 297, not HB 97. She moved to slide 2
of the presentation, [hardcopy included in the committee
packet], and explained that DoD has a Defense State Liaison
Office to ensure that the places where DoD has installations are
prepared and suited to have the military in the state. She said
that 70 percent of families do not live on base in their local
communities; therefore, there is a greater expectation on the
communities that surround military installations to provide
services that historically have been provided on base. She
highlighted key issues, which include spouse licensure, in-state
tuition continuity, and the Purple Star program. She said work
is being done with DoD to make sure that the state can "check
these boxes" to make Alaska more attractive for DoD to continue
the mission to place more installations. She moved to slide 3
to state that the bill addresses child abuse identification and
reporting. She pointed out that most states have already passed
legislation so that there can be legal reporting of child abuse
to the military chain of command. She said there is nothing at
the state level to mandate this reporting happen, and DoD has
made this a request. She moved to slide 4 to relay that Alaska
has 180,000 children, of which over 10 percent are military
dependents, with caregivers who are active duty or in the
National Guard or Reserves.
1:29:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired about bullet three on slide 4,
which states, "Since 2003 the reported child abuse in military
families has outpaced reported abuse for the civilian
population, coinciding with increased deployments and overseas
operations." He asked for clarification of the word "outpaced."
MS. CLUCAS said her assumption is that it is a percentage of the
military population based on a percentage of the civilian
population.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER further asked whether "with increased
deployments and overseas operations" referred to the majority
overseas or those in the state.
MS. CLUCAS responded that she could not answer, and that she was
looking for materials which state that it is known that there is
an increase in child abuse issues and that DoD has recognized
that it has a different service than it did 50 years ago. She
noted that in 2019, DoD had a family advocacy program, which is
part of the incentive to propose HB 297.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that he is not speaking for or
against the bill. He pointed to the map on slide 3 and asked
whether HB 297 would align Alaska with the Lower 48.
MS. CLUCAS answered that HB 297 was requested by DoD.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the Fairbanks Tiger team is
seeing an actual need in the military bases in that area.
MS. CLUCAS reiterated that HB 297 was proposed by request from
DoD. Further, prior to the Thirty-Second Alaska State
Legislature, Senator Coghill had identical legislation but the
COVID-19 pandemic waylaid the effort, so it was picked up and
now being carried by Representative Hopkins on behalf of DoD.
1:34:43 PM
CHAIR TUCK pointed out the last sentence of the third bullet
point, which speaks to coinciding "with increased deployments in
overseas operations." He said DoD uses the parents as teachers
model that allows families with deployed members to get together
once a month with children, and this has served as a support
group for those families. He recounted a Joint Armed Services
meeting in Fairbanks where DoD talked about the benefits of
having such programs. He said that when a member is deployed
overseas, the family is broken up.
1:36:09 PM
MS. CLUCAS returned to the presentation on slide 5 to explain
that HB 297 will require greater collaboration and coordination
of services between civilian authorities in Alaska and federal
authorities. She said the state has an authority to look after
the health and welfare of its citizens. She spoke about a
family advocacy program and the responsibility of DoD to treat
and rehabilitate dependents who have identified as abuse or
maltreatment victims, as well as working with the family
involved. She said HB 297 seeks to make available DoD services
to military affiliated Alaskans. She explained that people
don't live strictly on the military installation like decades
before, but rather they are out in the community, so if an
incident happens in the community and is reported to the Office
of Children's Services (OCS), the [military] chain of command
would not know because it was not reported on base, on post.
MS. CLUCAS moved to slide 6 and elaborated that the bill seeks
an improved continuum of care, which would help military
families receive the services they need to stay healthy and
together. Further, having the proposed laws in place would help
improve Alaska's national ranking when DoD is deciding where to
place future deployments and infrastructure. She shared that
her great uncle was stationed in Alaska with the Army Corps
during World War II and started a family. She said Alaska has a
long history of personnel being stationed in the state and not
wanting to leave. She concluded the presentation on slide 7 and
opened for questions.
1:39:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON inquired about the designated authority
that the information would go to under HB 297. He speculated
that larger bases might have a person for such information but
inquired about smaller installations with fewer personnel.
MS. CLUCAS deferred the question to a DoD representative.
1:40:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether there would be a time
requirement that DoD would need to have to notify the base about
an incident.
MS. CLUCAS answered that such a provision was not in HB 297, and
that timely sharing of information would hopefully be considered
in the drafting of memorandum of understanding (MOU) between
OCS, other entities, and the family liaison offices.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY pointed out that the Department of
Education and Early Development (DEED) has statutory authority
to oversee the cases and would notify the base. She asked what
the base would need to do in that situation.
MS. CLUCAS responded that the Department of Health and Social
Services would have oversight because the case would be child
abuse related. She shared that she consulted with social
workers that work with the military as DoD contractors; the
workers said they were in support [of the proposed legislation].
On the specifics of how the workers collaborate with their
colleagues across boundaries, she said that was not discussed
because that moves more into scope of practice, which would be
outside her own scope of practice. She said the hope is that
there would be better collaboration, and she mentioned privacy
issues.
1:43:38 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced the committee would hear invited testimony.
1:43:55 PM
TAMMIE PERRAULT, Northwest Region Liaison, Defense-State Liaison
Office, U.S. Department of Defense, thanked Representative
Hopkins for bringing HB 297 forward. She said the bill is
important to DoD because it will assist Alaska in joining 31
other states that have passed similar legislation to address
child abuse and neglect. She said that unlike civilian
employers, military services have the obligation to know what is
happening to their members. She said information sharing
between DoD and local authorities must be done at the start of
the abuse or neglect investigation, not after. She explained
that HB 297 would require the reporting of child abuse to the
appropriate military installation when the child is a military
family member. She addressed the question of an incident
happening at a small installation where there may not be a
family advocacy program; every military member has a family
advocacy program with which they are affiliated in a catchment
area. She said that if a person is outside of the catchment
area, they can still have their information reported back to the
closest military installation or to the person's command family
advocacy program in their region. She indicated that under
Section 17.87, Title X of the U.S. code, DoD must establish a
family advocacy program (FAP) for each military installation or
unit with 500 or more personnel; this is to meet requirements to
address prevention and response to child abuse and neglect in
military families. She said the military FAP is created by DoD
and incorporates the training to ensure that the scope of child
abuse, domestic abuse, and problematic sexual behavior in youth
are all addressed through cooperative effort. She explained
that the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA), and its regulations, delineate the FAP as a federal
entity, subject to the requirement to protect children from
abuse or neglect; when the state coordinates with the family
advocacy programs on each installation, it is coordinating with
a federal entity that is specially charged with protecting
children.
MS. PERRAULT explained that the federal information sharing
mandates direct military services to establish MOUs with state
and local child welfare services to collaborate the oversight of
cases involving military families. She said there are many MOUs
already established in the state with local authorities;
however, those MOUs do not cover all military families living in
Alaska. She stated it is difficult to maintain MOUs as military
personnel changes internally, and that the bill would provide a
backdrop that would support ensuring the reporting requirements
regardless of whether there is an up-to-date MOU. She stated
that MOUs provide an additional layer on top of the legislation.
State level guidance that directs military sharing would provide
consistency for all branches of service in state and local
agencies. She reported that 70 percent of the military live
"off post" and are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of
state and local agencies. She said that military services
investigated intervention and rehabilitation services that could
assist borough and local child welfare systems in addressing
such allegations. She clarified that the family advocacy
program is not about what it will do if a member is involved in
a case of child abuse; it is about, "wrapping our arms around
the family" to provide the support and resources.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether DoD has a process that
happens in other states when it gets notified by local
authorities of a child abuse case.
1:51:37 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:51 p.m. to address a
technical issue.
1:52:05 PM
MS. PERRAULT, in response to Representative Story, answered that
most states have not established a timeline; that has been left
to the MOUs with the local jurisdictions. She said that it is
generally immediately upon identification of a child abuse and
neglect case that the local authorities notify military
authorities and partners, ensuring that the military is involved
as early as possible in the potential case and providing support
to the military families. She explained that this would provide
them the service of having a military focused counselor,
healthcare providers, and family advocacy program that may be
aware of previous incidents.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whose responsibility it would be to
coordinate the services.
MS. PERRAULT explained that is often determined on a case-by-
case basis. She offered to follow-up providing details on how
that has worked on cases in Alaska, and how it has worked in
other states.
1:54:53 PM
MS. PERRAULT, in response to a question from Representative
Nelson, said the National Guard and Reserve also have family
advocacy programs, and that HB 297 applies to active-duty
soldiers within that National Guard Reserves. To a follow-up
question, she responded that HB 297 included Active Guard
Reserve soldiers.
1:56:08 PM
CHAIR TUCK relayed that before the military code of justice was
updated, there were issues of sexual assaults that were being
reported from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to the
commanding officer; a lot of victims became re-victimized as a
result of the communications. He asked how it could be ensured
that victims are not re-victimized.
MS. PERRAULT responded that DoD has acknowledged its challenge
with sexual assault, and that it has been difficult to ensure
there isn't favoritism or negative consequences for the victims
that come forward. She stressed that this would be a situation
where the family advocacy program would be administered at a
higher level than a military member's unit. She explained that
the chain of command is separate from the program, and the
program itself is not designed to provide any legal methods to
bear upon a military family as they are designed to provide
supportive resources. She further explained that the judicial
system in the military is separate from the program. She stated
that DoD is asking the state to coordinate with the program
around the supportive services and not with the judicial or
legal system within the military.
CHAIR TUCK asked Ms. Perrault to share the support services that
are provided.
MS. PERRAULT responded that the first tool they use is a program
called New Parents Support Services; they send a counselor and a
nurse to do home visits in order to work with the families in
the home. They also help in identifying ways to reduce stress
and strain in the military family. She said there are also
counseling services for families that are struggling through the
program. She shared that families relay challenges they have in
accessing such services, to which the program can help fast
track those services to families most in need. She explained
that there are other counseling services available, like
financial counseling.
CHAIR TUCK regarding the statement that the MOUs only cover some
families, asked what is in the agreement that would exclude
families.
MS. PERRAULT answered that MOUs are made with specific
municipalities, so there is the chance that a municipality would
not have an MOU with the installation. For example, if a family
was stationed at JBER, and the family lives outside the
catchment area of Anchorage in a town that doesn't have an MOU,
and the local authorities of said town were the first response
to the child abuse and neglect case, the authorities may not
know because there is no MOU requiring that this knowledge be
shared with the state. She stated that HB 297 provides the
"overarching story" to everyone that the information between the
state and DoD needs to be shared to ensure all military families
get the services they need. She said there is the chance that a
family on recruiting assignment or lived farther away from an
installation would not fall into the catchment area of an MOU.
2:03:06 PM
JOMO STEWART, President and CEO, Fairbanks Economic Development
Corporation, voiced Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation
(FEDC) support for HB 297. He explained that the legislation
appeared to be something that he himself assumed was already in
law. He echoed Ms. Perrault's remarks that the bill is not
addressing a law enforcement matter, but rather, it is a victim
advocacy measure to protect children and spouses, as well as
bring the most support to bear for the family. He said HB 297
is also about helping the military to satisfy its own legal
requirements relative to its service members and their families.
He stated that FEDC supports the military. He pointed out that
the military is a large part of the economy and makes up 10
percent of the statewide economy, as well as up to one-third of
the Fairbanks NorthStar Borough's economy. Further, over 70
percent of military personnel and their families do not reside
on base; instead, they live in the community. He reiterated
that FEDC supports HB 297, the military, and its service
members.
2:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether, if HB 297 were implemented,
an MOU would be necessary.
2:08:19 PM
CHAIR TUCK pointed out that the matter is being handled now
through MOUs, and if HB 297 is passed, the state would no longer
need to enter MOUs.
2:08:54 PM
TRAVIS ERICKSON, Deputy Director, Office of Children's Services,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) offered his
understanding that the office would still consider an MOU for
things that are not included in the new statute. For example,
access to base is something that is currently covered with
existing MOUs. He said that there still needs to be protocols
in place for how staff would get on the base and who to contact;
the process needs to be streamlined. He stated that information
sharing, therefore, would not need to be covered in an MOU as it
would already be in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired whether, once it is known that the
family is a military family, Mr. Erickson's staff would let the
base know of the family's need for support.
MR. ERICKSON answered yes and explained that once the office
becomes aware that a military member is involved, it would go
about alerting the proper authorities; this could occur at the
intake level if the information is known at that point, but if
not and discovered later on, the alert would happen then.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY questioned whether it is standard to ask at
intake whether they are a member of the military.
MR. ERICKSON offered his understanding that it is not but stated
that he is not positive.
2:11:02 PM
CHAIR TUCK asked what the office's requirements to notify the
family advocacy program would be, and whether there is a time
requirement.
MR. ERICKSON responded that there is no specific timeframe
established in the office's materials.
CHAIR TUCK asked for copy of an MOU as an example for committee
members, as there might be aspects of MOUs that could be
incorporated into statute.
MR. ERICKSON said the office can provide that.
CHAIR TUCK pointed to language on page 2, line 3, "the
designated authority", and he said the current idea would be
that the authority would be the family advocacy program
director. He asked whether the process is the same in every
state or if the title of the director changes.
2:13:08 PM
MS. PERRAULT answered that many states have used the term
"family advocacy program" in their statute. She said the
current terminology is appropriate, as the family advocacy
program could one day change its name, but if the name were to
change - and was in statute under that name - then the statute
would need to be corrected. She voiced support in leaving the
current language as is, which is "family advocacy program or
appropriate authority".
CHAIR TUCK voiced concern with the designated authority, in that
if a base commander comes in and realizes that he has a problem
and wants to avoid going to the advocacy program, he could
designate someone else. On the argument that the program could
change its name, he said it needs to be considered as to whether
the agency is the designated authority.
MS. PERRAULT reiterated that in other states, the program is
referred to as the family advocacy program.
2:15:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her support of HB 297 and furthering
the goal of reducing child abuse and improving family safety and
wellness.
2:16:24 PM
CHAIR TUCK opened public testimony on HB 297. After
ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, he closed
public testimony.
2:17:02 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that HB 297 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 297 Bill Hearing Request Memo 2.4.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB0297A 2.4.2022.PDF |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB297 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB297 Letter of Support DOD 2.4.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB297 Supporting Materials BP2022-ChildAbuseIdentificationandReporting 2.4.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB297 Supporting Materials DP2022-ChildProtection 2.4.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Fiscal Note DFCS-FLSW 02.18.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 Slide Presentation 02.21.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |
| HB 297 DOD Testimony 02.22.2022.pdf |
HMLV 2/22/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 297 |