Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/27/1997 03:11 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 127 - FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD Number 0801 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 127, "An Act relating to the citizen review board and panels for permanency planning for certain children in state custody; renaming the Citizens' Review Panel For Permanency Planning as the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board; extending the termination date of the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board; and providing for an effective date." Number 0827 PATRICIA SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bunde, referred to the committee substitute. The goal of the committee substitute for HB 127 and of foster care review in general is to assure that children do not linger unnecessarily in out-of-home care. To that end, this legislation strengthens the independence of both the citizens' foster care review board and the local review panels. Additionally the sunset date for the board is extended to June 30, 2000. MS. SWENSON stated that independent foster care review panels are not a new concept. South Carolina enacted the first legislation in 1974. Since that time, 26 other states have followed their example. Foster care review panels, in all the states, have been successful at decreasing the amount of time children linger in out- of-home care as well as in decreasing the number of times a child needs to be moved from one out-of-home placement to another. The accomplishment of these goals saves both staff time and state dollars for the involved agencies, but more importantly it creates a more stable environment for children in out-of-home placements. She said all of these are things that the committee substitute for HB 127 hopes to accomplish. MS. SWENSON listed the highlights of the committee substitute for HB 127. The citizens' foster care review board is reestablished, the members will be appointed by the Governor, the board will also appoint local panel members in each judicial district throughout the state. It will create an executive director position. The executive director will be empowered to write grants and\or contracts to local agencies, help expand existing local panels and help create new panels in all areas of the state. The executive director will keep statistics which will indicate whether or not the board is achieving the goal of decreasing the amount of time children spend in out-of-home placements. If this is accomplished, the board will be able to show a cost savings to the state. MS. SWENSON stated that the ability to keep accurate statistics depends on the cooperation of the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). The state board must be able to get the necessary information from the DFYS, which has not been possible most of the time. However, the DFYS is creating a new data system which will allow a link to the state board office. The division has indicated a willingness to allow existing employees of the panel to have input into the creation of the data system which will ensure proper data collection by the state board. MS. SWENSON explained that another part of this bill is that the state board will be responsible for training all local panel members. Local panel members will be appointed by the state board in each judicial district of the state. More than one panel can also be allowed in each district. The panels will consist of three or more volunteers. The duties of the review panel are stated clearly. The state board or local panels are granted access to any state agencies records for the purpose of locating interested parties for hearing notification. Number 1006 MS. SWENSON said, finally, the bill contains a provision that will allow the recommendations and findings of the panel to be placed into the court's records for consideration in the disposition of a case. Input about the provisions of this committee substitute was obtained from Office of Public Advocacy, public defender's office, private lawyers within the system, DFYS and the Department of Administration. There are some concerns that have been consistent throughout the discussions. Three of the largest concerns regard placing language in the bill stating that the panels will comply with Title 4-E review requirements. Another concern is the broadness in the language used to grant the state board and the local panels access to other agency's records for the purpose of locating and notifying interested parties of hearings. The existing panel is very willing and anxious to work with the departments towards a solution to meet the needs of everyone concerned. The panel wishes to retain the ability to function as an independent oversight entity and will have its findings and recommendations weighed equally with the concerns of others who are interested in each case. The intention of the state board and the local review panel is to have a fair process with as much participation as possible from interested parties. Number 1284 CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that the basis of HB 127 is a citizen oversight review of work done by DFYS. It would try to make sure that parents or grandparents are involved in hearings regarding a child's disposition. MS. SWENSON said the panel independently hears cases and asks questions about whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent an initial placement in foster care. The panel finds out whether the child's current placement is appropriate and if progress has been made to alleviate the cause of the out-of-home placement. They also check on the compliance level of the parents or anyone involved in the case plan. CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that they would be considered a gentle watchdog group. Number 1284 NANCY MILLER, Director, Citizen Review Board Program, State of Oregon, testified next via teleconference from an offnet site. In Oregon they are housed in the judicial branch, but the functions are very much the same as the functions that are being proposed in HB 127. The review board system maintains a comprehensive data base that collects about 25 data points on every reviewed child in foster care. Reviews are started, in Oregon, at six months, so they are tracking the long term population. One of the criticisms of the program is that they start too late. She supported the 90 day start time which is in HB 127. The data, located in the committee file, shows a decreasing length of time for children in long term foster care. In 1992, children were spending an average of 36.5 months in foster care and in 1996, that number was down to 27.9 months. This data is only on the long term population. The Oregon child welfare agency's data looks very different, in terms of the overall length of stay which is down 22 months because they are also counting the children who go in and out of the system up at the front end. The review board does not see these children. Number 1237 MS. MILLER explained that the review board also tracks the number of moves of children in care. In 1992, for the long term population, there was 4.1 moves per child and for 1996 that number is down to 3.1 moves. When you look at both of these statistics, you are measuring the fiscal savings to the state, in terms of having the boards review these cases, and the emotional savings for children, in terms of reducing the trauma of moving them from placement to placement. In their monthly care report, they talk about the Citizen Review Board (CRB), which is the abbreviation for their program in Oregon. The CRB is meant to be an active player and partner in the system to access those outcomes for children. She would not say that the reason for the reduction in the length of stay is due to the CRB, but she would say that the overall length of stay for all the kids in care is increasing and the only difference, for the long term population is that the CRB is involved. This says, to her, that the CRB has a significant impact. MS. MILLER stated that when this program started in Oregon, they were called an adversarial watchdog group. It was clear in their legislation that there is a dual mission and the mission of HB 127 looks the same to her. The job is not only to review the cases of individual children, to make sure that they are moving through the system, but to make recommendations on policies, procedures and laws relating to substitute care. They are providing both the oversight role and one of advocacy. There are about 350 volunteers serving on 70 boards around Oregon. Those folks are highly educated about the child welfare system and how it works. They are active in advocating for resources for the children in their community. They have been instrumental in providing information to the agency to ensure that the agency is dealing with programs which work. Two group homes closed down as a result of the intervention of the board, those homes were not adequately providing for the children. Number 1342 MS. MILLER cautioned the committee about saying that HB 127 has only a watchdog role. This is certainly a part of the goal, but the advocacy role is equally as important. Number 1350 CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that he viewed it as a very protective watchdog role. Number 1375 CANDICE WHEELER testified next via teleconference from an offnet site. She worked with the foster care and home program in Anchorage since its inception in late 1993 to the fall of 1996 when (Indisc.) She had been a social worker for almost 30 years and substitute care has been her area of expertise. (Indisc.) mommy and daddy. She has seen first-hand the kind of incredible emotional trauma which occurs to children in the substitute care system. Having worked as a social worker, it was exciting for her to come to the foster care review program. In her three years there, she became a real believer in this effort. Calling this type of program a watchdog does seem to have a negative implication, but we need, as citizens, to be watchdogs for our children. These children belong to Alaska. MS. WHEELER said that one of the great strengths of citizen reviews is in dealing with the crises of individual children. There are 20 to 25 individual citizens who give their time to really sit and listen, day after day, to what is happening in the foster care system. These people are empowered to go out and advocate as Ms. Miller talked about in her testimony. It is critical, from that standpoint, to have someone outside the system serve those children and provide oversight to the programs. Number 1465 MS. WHEELER referred to an editorial in the Anchorage newspaper a few years ago after a 14-year-old boy shot his father in central Alaska. The article said that the way the system is set up, there is no way for anyone in the state to know the truth, what is happening to kids in the foster care and child protection system. The article said that if DFYS does its job, the public needs to know that and if the agency isn't doing its job, the public needs to know that too. This is the kind of thing that citizen reviews and independent reviews bring to the table for kids who are in out- of-home care. MS. WHEELER stated that she is supportive of this legislation which strengthens what has been done in Anchorage and allows it to move to the rest of the state. Many times outlying areas have asked the program in Anchorage why they can't have a citizen review. Her organization works with Native groups, non-profit groups and areas throughout the state because kids often gravitate to Anchorage. This kind of program needs time to work, it has only been in existence for three and a half years. Funding has been short so it has been difficult to demonstrate the kind of statistics that Ms. Miller used. It is worthwhile to look at similar programs around the United States to see their results and what results can be expected in Alaska when the program expands. MS. WHEELER stated full support of these changes, they are critical and they will be the kind of things which will make a real difference for individual children and for all of Alaska's children. Better services for them, when they've had the horrible trauma of being separated from their original parents. Number 1561 BARBARA MALCHICK, Deputy Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Among her duties, she is a guardian ad litem and supervises all the guardian ad litems. It is her job to represent the best interest for children who are in the foster care system. On behalf of the guardian ad litems and the children that they represent, she strongly supported the continuation and the strengthening, through expansion, of the citizens' foster care review board. With adequate funding, staffing and training the review board is a valuable tool to make the system more responsive to the needs of the children in foster care, both on the individual small picture and on the big picture level. The process holds people responsible and gets the correct services for the child; either through getting the child back at home, preferably, or finding another alternative permanent placement for the child. On the bigger picture, the foster care review board can be an advocate for overall changes within our system. Number 1621 MS. MALCHICK suggested that some provisions need to be changed in HB 127. The bill proposes to move the initial review from 180 days to 90 days and she said there might be some problems with moving this date up. It is also important to look at the provision regarding submitting the panel's report to the court. She felt solutions could be reached and added that the state needs this sort of a bill. Number 1657 SCOTT CALDER testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. Generally speaking, he was against HB 127. A bill similar to HB 92 or SB 15 from the 19th Legislature would be appropriate. Merely extending the sunset termination date of the program, as it currently exists in law, effective since July 1, 1990. The important thing to remember here is that when we are talking about citizen oversight, essentially it is agency personnel who comply to some appropriate legal, moral or other standard. The legislature was elected to do these things for us. He suggested the reason for this review process is to periodically document the work of state government in statute. He did not feel it was a good idea to create a new and improved, high dollar level of bureaucracy to save children and all of those other things. Many other speakers do not talk about the problems of saving children from state government, this is the heart of the matter when it comes to citizen review. Subjecting children, parents and families to an inquisitorial process is already in place. We need an irresistible oversight effort directed specifically at state agencies by the people of the state of Alaska. This has already been done by the Citizens' Review Panel for Permanency Planning Act of 1990. Historically, the problem has been the implementation of the program which requires the Governor of this state to make appointments to local panels. It has been six and a half years where there has not been full compliance with the requirement by law to make appointments to the local and state panel. Number 1742 MR. CALDER briefly wanted to run through a memorandum from Legal Services. In general the bill renames all of this. He did not think it needed to be renamed, we need to remember it as it has existed and ask the question of why it has not been allowed to occur. Many of the sections referred to the changing of the name and the constitution of the panel. Section 2 states that the DHSS would notify the state board, rather than the local panel. This is not a very good way to have local oversight. It avoids people at the local level who are doing the overseeing. The word, "citizen" has been removed in Section 3. There have been excellent reasons for supporting the Citizen Review Panel for Permanency Planning Act of 1990, however these reasons, which are good reasons, have been wrongly supported by a series of misleading claims about false assertions and implications of facts, that are not facts about the law, but about the desire to evade existing laws. Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that Ms. Wheeler was responding to the committee substitute, version F. He verified that the policy would be that board members would be limited to two consecutive terms. He asked if that was consistent with what was in place in Oregon. He made a motion to move that the committee adopt the committee substitute for HB 127, version F, Lauterbach, as the working document. Hearing no objections CSHB 127(HES) was before the committee. Number 1870 MS. MILLER responded to a concern that panels have to meet the requirements of 42 U.S. C. 671-675 (PL 96-272). In Oregon, their citizens' review board meets all those requirements. Their child welfare agency does no review. In terms of submitting the reports to the court, this is done directly after each review. This is sometimes difficult if the court hearing occurs right after their review, but most of the time the board is able to get it there in time. Their child welfare agency had been nervous about whether or not they could meet all the federal requirements. However if the committee wished to talk with Oregon's shared regional representative, Carol Overbeck (Ph.) in Region 10, she would assure you that the citizen review could do that. If the committee wanted any further information, she would be happy to send it by mail or fax.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|