Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 30, 1997
2:00 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97 - 117, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 117, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 118, Side 1, #000 - #071.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf Representative Kelly
Representative Hanley was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Joe Ryan; Patti Swenson, Staff,
Representative Con Bunde; Mark Rosen, Staff, Representative
Joe Ryan; Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development; Connie Sipe, Director, Division of Senior
Services, Department of Administration; Katherine Tibbles,
Social Services Program Coordinator, Family and Youth
Services, Department of Health & Social Services; Ron Cowan,
(Testified via teleconference), Department of Health and
Social Services, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 29 An Act relating to certain programs of state aid
to municipalities and recipients in the
unorganized borough; and providing for an
effective date.
HCS CS SB 29 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
note by the Senate Finance Committee dated 2/6/97.
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
1
termination date of the Citizens' Foster Care
Review Board; and providing for an effective date.
HB 27 was placed in Subcommittee with
Representative Mulder as Chair and with members
Representative J. Davies and Representative Kelly.
HB 217 An Act relating to certified nurse aides; and
providing for an effective date.
CS HB 217 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes
by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Health and
Social Services dated 4/17/97.
HOUSE BILL 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."
PATTI SWENSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that
HB 127 would change existing state laws for the Citizens'
Foster Care Review Panel which are currently inadequate.
The existing statutes do not give enough power to the local
panels.
* Existing statutes make foster care review
panels look like a weak duplication of some
Division of Family and Youth Service
functions.
* Existing statutes do not permit the local
panel's recommendations to be placed into the
court records for consideration in the
disposition of a case.
* Existing statutes do not require state
departments to supply necessary aggregate
data. Specific data is needed to measure the
performance of the child protection system.
* Existing statutes do not give local panels
the authority to develop priority for early
reviews of the worst cases.
* Existing statutes require the current foster
2
care review system to sunset on June 30,
1997.
HB 127 would correct the weaknesses in our current statutes
and would give a strong independent voice to local review
panels. The legislation would establish local review panels
throughout the State which will advocate for children, their
families and for needed changes in our child protection
system.
The National Association for Foster Care Reviewers will
guide the implementation of the Alaska program. There are
26 states with active state review boards and foster care
review panels. Those who have served on foster care review
panels throughout the United States have found the effort
worth their time. All state boards and local review panels
share the same goal to decrease the amount of time children
linger in out-of-home care. Ms. Swenson stressed that the
legislation is needed by everyone who deals with Alaska's
child protection system. She urged the Committee's
favorable consideration of HB 127.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the increased the number of
voting number to the newly established State board. Ms.
Swenson replied that originally there were four
administrative types on the board; the Commissioner of
Health and Social Services, the Director of the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA), the Attorney General and a designee
from the Public Defenders office. Those positions were
deleted and the State board was increased from seven to nine
members; public board members were also increased. The
increased number will expand the representation each
district has in the four judicial districts.
Representative Martin asked if there would be a distinction
between public board members and voting board members. Ms.
Swenson explained that in the initial legislation, the
administrative members were also voting members; in the next
version of the bill, they were advisory only and in the
following version, those members were completely removed.
All nine public members are voting members.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the State panel
previously met twice a year. The new legislation recommends
that the State panel meet at least twice a year. Ms.
Swenson pointed out that some of the meetings could take
place telephonically, although, initially, when the board is
formed, it will be important that they meet when creating
policy and regulations.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced Section #13, pointing out
that the program coordinator position would be replaced by
3
an executive director at a greater fiscal impact. Ms.
Swenson advised that an executive director would not be
required to be a social service person. The $139 thousand
dollar request currently in the FY98 budget would cover one
full-time administrative clerk, one 30 hour social worker
coordinator, and one full-time social worker II. The
additional funding request in the fiscal note would add an
executive director who would work with the State board and
would be responsible for grant writing. That position would
interface with all local panels to effectively implement the
program.
Representative Mulder suggested that if the board was
assuming some of the functions of the Division of Family and
Youth Services, the fiscal note should indicate a negative
amount. Ms. Swenson replied that when the board initially
forms, they will not be entitled to any of the federal Title
IVE fund. Down the line, the board would be able to apply
for federal funds under Title IV.
Ms. Swenson noted that the Anchorage program has been in
existence for four years. Co-Chair Therriault felt that
Anchorage should be able to fulfill the federal requirements
to qualify for some of those funds. Ms. Swenson explained
that the panel has been operating on a very low budget, with
capabilities of reviewing only one-third of the Anchorage
cases. In order to reorient, a State board is needed.
Increasing the number of cases will require a larger number
of volunteers. The panel, with current funding, has not
been able to adequately train volunteers.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the $29 thousand dollar
travel component of the fiscal note. Ms. Swenson responded
that amount would cover costs for the executive director to
provide the training and allow a board member from each area
to participate. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the full
amount was warranted.
CONNIE SIPE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SENIOR SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, commented that forming a state
board would provide the benefits of tapping upon a large
group of volunteers throughout the State. Currently, only
one-third of the total Anchorage cases are being reviewed.
It would take an active, trained group of 80-100 volunteers
to address the cases only in Anchorage. Most volunteers can
hear one case per month. A State board would be providing a
constant recruitment and training of volunteer panel members
which would hear foster care child cases.
Ms. Sipe stressed that "volunteerism" must be managed well
or a poor system will result. The State board will be
responsible for a positive functioning group. She pointed
4
out that the consideration before the Committee would leap
from one-third of one city's foster child group to the
State's entire population. Until the burden is removed from
Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), there will be
duplication of services. The State board will be a very
busy operation. They will be trying to make maximum use of
citizen volunteers.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the amount of federal funds that
the State brings in for the IVE match.
KATHERINE TIBBLES, SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM COORDINATOR,
DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, advised that the requirement for
getting any IVE dollars is that six month reviews are
provided on all kids in out-of-home care. The $7 million
dollar federal funding would be reduced when the service was
not done effectively. Co-Chair Therriault asked if it was
reasonable to think that a volunteer panel could assume
these responsibilities and functions in relieving the
Department from their effort.
Ms. Sipe explained that Title IV requirements include the
180 day review. If that requirement and all the others are
met by the State, the State will then be given $7 million
dollars to help pay for foster care for those children.
DFYS currently attempts to get citizens from outside to help
review cases. Twenty-six other states throughout the nation
currently use the State board panel to tap those funds. Ms.
Tibbles added, an additional function of the panel would be
to develop packets. The panels are not funded at this time.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if a certain level of expertise
and education would be necessary before the federal
government would allow the IVE monies to be disbursed. Ms.
Tibbles said no, although, there are specific requirements
which must be met:
* The review must occur within six months of
removal of a child;
* The process must be open to participation of
the parents; and
* The Court reviews must occur within twelve
months.
Beyond that, there are an additional eighteen procedural
protection steps. She stressed that the system develops the
"expertise" not the "agency". The panels could take over
the functions.
5
(Tape Change HFC 97-117, Side 2).
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the initial intent was to
cover the Anchorage area. He pointed out the frustration in
the rest of the State that their foster care concerns also
be met. Ms. Sipe commented that at this time, there is no
State board, only an Anchorage panel. The Anchorage panel
does not have voting powers and can not set policy for the
new panels. There is a lot of work which needs to be done
in the first year. The phase-in will be expensive in
establishing a State board responsible for policy and
regulations. Implementing one-third of one town is very
different than implementing the entire State. Providing
service for part of the cases would be difficult and would
result in duplication of services with DFYS.
She added, the legislative intent would be to bring one town
up to 100%, so the entire system could see how well it works
and then, as quickly as possible, begin to up-date the rest
of the State. She stressed that the intent is not to
discriminate. Current recommendations are to stagger
implementation of the program and then begin with start-up
grants for all regions.
Ms. Sipe stressed the need for adequate program funding.
Historically, when the bill was passed in 1991, it carried a
$750 thousand dollar fiscal note. The suggested new fiscal
note could max out at $550 thousand dollars. She
summarized, no one wants to live with the constant criticism
that the Legislature has established a goal without
providing the proper resources.
Representative Mulder inquired if there was a less expensive
alternative to the proposed program. Co-Chair Therriault
asked if there was something in the public agency system
which would make more sense. Ms. Sipe replied that the
Governor supports the concept that whenever the reviews
occur in the agency only, all of the parties of that case
witness it as an administrative function. The value of
getting away from the agency, and using citizens that care
about kids would be valuable. Over the long term, there
will be maximum savings, money and advocacy on behalf of
kids. This is a complex system, and the volunteerism must
be handled carefully as it is a delicate issue.
Ms. Sipe responded to Representative Mulder's repeated
concern regarding fiscal costs. She reminded members that
most states do not realize cost savings in the first two
years. The Commission on Justice pinpointed this as their
prime recommendation. It will save money in the long-run.
6
Co-Chair Therriault agreed that in the out-years the budget
subcommittees will look at the effort and determine if a
shift of monies could be made. He placed the legislation in
a Subcommittee with Representative Mulder as Chair and with
members Representative J. Davies and Representative Kelly.
He asked the Subcommittee to address the legislation's
wording and the fiscal note phase-in.
HB 127 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL 29
"An Act relating to certain programs of state aid to
municipalities and recipients in the unorganized
borough; and providing for an effective date."
Senator John Torgerson noted that the legislation would
change the name of the Revenue Sharing program to "priority
Revenue Sharing for Municipal Services", changes the
Municipal Assistance Fund to the Safe Communities Fund and
would require that payments from the Safe Communities Fund
be used for specific prioritized purposes. The intent of
these changes is to more accurately reflect the purposes for
which payments received are used. These programs appear to
have fostered the perception that it is a type of "slush
fund" for communities. The change in name and the
requirements for use of the monies help to dispel that
notion.
He noted that communities are required to spend funds
received from the Safe Communities Fund on specific purposes
in the following priorities:
1. Police protection and related public safety
services;
2. Fire protection and emergency medical
services;
3. Water and sewer services not offset by user
fees;
4. Solid waste management; and
5. Other services the governing body determines
to have the highest priority.
Communities are not, however, required to fund all requests
for services in a category before funding services in
another category. Communities that levy and collect
property taxes are required to list the allocation received
from the Safe Communities Fund and it's equivalent will rate
on the "Notice to Taxpayers".
Senator Torgerson noted that the bill also would revise how
appropriations continue to be reduced, allocations to, and
7
the resulting payments from the base amount account be
proportionately reduced. In the past, the account was "held
harmless" and appropriation reductions were taken entirely
from the per capita account which resulted in an inequitable
reduction of payments to communities.
The minimum entitlement to communities is increased to $40
thousand dollars based on the FY97 appropriation. If,
however, appropriations continue to decline, this minimum
entitlement may be proportionately reduced along with
payments from the base amount and the per capita accounts.
Senator Torgerson concluded that the date of payment was
changed so that communities receive entitlement from both
Priority Revenue Sharing and the Safe Communities Fund on
July 31st. Previously, payments from revenue sharing were
made on July 31st and municipal assistance payments were
made on February 1st.
Representative Mulder MOVED that 0-LS02181\H, Cook, 4/28/97,
be the version before the Committee. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CS SB 29 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CS SB 29 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Senate
Finance Committee dated 2/6/97.
HOUSE BILL 217
"An Act relating to certified nurse aides; and
providing for an effective date."
MARK ROSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN, introduced HB
217 which would give the Board of Nursing the authority to
oversee the training, supervision, utilization and
registration of Certified Nurse Aides.
CATHERINE REARDON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
explained there are 2,800 Certified Nurses Aides (CNA's)
working in Alaska's long-term care facilities and home
health agencies. These aides provide care to those most
unable to care for themselves, the aged and the infirm.
The Certified Nurse Aides work under the supervision of a
nurse licensed by the Board of Nursing, performing only
those duties specifically delegated by that nurse. The
8
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (federal) required
that states establish Nurse Aide Certification programs for
aides working in long-term care and home health agencies
receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding. Since 1989, the
responsibility for the Certified Nurse Aide program has been
divided between the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), Division of Medical Assistance, Health Facilities
and Licensing and Department of Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED), Occupational Licensing, Board of
Nursing.
The legislation would delineate responsibility for oversight
of Certified Nurse Aides clearly to the Board of Nursing.
The Board of Nursing has been responsible for establishing
minimum training standards, approval of training programs
and maintenance of the Certified Nurses Aide registry.
HB 217 protects Alaska's most vulnerable population by
insuring that the people who care for them are properly
trained and that oversight of that care be provided. She
proceeded to explain the differences between the Finance and
Labor & Commerce Committees version of the bill.
Representative Martin recommended that the Board of Nursing
screen themselves at their own expense. Ms. Reardon replied
that the program was required by State statute to be
financially self- sufficient. The fees charged to the nurse
aides must cover those costs. The Board of Nursing is aware
that the fees will increase as a result of the legislation.
She pointed out that this would be a general fund/program
receipts.
Ms. Reardon spoke to the fiscal note which indicates new
State expenditures. The way to calculate fees for each
occupation is through audits. Part of the costs of running
the board are shared by spreading the costs on a per capita
basis. Any direct costs caused by nurse aides would be
included as would the administrative indirect costs.
Representative G. Davis asked if there was an established
indirect cost rate. Ms. Reardon replied that the cost would
be $35 dollars. All costs are related to license processing
and billings.
(Tape Change HFC 97-118, Side 1).
RON COWAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, ANCHORAGE, offered to answer any
questions of the Committee, noting that the Department fully
supports the proposed legislation.
Representative Martin MOVED that 0-LS0737\L, Lauterbach,
4/30/97, be the version before the Committee. There being
9
NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to report CS HB 217 (FIN) out
of Committee with individuals recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Co-Chair Therriault noted that
he would like to change the DCED fiscal note to reflect that
the funds are program receipts. Following discussion
between Co-Chair Therriault and Representative J. Davies on
the effect of that intent, there was NO OBJECTION, and the
bill was moved from Committee.
CS HB 217 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Department
of Health and Social Services dated 4/17/97 and the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 P.M.
10
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|