Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/25/2003 03:00 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 2003
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kelly Wolf
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 165
"An Act relating to community schools; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 154
"An Act relating to admission to and advancement in public
schools of children under school age; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to grants for alcoholism and drug abuse
programs; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 165
SHORT TITLE:COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0437 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0437 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0437 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0437 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/13/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/13/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/14/03 0539 (H) EDU RPT 5DP 2DNP
03/14/03 0539 (H) DP: WOLF, SEATON, WILSON,
COGHILL,
03/14/03 0539 (H) GATTO; DNP: GARA, KAPSNER
03/14/03 0539 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/18/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/25/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 154
SHORT TITLE:UNDER SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0421 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0421 (H) EDU, HES, FIN
03/05/03 0422 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/05/03 0422 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/13/03 (H) EDU AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/13/03 (H) Moved CSHB 154(EDU) Out of
Committee
03/13/03 (H) MINUTE(EDU)
03/14/03 0538 (H) EDU RPT CS(EDU) NT 4DP 2DNP
1NR
03/14/03 0538 (H) DP: WILSON, COGHILL, SEATON,
GATTO;
03/14/03 0538 (H) DNP: GARA, KAPSNER; NR: WOLF
03/14/03 0538 (H) FN1: (EED)
03/18/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/25/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 167
SHORT TITLE:ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE GRANTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0439 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0439 (H) HES, FIN
03/05/03 0439 (H) FN1: (HSS); FN2: (HSS)
03/05/03 0439 (H) FN3: (HSS); FN4: (HSS)
03/05/03 0439 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/13/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/13/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/18/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/03 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/25/03 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
EDDY JEANS, Manager
School Finance and Facilities Section
Education Support Services
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 165 and HB 154,
and answered questions from members.
MARY RASMUSSEN, Member
Sand Lake Community Schools Board and
Anchorage Community Education Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
REBECCA REICHLIN, President
Alaska Association for Community Education
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
ROSEMARY REEDER, Lead Coordinator
Soldotna Community schools
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 165.
CURT LEDFORD, Director
Sitka Community schools
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165 and answer questions from the members.
TIM STEELE, Vice President
Anchorage School Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
DEBBIE BOGART, Director
Community Education Program
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
LORENA SKONBERG
Alaska Native Health Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
BLYTHE CAMPBELL, Chairperson
Anchorage Community Education Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
JONATHAN GREEN, Instructor
Anchorage Community schools Program
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
LINDA WETHERBY, Coordinator
Rabbit Creek Community schools
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 165.
JOYCE KITKA, Volunteer
Alaska Association for Community Education
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 165.
MARY FRANCIS, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 165 and HB 154, and
answered questions from the members.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 165 and HB
154, and responded to questions by the committee.
JOHN DAVIS, Superintendent
Bering Strait School District
Unalakleet, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 154.
KEVIN MURPHY, Acting Director
Gateway Center for Human Services;
President, Substance Abuse Directors Association
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 167.
STEPHEN SUNDBY, Ph.D., Behavioral Health Director
Bartlett Memorial Hospital and Juneau Recovery Hospital
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 167 and
responded to questions by the committee.
JANET MCCABE, Chair
Partners for Progress
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 167.
MARLA LIPPARD, Clinical Director
Gastineau Human Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 167.
JANET FORBES, Outpatient Coordinator
Gastineau Human Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 167.
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 167 and answered questions
from the members.
ERIN CRUZ, Correctional Programs Director
Gastineau Human Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 167.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Representatives Wilson, Gatto, Coghill, Seaton, and Cissna were
present at the call to order. Representative Kapsner arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 165-COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
[Due to technical difficulties, the first few minutes of the
meeting was not recorded. The first portion was reconstructed
from the committee secretary's log notes.]
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 165, "An Act relating to community schools; and
providing for an effective date."
[Recording begins here.]
Number 0092
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development (EED), informed the committee that the community
schools statute was adopted in 1975 and that the intent of that
statute was to assist local school districts in establishing
community schools programs. The community schools grant program
is currently funded at $500,000 a year. If the program was
fully funded under its statutory entitlement, it would be funded
at $3.5 million. Therefore, its current funding is at about 12
percent.
MR. JEANS explained that the grant program was enacted to
provide financial assistance to encourage and assist local
districts in establishing community schools programs. The
department and the administration believe that the statute has
fulfilled its need and intent, as all school districts are
operating some form of a community schools program. He noted
that he had provided a spreadsheet to the House Special
Committee on Education showing how much money school districts
are reporting as expenditures in community schools, and for
many, the amount identified as expended equals the exact amount
received in state grants. Therefore, Mr. Jeans said he believes
that a portion of those programs are being recorded in the
school operating fund under general operating expenses of the
school district. He noted that the legislation does have a
fiscal note and this is reflected in the governor's budget to
eliminate the $500,000 allocation.
Number 0258
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that at the recent Anchorage
caucus meeting she had specifically asked the superintendent of
the Anchorage School District whether community schools
supplemented school funding. The superintendent said that the
Anchorage School District had found that the community schools
program was enormously important in helping provide classes that
could not otherwise be afforded for summer school or for the "No
Child Left Behind" supplemental classes. Representative Cissna
asked Mr. Jeans if the community schools program is used in
other communities to supplement regular school districts'
programs.
MR. JEANS pointed out that community schools programs charge
user fees to use the facility and offer additional programs
outside the school day. Some of the excess receipts generated
by the program go back to support other educational programs.
Mr. Jeans highlighted the importance of the legislation
[creating the community schools program] which was intended to
be seed money from the state to start having districts provide
access to school facilities after school hours for community use
and activities.
Number 0410
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his understanding is that HB 165
eliminates the funding from the state for community schools,
although it does not eliminate any authority that communities or
districts have for conducting community schools activities.
MR. JEANS responded that is correct. Under HB 165, school
districts will still have the authority to rent the facilities
after school hours and utilize the facilities for community
activities. Mr. Jeans said the department would strongly
encourage such use.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related his understanding that the amount
schools will have to reduce their contribution for community
schools will vary from 100 percent to 8 percent or so.
MR. JEANS pointed out that the schedule he provided to the House
Special Committee on Education shows that the contribution will
fall below 1 percent when comparing the amount of state grant
funds with the total amount that the district has expended under
this program. He reiterated that the districts reflecting 100
percent expenditure to the grant amount probably are not
recording actual after-school activities in the community
schools fund, but rather simply absorbing that in the school's
operating fund. Mr. Jeans said that he does not know if any
district will have to replace 100 percent because those services
are being provided through some other means.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to the percentage increase
needed to cover the $500,000 reduction for an average school in
Anchorage.
MR. JEANS replied that Anchorage receives approximately $152,000
from the $500,000, which represents about 12 percent of the
total Anchorage spent on community schools in fiscal year 2002.
Number 0592
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that HB 165 repeals the school
district's statutory authority to provide community schools
programs. She questioned why the committee would want to repeal
this law when it is already not being funded in the budget this
year.
MR. JEANS said that the community schools program has been
funded at $500,000 a year for a number of years, although this
year's budget does not include funding for it. The reason there
is no funding for it in the budget this year is because the
department is recommending the repeal of the statute, which is
part of the fiscal note process. Furthermore, this is not the
only statute giving school districts the authority to utilize
their school facilities for after-school activities. He noted
that there has been some discussion with regard to leaving some
language in the statutes that would encourage continued
community use of public school facilities after school hours.
The majority of the funding that is being obtained is through
user fees, not through the grant program.
Number 0726
CHAIR WILSON related that in her discussions with
superintendents across the state, one superintendent said this
program was one that would continue regardless of the state's
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mr. Jeans had been contacted by
any districts that have indicated that they would have to
abandon the community schools program.
MR. JEANS replied no.
Number 0819
MARY RASMUSSEN, Member, Sand Lake Community schools Board and
Anchorage Community Education Association, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 165. She requested that this
statute not be repealed and that it be funded at the $500,000
level. With regard to Mr. Jeans and the governor's belief that
the [current] level of funding for the program does little on a
statewide basis, Ms. Rasmussen agreed. Ms. Rasmussen said that
the community schools program provides the state "a big bang for
its buck." The amount of money going to the schools enables
thousands of volunteers to pursue the mission of community
schools.
MS. RASMUSSEN strongly disagreed with the statement that this
program has fulfilled its intended purpose. However, she
interpreted the legislation [creating community schools] to
provide funding for initial development, implementation, and
operation of community schools programs. She pointed out that
operation is an ongoing process and she hoped that it would
continue to be funded. Ms. Rasmussen emphasized the need for
some base funding in order to continue the community schools
programs. However, she acknowledged that the programs are not
required to be funded during times in which there is not enough
money. Then the grants should be prioritized. She urged the
committee not to remove the statutes that acknowledge community
schools. This is a time when the children need to work on exit
exams because [those graduating in] the year 2004 will be the
first group required to pass the exit exams.
Number 0999
REBECCA REICHLIN, President, Alaska Association for Community
Education, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 165.
She urged the committee not to repeal the community schools
grant program. She pointed out that each school district
receives state grant money to support its community schools
program. These monies validate programs and provide leverage to
seek grants and matching funds from cities and municipalities.
The state funding enables the creation of a statewide network of
activity. With regard to whether community schools programs are
a "need" or a "want," Ms. Reichlin related that she recently
spoke with the coordinator of the community schools program in
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, which receives $47,000 in state
grant funds. Those funds allowed the program to offer swim
lessons, driver's education, GED [general equivalency diploma]
classes, pre-school classes, and computer classes, seventy-seven
activities for 1,200 youth, 700 adults, and another 2,000
contact hours. The coordinator had related to Ms. Reichlin that
if this program is not funded next year, it will not be in
existence. In summary, Ms. Reichlin said that the community
schools program is clearly vital to the growth and development
of Alaska's citizens. Lifelong learners engaged in healthy
activities in a safe environment raise the quality of everyone's
life. She asked members to please be proactive and strengthen
the community schools network in our communities, not tear it
down.
Number 1127
ROSEMARY REEDER, Lead Coordinator, Soldotna Community schools,
informed the committee that Soldotna has no recreation center,
no teen center, and no museum. There is only a small community
library. Therefore, the Soldotna Community schools program
feels that it provides the cultural, academic, and recreational
opportunities for children as well as adults. With regard to
the earlier question as to whether the community schools program
provides any supplement to the regular school day, Ms. Reeder
said she believes that is the case. She noted that the
community schools program provides summer programs and
enrichment programs. For example, the funds generated from the
fees for men's adult basketball are used to purchase most of the
balls for the middle school. The money received from the state
has been used to leverage other funds. Ms. Reeder pointed out
that "the folks that the legislature thinks might help us" if
this program is cut are "folks that have already cut us." The
school district does not provide any funding for the community
schools program. She urged the committee not to cut the
community schools program.
Number 1218
CURT LEDFORD, Director, Sitka Community schools, testified via
teleconference in opposition to HB 165. He pointed out that the
community schools program is not merely about usage of buildings
and open gyms, the program provides after school activities for
over half of the children in the Sitka School District; as well
as, tutoring, language classes, independent studies, et cetera.
He told the committee that currently there are a group of
students using their spring break to build a house for Habitat
for Humanity. The $5,000 in funding helps support a wide
variety of programs. Although many of the programs are kept
going with volunteers from AmeriCorps and Vista, these
volunteers cost money. There has been talk of raising fees. He
echoed earlier testimony that adults' activities subsidize some
of the programs. If this bill passes, and these cuts take
place, there will be more hardship for other people. Mr.
Ledford informed the committee that the community schools
program gave over $20,000 in scholarships to children who
wouldn't have otherwise been able to have swimming lessons,
French lessons, et cetera.
Number 1366
TIM STEELE, Vice President, Anchorage School Board, testified
via teleconference in opposition to HB 165. He noted his strong
support of community schools. Anchorage has a fairly large
community schools program, with something on the order of 53,000
participants in 2001-2002. The state provided $152,000 in
funding. Mr. Steele pointed out that the community schools
program provides additional help to students as well as bringing
communities into the schools. He told the committee that if
these cuts are made, the program will be unstable because the
Anchorage School District considers the program marginal and not
directly the Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) educational
responsibility. Just this year, three community schools
coordinators were added back due to additional funding that was
received in the last budget. Since the Anchorage School
District faces about $11 million in cuts this year, Mr. Steele
said she fears that this program is at risk with regard to the
school district's support to make up what the state does not
provide. Mr. Steele urged the committee to not cut the funding
or the enabling legislation.
Number 1484
DEBBIE BOGART, Director, Community Education Program, testified
via teleconference in opposition to HB 165. She requested the
committee's help in not repealing the community schools program
statutes. Eliminating funding would be devastating, even to the
Anchorage School District. The Community Education Program in
Anchorage is an integral part of the Anchorage School District.
The Community Education Program provides tutorial-enriched
academic programs, and continuing education for adults; it also
provides a safe neighborhood after school, in the summers, and
in the evenings. She informed the committee that this past year
there were over 19,000 students involved in the K-12 enrichment
program. Over 1,500 students were involved in after-school
academic activities. Ms. Bogart concluded by urging the
committee to continue to support community education. Without
state funding, the partnerships that the program has developed
will be at risk.
Number 1601
LORENA SKONBERG, Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB), testified
via teleconference in opposition to HB 165. She informed the
committee that she is sitting in for Trudy Anderson, who had
planned to speak. Ms. Skonberg said the Alaska Native Health
Board passed a resolution in opposition to HB 165, which she
read for the record:
Whereas the Alaska Native Health Board is a nonprofit
organization established in 1968 for the purpose of
promoting the spiritual, physical, mental, social, and
cultural well-being, and pride of Alaska Native
people;
Whereas the ANHB is a legally established statewide
organization representing Alaska Natives on public
health policy issues;
Whereas the ANHB membership consists of tribes and
tribal organizations throughout Alaska;
Whereas House Bill 165 is an Act relating to community
schools;
Whereas the Act eliminates the community schools
program for children which include after school
programs;
Whereas this will lead to more latchkey children in
Alaska;
Whereas HB 165 would provide undue hardship on Alaskan
families;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Alaska Native
Health Board strongly and publicly opposed House Bill
165.
Number 1634
BLYTHE CAMPBELL, Chairperson, Anchorage Community Education
Association, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB
165. She informed the committee that the Anchorage Community
Education Association represents the community schools that now
operate in Anchorage. Ms. Campbell strongly urged the committee
not to pass HB 165. The association could not see any reason to
abolish this wonderful program from the statutes, she said. Ms.
Campbell pointed out that all programs involve volunteers, do
good work throughout the state, and need a balanced source of
funding and multiple sources of funding. The state funding is
very important and allows matches with other funds, and thus
eliminating the state funding will result in the program's
suffering. Ms. Campbell informed the committee that she has
been with the program for nearly 20 years and that lots of
programs have been closed in Anchorage. The funding the state
provides through this grant supports about two-and-a-half
community schools in Anchorage. With other cuts the school
district is facing, Ms. Campbell said she feels that this
program is in serious jeopardy. Therefore, she urged the
committee not to abolish the statutes that specify that
community schools are a good thing.
CHAIR WILSON reminded everyone that the statute being repealed
in HB 165 is not the total reference to the community schools
program and that the program can continue.
Number 1729
JONATHAN GREEN, Instructor, Anchorage Community schools Program,
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 165. He
informed the committee that he has taught photography classes in
the Anchorage Community schools Program for the past six years.
He told the committee what a great experience it has been in
doing this class. Furthermore, he was not sure where the public
would go to learn to operate photography equipment. Mr. Green
related his understanding that this program is being cut before
considering the possibility of raising fees. Mr. Green urged
the committee to keep the program going.
Number 1790
LINDA WETHERBY, Coordinator, Rabbit Creek Community schools,
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 165. She
informed the committee that the Rabbit Creek Community schools
has a pre-school program, a childcare program, and a Spanish
program, as well as evening classes. All of the community
schools programs are diverse and serve the communities in a
variety of creative ways. She expressed concern that if the
needs of community schools programs were diminished by the
legislature, she would not want the school district to respond
similarly. She viewed the community schools program as a good
purveyor of education by helping children and families,
especially with respect to the No Child Left Behind Act.
Number 1888
JOYCE KITKA, Volunteer, Alaska Association for Community
Education, testified in opposition to HB 165. She told the
committee she strongly disagrees and resents the implication
that school districts are using this money to supplement their
school districts' programs. Ms. Kitka said she would provide
the committee with copies of the state reports that are
submitted. Very few reports will include open gyms, and while
it is a part of the program, it is not a part of the program
that is a priority. She said she knows Mr. Jeans is a
participant in the local community schools program that offers
open gyms, but it is not the only thing community schools does.
She said community schools need the money as seed money. Last
year community schools had over 20,000 volunteers that recorded
over 200,000 hours in volunteer time. She reported that the
National Association for Partners in Education (NAP) said the
value of a volunteer hour is $15.62. If the committee
multiplies the number of volunteer hours that community schools
provides before, during, and after school, and on weekends, the
members would find community schools brought in $3,304,427 worth
of services. Ms. Kitka said the $500,000 of seed money given by
the state is money well spent. Not all the volunteers will go
away, but a big part of them will.
Number 1974
MARY FRANCES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, testified in opposition to HB 165. She pointed
out that this is an example of a funded mandate that over time
has been seriously underfunded. The portion of the $500,000 in
state funding for a particular district that she used to run,
which was Petersburg, was $2,000. It is safe to say that the
program will not die with that $2,000 going away, but as an
administrator and as a person who represents administrators, she
said she asks that the legislature not make mandates and then
have them underfunded or seriously defunded over time so that it
brings the program to its knees.
Number 2016
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), testified in opposition to HB 165 and responded
to questions by the committee. He said that in talking about
community schools it is important to remember that schools are
the center of communities. He told the members that AASB has a
resolution in support of full funding of community schools.
Every dollar that is reduced from the funding of schools, one
way or the other, comes out of the foundation formula.
MR. ROSE said the argument that these funds are seed money is a
familiar argument in education. There are a number of things
that were given seed money to provide a program, and as the
programs start to take root, the money goes away. It places an
increased burden on schools. A number of people across the
state are dependent on many of the programs that are provided.
He told the committee he thinks the partnership that exists with
the legislature to at least fund those things that are valued is
important. He said he knows most of the committee values
community schools because he has heard them say so, and he hopes
the committee will maintain that level of support and
commitment.
Number 2067
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, if the funds were relabeled from
seed money to grant money, whether it would make a difference.
Number 2079
MR. ROSE responded that schools get a lot of money from
peripheral areas such as pupil transportation and LOGs [Learning
Opportunity Grants]. If those monies go away, it is an
increased burden on the foundation formula. He told the
committee he was very surprised this fall when he realized a
number of people who talk about the foundation formula did not
understand that the foundation formula is there to provide for
facilities, heat, lights, and all the peripheral costs, and not
just instruction in the classroom. This is a larger discussion;
when there is talk about funding for education, all of the
education dollars are leveraged, and there is great demand
placed on schools with the No Child Left Behind Act and the
Quality Schools Initiative. He told the committee school boards
want to do the right thing and want to do a good job, but this
could be the "death of a thousand cuts."
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA told the committee that she has put
together community schools programs, and has for many years
rented space in the schools for various community meetings. It
did not seem to be the same program and she did not go through
the same people to do it. Representative Cissna said the
schools can continue to rent out space, but that is really
different from the community schools program. She asked Mr.
Rose if these two functions are part of the same program.
Number 2137
MR. ROSE replied that he is not qualified to comment on each
individual district's programs.
Number 2164
MR. SWEENEY told the committee that he wanted to clarify an
earlier statement that there are other references to community
schools in state statute; he said that is not the case. There
are references to schools' being able to use the facilities
outside of the normal school day. He reiterated that the
statutes in this bill are the only references to community
schools. He told the committee if there is concern that
community schools would go away by removing these statutes, he
believes there is a way that community schools could stay in
statute, but still eliminate the $500,000 in grants.
Number 2197
CHAIR WILSON commented that in talking with administrators at
the schools, she was assured that community schools would not go
away if they did not receive these funds; however, there will
have to be some effort to make up for the funds in some other
way. Chair Wilson said she wants to be sure school districts
can still run community schools without a problem.
Number 2208
MR. SWEENEY replied that there would not be a problem for the
schools to continue offering community schools programs. He
said the department agrees with Chair Wilson that the
elimination of the grants would not mean the elimination of
community schools statewide. Mr. Sweeney said eliminating the
language about community schools means that there is no other
reference to them in statute. However, he reiterated that this
would not impact the schools' authority to run community schools
programs.
Number 2225
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told the committee that he is concerned
about the elimination of the statute because it is a concern
expressed in testimony before the committee and something he
heard when he was back in his district. He said he would like
to see the bill modified so that there is still reference in
statute that says the legislature supports community schools,
even though the legislature is not funding them. He asked Mr.
Sweeney if he thinks this is something that could be done easily
or if it would require another hearing before the committee.
Number 2254
MR. SWEENEY replied that he could not speak to that change
without talking with the governor's office. He said he believes
there is an easy way to tweak the first section of the bill to
show that the state still encourages school districts to utilize
their facilities as an extension of the school day for community
schools programs. Passing this bill would eliminate the idea of
having community schools grants, which he said the governor
believes has fulfilled its service, since now every district
does have community schools programs up and running.
Number 2269
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that a precedent has been set
for use of facilities in the districts. He said he does not
believe it is necessary to add language in support of community
schools unless it is the intent of the legislature to provide
funding. This bill would not forbid school districts from
continuing the practice of charging for opening the buildings or
allowing an administrator to use the buildings for a variety of
programs.
Number 2294
CHAIR WILSON said that she wants the committee to be comfortable
with the language, but agrees with Representative Coghill that
there is nothing in the bill that prevents school districts from
continuing their community schools programs. Chair Wilson said
she is comfortable with the bill.
Number 2309
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA told the committee she is not comfortable
with the bill because it does not talk about funds, but talks
about repealing sections of statute. She asked how the bill
could be tweaked if the bill actually repeals eight sections of
statute. Representative Cissna said running community schools
programs is different from renting space. When renting space it
is just a question of filling out a form, but with community
schools programs there are many differences. She cited the
examples of advertising classes, and having many people coming
into the school at night. The whole school is alive at night.
She said this is very different.
Number 2351
CHAIR WILSON repeated her earlier statement concerning her
conversations with several superintendents of schools and that
none of them mentioned that they were concerned that these
services would disappear.
Number 2363
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he agrees with Chair Wilson
that the superintendents who are in place right now have a
structure that they are working with and that when reference in
statute goes away, those superintendents will continue the
programs. He said his concern is that the legislature is
setting state policy in place for all future superintendents
that have not been involved in this system and have not grown up
with this. So the fact that the legislature does not have any
mention or encouragement for the continuation of community
schools programs is an important point.
TAPE 03-27, SIDE B
Number 2380
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he understands that the governor's
intent is to eliminate the funding. The legislature is setting
the policy for all future superintendents who may come from
outside this state and may not be familiar with community
schools. Representative Seaton said he sees this as a system
policy, and would like to see the committee work with the
Department of Education and Early Development to accomplish
their goal and the legislature's as well.
Number 2357
CHAIR WILSON announced that no further action would be taken on
HB 165 until Thursday's meeting [April 3, 2003].
[HB 165 was held over.]
HB 154-UNDER SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS
Number 2337
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 154, "An Act relating to admission to and
advancement in public schools of children under school age; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 2318
EDDY JEANS, Manager, School Finance and Facilities Section,
Education Support Services, Department of Education and Early
Development, testified in support of HB 154 and answered
questions from the members. He told the committee the
Department of Education and Early Development and Governor
Murkowski have requested that the committee hear this bill
because it has come to the department's attention over the last
couple of years that there are a number of school districts in
the state that are enrolling basically all four-year-olds in
their communities into what is called a two-year kindergarten
program. The department has discouraged districts from entering
into this practice. The statute does have a loophole in it that
allows districts to provide early entry of under-school-aged
students if they are ready for the program that is being
offered. That is where the department runs into problems
because the program offered has broad language that leaves it
wide open for districts to interpret the language the way they
like. The department is not looking at this as a mechanism to
keep the four-year-old that is an exceptional child out of
public schools early. This is simply a way to provide direction
to all school districts that the intent of this legislation was
not to enroll all four-year-olds. The districts that are
practicing this are getting 14 years of funding as opposed to 13
years of funding through the foundation program. Mr. Jeans said
there is a fiscal note that shows a $3.9 million savings to the
foundation program.
Number 2231
JOHN DAVIS, Superintendent, Bering Strait School District,
testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 154. He said
Governor Murkowski has proposed several reductions in education
funding in an effort to control state expenditures in line with
revenues, and HB 154 is one of them. He asked why any
reasonable person would object to the needed sacrifice to
accomplish this goal. Mr. Davis said his concern is twofold.
The cost of the bill when saving money is in the short term.
This is about providing services to a group of children who are
the most vulnerable and the most educationally needy. He said
the reduction of funding for the program will not create the
$3.9 million savings represented. He contended that the bill
will cost his district and the state additional funds, remedial
services, and other special services to help a segment of the
student population that needs all the help it can get. Second,
the students most impacted by this bill are not large in number
and do not hold sway as many others do with other concerns. He
asked the committee not to ask more of these children than would
be asked of others. Early childhood education is clearly one of
the best investments in a child's education.
CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Jeans how much more it would cost the
state if every school started having two-year kindergarten.
Number 2175
MR. JEANS replied that the department has estimated that it
would cost approximately $60 million to the foundation program
if all four-year-olds in the state were enrolled in public
schools. The other piece of this equation that the committee
needs to be aware of is that any students that the state
provides funding for through the foundation program
automatically become eligible for space under the school
construction guidelines. In other words, the state would have
to build bigger schools to serve a larger population. He said
it is not just the foundation program that is being addressed;
it is the foundation program as well as school construction.
Number 2138
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards, testified in opposition to HB 154 and responded to
questions by the committee. He told the committee he agrees
with the comments the members just heard from Superintendent
Davis. There is an inconsistency that the committee is looking
at here. In 1998 the legislature passed the High School
Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) and it was recognized by
everyone then that it was the wrong end to start. That
recognition of the problem started the movement towards
benchmark examinations. What was determined after looking at
the benchmark scores was that the most critical benchmark was
the third grade because it was apparent to many that the kids
who were not on step by the first benchmark would not be able to
take advantage of the stronger curriculum that was going to be
offered. This had brought in the discussion of a preparation
gap. That preparation gap is children who come to school, some
of the most needy that Superintendent Davis was talking about,
who do not have a grasp of numbers, letters, or colors. Some of
these students are going to be placed in a situation at some
point in time where they will be measured up to standards, and
if they do not have the tools they need by the time they hit the
third-grade benchmark, they will be at risk.
MR. ROSE said that he was looking at statistics that come off a
web site that show in the large urban areas in terms of reading,
writing, and math, there is 75 percent proficiency in reading,
87 percent proficiency in writing, and 67 percent proficiency in
math. He contrasted that with large Western and Interior REAAs
[Rural Education Attendance Areas], and large Western single-
site schools where the numbers drop off dramatically, from 75
percent in reading to 24, 22, and 10 percent proficiency; in
writing from 87 percent to 56, 49, and 47 percent proficiency;
and in math from 67 percent to 30, 37, and 20 percent
proficiency.
Number 2016
MR. ROSE said the data is clear that the people who are availing
themselves of this particular program are the kids who need it
most. That is the inconsistency where the state has placed an
emphasis on student standards and benchmarks, and even retitled
the department of education to the Department of Education and
Early Development. He asked where the emphasis on early
development is. He said he agrees that there are other ways in
some communities to provide early development, but in
communities where proficiency is low, the only place these
children can go is the public school system. Mr. Rose asked in
talking about inconsistency and the preparation gap to make sure
kids are prepared to take advantage of the rich curriculum the
state will be offering them. He questioned how to deal with
this in areas that do not have the ability to do it for
themselves. It is a policy call that he hopes the committee
will look at that is not just about saving money or of having a
fear that every school district will avail itself by enrolling
all four-year-olds. Mr. Rose said he believes this is an
opportunity for those kids who need enrichment to get it, and he
hopes that more emphasis will be placed on early development.
Number 1982
CHAIR WILSON commented that this is a policy call. Do the
members believe the state should be offering a two-year
kindergarten program or not?
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Mr. Rose is suggesting that the
state limit the two-year kindergarten to rural districts and
prohibit the urban districts from having the same sorts of
funding.
Number 1959
MR. ROSE responded that is not what he is suggesting. He
clarified his comments by saying that some kids can avail
themselves of programs and have an opportunity to receive the
kind of enrichment they need, while other kids do not. As a
system, even through the foundation formula, the state tries to
account for that through the factoring that is done. He said he
is not suggesting that the state have two years of kindergarten
as a policy call. The question is how the kids whom need it
most can get the kind of assistance and enrichment they need.
That is the policy question that needs to be addressed.
Number 1937
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that many parents do not want
their children to leave for school at an early age. This would
not require two years of kindergarten; it only says they could
attend.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that many districts, including
urban districts and his district on the Kenai Peninsula, are
going through severe cuts because of a drop in student
population. If the two-year kindergarten program is available,
he said he is sure the Kenai Peninsula School District will
encourage everyone that it can possibly get to take advantage of
the program because it is a full-time equivalent for another
segment of students. Representative Seaton said that it would
not be necessary to build new schools; in fact, there are plenty
of rooms in the existing schools. But there would definitely be
a need for funds for more teachers.
Number 1865
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Mr. Jeans, if this bill passes,
whether youngsters who demonstrate the ability to progress
through the grade levels would be able to enroll.
MR. JEANS responded that he is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if he is correct in assuming there
is some discretionary measure with the districts on enrollment
policy.
Number 1850
MR. JEANS responded that he is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that this bill would not be
kicking kindergarteners out of school, but narrowing the scope.
MR. JEANS said he has made an effort to be very clear that this
bill is not intended to prohibit the exceptional four-year-old
from enrolling in kindergarten with the expectation that the
child will advance to the first grade in the next year. This
simply addresses an issue that the department has become aware
of since collecting student-level data from all school
districts. Some districts appear to be enrolling all four-year-
olds in their public schools and holding them at the
kindergarten level for a two-year period.
Number 1778
MARY FRANCIS, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, testified on HB 154. She pointed out that
exceptional children, both gifted and with special needs, do
have access to early participation in school programs. That is
mandated by law.
CHAIR WILSON clarified that with or without this bill,
exceptional children on both ends of the scale will be served.
MS. FRANCIS replied that is correct. She said there is an
appropriate screening device, which is part of the law. School
administrators developed a psychological test that students are
required to take for exceptionality that shows their preparation
for kindergarten, with the total expectation that they were
fully able to meet the kindergarten expectation and not spend
two years at that level.
CHAIR WILSON announced that the committee would take a brief at-
ease at 4:15 p.m. The committee reconvened at 4:18 p.m.
Number 1718
CHAIR WILSON announced that HB 154 would be held over.
HB 167-ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE GRANTS
Number 1699
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 167, "An Act relating to grants for alcoholism
and drug abuse programs; and providing for an effective date."
Chair Wilson stated that this is the third hearing for this bill
and there are individuals on line that did not have time to
speak to the bill in previous hearings.
CHAIR WILSON noted for the record that Representative Kapsner
has joined the meeting.
Number 1616
KEVIN MURPHY, Acting Director, Gateway Center for Human Services
in Ketchikan; President, Substance Abuse Directors Association,
testified via teleconference on HB 167. He said he believes
this is an important bill because of the tremendous impact on
programs that will be required to raise the cash match across
the state. Many programs are already facing waiting lists. He
told the committee that 70 percent of people that need treatment
either do not get it or cannot afford it, and the programs serve
many of these people. To ask the programs to go back to their
communities to pay for an additional 15 percent at this time is
really difficult. Mr. Murphy asked the committee to look at an
increase of 12.5 percent off the 10 percent match. The programs
could at least trim budgets, and the small programs could live
with that and not face having to cut services or kill programs.
He thanked the committee for their time and asked for
consideration of an alternative position to the 25 percent
reduction.
Number 1532
CHAIR WILSON agreed that HB 167 will implement a 25 percent
reduction in the grant funding for alcohol and drug abuse
programs, and that while these programs are not funded 100
percent by grant funds, the reduction will have an impact on the
programs.
Number 1504
STEPHEN SUNDBY, Ph.D., Behavioral Health Director, Bartlett
Memorial Hospital and Juneau Recovery Hospital, testified in
opposition to HB 167 and answered questions from the members.
He said he agrees with Mr. Murphy on the impact of these
reductions. There have not been increases in funding in over 10
years, so the communities have had to pick up the slack. He
told the committee that the Juneau community well overmatches
the 25 percent, so they interpret this as a 15 percent reduction
in their grant. What that means is that the hospital will take
an $84,000 cut. Currently, the hospital receives a little over
$560,000. With that reduction, including benefits, that is a
loss of a counselor. So services are going to be reduced if
this passes. He asked that the bill not be passed as is because
it will reduce services.
Number 1453
CHAIR WILSON asked Dr. Sundby what the full budget is for the
Juneau Recovery Hospital.
DR. SUNDBY told the committee that the full budget is $2.8
million. He said it receives $560,000 from AIDEA [Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority]. So Juneau
Recovery Hospital has met the 25 percent match for years. He
commented that what he believes he hears is that this bill will
reduce AIDEA's budget for grants. So what AIDEA will have to do
is reduce the grant dollars somewhere.
CHAIR WILSON inquired if that means this hospital will take a 15
percent reduction.
DR. SUNDBY replied that is correct; it will be a 15 percent
reduction. He said the way he understands the bill is that the
in-kind reimbursement will go from 10 to 25 percent, so it would
be a 15 percent cut in the grants that will have to be made up
by the communities.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wants to clarify how the numbers
work with this bill. He said if a community is already matching
over 25 percent, which is what this bill would accomplish, the
grant amount would actually get decreased as if there were a
match. Even though the hospital is already matching that
amount, the hospital will not get the same grant previously
obtained.
DR. SUNDBY responded that is correct. Even if AIDEA were to
keep the Juneau Recovery Hospital at the same grant amount, the
money would have to be made up somewhere else.
Number 1360
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how this reduction will impact
people. If the program loses one counselor, how many people
will be impacted by that loss? Are some of these people Title
47 individuals in treatment? What does this reduction mean to a
waitlist for families and jobs?
DR. SUNDBY replied that the outpatient counselors are carrying a
caseload of just under 30. If the program were to lose a
counselor, that means there are 30 people, just at this moment,
that would not be receiving treatment. So these individuals
would have to be waitlisted. If those individuals were in
treatment for six months, the reduction would impact 60
individuals per year at the barest minimum who would have to be
waitlisted.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what it means when an individual
has to be waitlisted.
DR. SUNDBY responded that it means the individual is placed on a
list and as soon as someone comes off of treatment and there is
a slot open, then the individual begins treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if people who are on waitlists
typically keep on abusing substances until they begin treatment.
DR. SUNDBY said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that these individuals do not
just wait until there is room for them in the program.
DR. SUNDBY replied that if they can wait, then these individuals
probably would not need the treatment.
CHAIR WILSON asked if there is a waitlist right now.
DR. SUNDBY said that for many programs there are waitlists, but
for the Juneau Recovery Hospital there is no waitlist currently.
If someone needs treatment today, the hospital can have him or
her assessed within a week and into treatment right away. If
the hospital were to lose a counselor, then that would put a
bigger load on the counselors there, and it is a contributing
factor in the turnover rate. The more asked of counselors, the
more the stress level goes up, and the more likely the hospital
will lose staff. This is a major issue for all of the treatment
providers.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Dr. Sundby if the 60 people per
year he mentioned are only for the Juneau Recovery Hospital, not
statewide.
DR. SUNDBY responded that is not statewide. He clarified that
the number he provided is a conservative estimate for the Juneau
Recovery Hospital.
Number 1227
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that if an individual who is on
the waitlist begins or continues to drink, in order for the
treatment to be successful the individual must be sober.
DR. SUNDBY told the members that it is essential to strike when
the individual is willing to come into treatment. If the
individual does not get in right away, there is a lost
opportunity. In response to Representative Cissna question
about detoxification, Dr. Sundby said individuals are placed in
a medically managed detoxification program if it is available.
Currently, that is available and there is no waitlist for that
treatment; however, for services beyond that such as outpatient
services, an individual may have to wait in line to get that
treatment. It is not a very good option, because the individual
has probably gone back out and will likely have to go through
detoxification again.
Number 1150
MR. MURPHY responded to Representative Kapsner's earlier
question concerning the number of individuals on waitlists. He
said that he will supply the committee with the numbers. Mr.
Murphy told the committee that the number is significant,
especially with respect to women and children's programs.
Alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs are being asked to
lessen the impact on the Division of Family and Youth Services,
where parents and children have substance abuse issues. This is
a population group that has a very high percentage of those
needing treatment. There continues to be a greater and greater
need of higher-treatment capacities. That is one of the primary
reasons this legislation is so crucial at this time. It is
essential that the state not reduce treatment capacity.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said that because she is pregnant, she is
very concerned about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). She asked if
individuals who have been identified under Title 47 are
waitlisted.
MR. MURPHY responded that pregnant women are a first priority
and are not waitlisted. Also, anyone who is using needles or
may have other health-related issues are at the top of the
priority list, and a bed would be found for those individuals.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what would happen if a mother had
small children.
MR. MURPHY responded that the Women's Resource Center in
Anchorage does accommodate some children, but it has had to cut
its beds from 45 to 17 beds in the last year and a half. There
is a definite shortage for a patient who needs placement with
small children.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that it is so important to get
pregnant women into treatment as soon as possible. He asked Mr.
Murphy, if a woman walks in who is pregnant, whether his
facility would be able to admit her into treatment right away,
or whether she would be placed first on the list to prevent the
disaster that will inevitably occur.
MR. MURPHY replied that the City of Ketchikan contributes to
this program, so between the city and the state grants, the
program would find a treatment bed for this woman. He said that
for people who come to the treatment facility and show a desire
for treatment, his program will find a bed for them or work with
them while they are on the waiting list.
Number 0907
JANET MCCABE, Chair, Partners for Progress, testified in
opposition to HB 167. She told the committee that Partners for
Progress is the nonprofit organization that works with Judge
Wanamaker's' wellness court [Anchorage Wellness Court]. The
organization supports the development of therapeutic courts
throughout the state. She asked the members to look at the
second page of the handout she provided to the committee titled
"Alaska Almanac of Alcoholism and Jail".
MS. MCCABE told the committee her organization is opposed to
this bill for three major reasons. First, the treatment
agencies are really important to the therapeutic courts. These
are key elements to their success, since without treatment,
agencies there would be no working therapeutic courts. These
agencies are already strapped for money, and this bill would
require that they raise another 15 percent of the cost at the
same time that municipal revenue sharing is being reduced. This
actually gives community alcohol-abuse programs a double cut.
She pointed out that alcohol abuse is hugely expensive to the
state and the public. Regardless of an individual's view of
alcoholics, it is a practical matter that treatment be
delivered. Of the 8 or 9 percent of problem drinkers, each
problem drinker will affect at least four additional people -
mothers, fathers, children, families, victims, et cetera. This
means that between 30 to 40 percent of Alaska's population is
affected by alcoholism. Some of the problems are pretty
obvious, for example, driving under the influence of alcohol
[DUI], child abuse and neglect, poor health and dependence,
domestic violence, and all the costs associated with this
problem. The cost of alcohol abuse in Alaska is $453,000,000.
Treatment programs like this should not be cut. It is important
to think of the long-term problem.
Number 0725
MS. MCCABE told the committee that one Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
(FAS) child will cost the public about $1.4 million over the
child's life. Alcohol abuse is the gorilla in our midst, and
community programs designed to address alcohol abuse should not
be cut. The final reason for opposition to this bill is that
last year when the legislature passed HB 225 increasing the tax
rate on alcoholic beverage sales, it was directed that half of
the tax collected be deposited in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Treatment Fund. Much of this money comes from local businesses
and communities, and she said it does not seem consistent with
the previous policy to cut treatment money this year. In
conclusion, she said she believes this bill is contrary to the
intent of the Alcohol Beverage Sales Tax last year and
especially harmful to the Alaska population overall.
Number 0649
MARLA LIPPARD, Clinical Director, Gastineau Human Services,
testified in opposition to HB 167. She told the committee that
Gastineau Human Services (GHS) provides correctional services,
substance abuse, and mental health treatment, and is opposed to
HB 167, which would raise the match from 10 to 25 percent. All
regions of Alaska currently lack the treatment capacity to deal
with their local needs. The demand far exceeds the capacity to
provide treatment. The statistics just given by Partners for
Progress demonstrate that it makes no sense to lower the
treatment capacity. Public safety, emergency health services,
and the criminal justice system end up paying more. Families
and communities end up paying more in personal losses. If the
formula from respected national research shows $7 is paid for
every $1 invested in treatment, she said this kind of cut will
cost the state an estimated $21 million in other costs. Across
Alaska, programs will have to find an additional $3.6 million in
their communities to make up the difference, when most
municipalities are struggling to keep core services. Ms.
Lippard told the committee that treatment facilities in some
communities are going to close. Treatment programs have not had
an increase to their budgets, primarily through state grants, in
10 years. It has already cost their operating budgets 25
percent.
MS. LIPPARD said that HB 167 would cut $1.5 million out of
programs serving thousands in the Anchorage bowl area. It would
cut nearly $250,000 for programs out of Bristol Bay. It would
cut more than $500,000 in programs serving Southeast
communities, and nearly $350,000 out of the Fairbanks area.
Gastineau Human Services serves 300-400 indigent and low-income
individuals in the Juneau area every year. It is done on a
$360,000 budget and cannot be done on any less. There is a
waitlist at any time of approximately 70 people. In summary,
Ms. Lippard asked the committee to consider 12.5 percent or 15
percent, but not 25 percent, as a reduction.
Number 0425
JANET FORBES, Outpatient Coordinator, Gastineau Human Services,
testified in opposition to HB 167. She said GHS has a waiting
list that is two to three months out. That is one to two people
per day that are waiting for assessments. It puts the community
at risk and it puts families at risk. Gastineau Human Services
receives referrals from the court system at enormous rates. The
inmate substance abuse treatment (ISAT) program was cut from the
prisons, so that means GHS will be getting those individuals
into the treatment programs. If this money is cut, GHS will
probably lose two or three counselors, while the number of
individuals who require case management will continue to rise.
This will put more and more people at risk. She urged the
committee to definitely consider not cutting this funding.
Number 0331
MS. FORBES noted that GHS's treatment program picks up FAS
issues, mental health issues, and medical issues, and serves the
person as a whole. This bill is not just cutting treatment of
chemical dependency. She urged the committee not to cut these
programs. She agreed with Ms. Lippard's statement that possibly
12 percent or 15 percent, but not 25 percent [would be an
acceptable reduction].
CHAIR WILSON asked if GHS collects statistics to see what
percentage is successful.
Number 0246
MS. FORBES replied that it does keep statistics, which are
turned in to the state. Recovery is a process and GHS normally
sees individuals once, twice, or even three times through the
system. That is not uncommon. Gastineau Human Services has had
individuals who have come through the program that were chronic
alcoholics. These are people that lived on the street, that are
now leading fruitful lives. At times they relapse, but they
keep coming back, and that is the key. These people are
employed, off the street, and not into the criminal justice
system as they used to be.
CHAIR WILSON asked what percentage have been successful through
the GHS program.
MS. LIPPARD responded that for individuals who complete GHS's
program, after one year approximately 70 percent have full-time
employment.
CHAIR WILSON asked what is the percentage of those who complete
the program.
MS. LIPPARD replied that 40 percent complete the program. She
told the committee that GHS has assistance in getting completion
because many [referrals] are court-mandated.
CHAIR WILSON asked for clarification that of the 40 percent who
complete the program, 70 percent are full-time employed after
one year.
MS. LIPPARD commented that GHS surveys these individuals at that
one-year mark, and while they may be employed when surveyed,
does not mean they have been employed the entire year. It is a
state survey that is designed and worded by the state. The
question reads something like: "Are you employed full-time (30
to 40 hours)."
Number 0065
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Ms. Lippard if she knows of other
indicators of success. She said she knows there are functional
and working alcoholics. If so, what are those indicators?
MS. LIPPARD said an obvious indicator is whether the individual
is drunk or not.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if an indicator could be fewer
family visits to the shelter or that the individual was a binge
drinker, but not to the extent that the person lost his/her
house, car, or job.
MS. LIPPARD said that there are indicators such as fewer visits
to the hospital, or law enforcement involvement. She offered to
forward the outcome statistics to the committee that she feels
might be helpful.
TAPE 03-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WILSON asked Mr. Lindstrom if he could present the
committee with statistics on the success of treatment programs
throughout the state. Are there some programs that have been
more successful than others?
Number 0068
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Office
of the Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services,
testified on HB 167 and answered questions from the members.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the members to look at the "Chemical
Dependency Treatment Outcome" study that he referred to at the
last committee hearing on this bill. This study was done in
1998, and while the department does collect ongoing data, the
department does not have any more recent reports to share with
the committee.
MR. LINDSTROM asked the members to look at the Executive Summary
of the report. These bullets will give the committee a good
sense of the types of outcomes that the department felt
confident provided good data at that point in time. It is quite
consistent with outcomes in other jurisdictions. Generally
speaking, clients in outpatient treatment who receive at least
50 hours of care have the best chance of success. There is a
somewhat less successful rate for residential patients because
those patients are more severely impacted than folks that are in
outpatient treatment at the outset. He told the committee he
does not have any really current data, but he said he believes
this might be useful information for the committee.
Number 0231
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if the statistics are comparable
with other states.
MR. LINDSTROM responded that these outcome statistics are very
comparable with other jurisdictions. He pointed to the
[undated] "Dear Reader" letter in the packet [Chemical
Dependency Treatment Outcome Final Report - December 1998] where
it says [paragraph four, last sentence], "These findings also
compare very positively to studies done at programs elsewhere in
the nation." Mr. Lindstrom said he would follow up with the
division to see if there is more current data available, but he
believes this is the best and most credible information
collected.
CHAIR WILSON read the first bullet in the Executive Summary,
where it said:
Of Alaskan patients surveyed, 56 percent of those in
outpatient programs abstained from alcohol for one
year after treatment, compared to 42 percent of
residential patients. Outpatients in the study
received an average of 59 hours of care, while
patients in residential programs received an average
of 39 days of inpatient care.
Number 0366
MR. MURPHY told the members that he has been working with a
committee for the last six months that includes the Division of
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Division of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities, and the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment to have a web-based evaluation system that will be
coming on line in the next six months. In terms of having an
integrated outcome data system, this is something the Substance
Abuse Directors Association has pushed for. He said this
program will provide the outcome data needed on a daily basis to
assist in policy decisions.
Number 0481
MR. LINDSTROM told the committee that the department would be
happy to sit down with the committee and have an in-depth
briefing and discussion on the subjects of outcome, treatment,
and success.
Number 0499
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the issue is as huge and
deep as the committee wants to go in Alaska, and that there are
some specifics in the package that he wants to ask Mr. Lindstrom
about. Representative Coghill said there are 58 programs out of
the 115 programs that are exempted from the match requirements.
There are 15 programs that are under-$30,000 grants that show a
10 percent match rate. He said he got a letter from Pamela
Watts in which she suggested that these programs be held
harmless. Representative Coghill asked if that is true under
this particular legislation.
MR. LINDSTROM responded that while he has not counted up the
numbers, he suspects that Representative Coghill has counted
accurately. These are the small suicide-prevention grants for
small communities that are exempted entirely. Some other
prevention grants were exempted entirely, such as the local
match requirement for some small treatment programs, very
specifically serving women and children for some of the reasons
the members have heard in previous testimony. The department
retains the ability under statute to further exempt programs
from the match on an individual basis. However, the department
wants to caution the committee that an exemption from a program
would by all likelihood require further reductions elsewhere in
the grants.
Number 0664
MR. LINDSTROM said he does not intend to turn the meeting into a
budget meeting, but asked the members to look at the budget
proposed by the governor relative to the current work plan in
the current year. There is a significant increase when all
funding sources are considered of about $4 million for substance
abuse programs. The department is focusing on those program
areas mentioned earlier, specifically, women and children, and
adolescents in rural areas. There are a whole host of changes
that are going on, and there are losses of federal funds in some
areas, a loss of mental health trust funds in some areas, and
some increases in mental health trust funds in other areas. A
lot of things are going on in the budget, but the bottom line
and the demonstration of this administration's commitment to
substance abuse treatment "when you net all of those out" is
that there is about a $4 million increase in funding.
MR. LINDSTROM said what was heard from a lot of treatment
providers this afternoon is that it will not be easy to get
there. He said he is not underestimating the problems folks
were describing with regard to how difficult it will be to meet
the enhanced match requirement, nor does he want to minimize the
work that providers and the state will have to do to help
generate additional Medicaid funding into the programs. But if
everyone works together and things go as the administration
believes it can, he said the end result for fiscal year 2004
will be an increase in total funding for substance abuse
treatment programs in the state.
Number 0776
MR. LINDSTROM said that in the absence of this bill's passing,
he does not want any of the providers to believe that
necessarily means that the $1.6 million associated with this
bill will somehow magically be restored to the budget. These
funds are out of the budget as proposed by the governor, and it
will be a budget reduction in the absence of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated that there is a provision in
this bill to provide exemptions where it can be demonstrated as
necessary. At this point, over half of the programs have
already demonstrated that need. Thirteen of those programs are
in those exempt areas or Class A grant awards, which are
$30,000-limit grants. A significant portion of the programs are
being relieved of this possible reduction. He said for those
that are not exempt, community effort will be appropriate.
CHAIR WILSON announced that she will hear the last person signed
up to testify today. At the next meeting there will not be any
testimony taken.
Number 0894
ERIN CRUZ, Correctional Programs Director, Gastineau Human
Services, testified in opposition to HB 167. She told the
members that she sees 700 people per year come through the
community residential center; 10 percent of those go through the
treatment programs, and they are all indigent and coming out of
prison. These people need to have treatment before they can go
to school, work, or get on their feet.
Number 0950
MS. CRUZ told the committee if this treatment goes away there
will be other repercussions that will occur. There will be an
increase in domestic violence, an increase in fetal alcohol
syndrome, and other domino effects with these people not getting
into treatment. There will probably be a $40,000 cut, but [GHS
is] dealing off of a budget of $360,000. The budget has already
been dropped to $330,000, and if another $40,000 is cut, the
legislature needs to understand that there will be
repercussions. It will affect not only alcoholics, but also
their families. There will be a lot more people in hospitals.
Ms. Cruz said that while she hears all the numbers, the real
impact is what will happen to the people. She pointed out that
one in six people in Alaska is an alcoholic.
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked about the workforce issue. She said
she is aware of the enormous pressure on nonprofit organizations
with cuts to the budgets and rising insurance costs. She asked
if the decrease in funding will affect GHS's ability to get
workers and retain them.
Number 1075
MS. CRUZ responded that this cut will absolutely affect its
employees. She said GHS has been working on the 2004 budget and
finds that it will be a $153,000 loss in the behavioral health
programs, and two programs have ended that were very beneficial
to this community. Many programs are at or just below the
break-even point, and GHS is really scrambling for grants. She
told the committee that May 1 is the last day of the recycling
program, the junk busters program will end, and several other
programs cannot be done anymore. Gastineau Human Services will
lose one to three counselors. Its personnel work at 150
percent, and it is not possible to ask more of them. There has
been discussion about cutting wages, but if that is done, GHS
will lose people.
Number 1123
CHAIR WILSON commented that these are not easy decisions that
have to be made, and no matter what the members do, it affects
people.
CHAIR WILSON announced that next Thursday this bill will be
heard again. This has been the third hearing on HB 167, so
testimony will not be taken at that meeting.
Number 1167
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there would be a vote on a
proposed amendment today.
CHAIR WILSON stated that there would not be any votes taken
today. At the next meeting there will be discussion among
committee members, and amendments will be taken up at that time.
[HB 167 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|