Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/10/2011 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Citizen Review Panel | |
| Office of Children's Services | |
| Alaska Children's Alliance | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 2011
3:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Alan Dick, Vice Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Bob Miller
Representative Charisse Millett
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL
- HEARD
OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
- HEARD
ALASKA CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN HEUER, Chair
Citizen Review Panel
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, "Alaska's Citizen
Review Panel" and answered questions.
CHRISTY LAWTON, Acting Director
Central Office
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during an
update by the Citizen Review Panel.
PAM KARALUNAS, Chapter Coordinator
Alaska Children's Alliance
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, "Alaska Children's
Alliance Update on CACs 2011."
BRIAN MESSING, Program Manager
Southeast Alaska Family Evaluation Child Advocacy Center
Alaska Children's Alliance
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
PowerPoint presentation by the Alaska Children's Alliance.
JESSICA LAWMASTER, Program Manager
Haven House, Kenai Peninsula Alaska Children's Alliance
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
PowerPoint presentation by the Alaska Children's Alliance.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:05:35 PM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Representatives Keller, Dick, Millett, and Miller were present
at the call to order. Representative Seaton arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Citizen Review Panel
PRESENTATION(S): Citizen Review Panel
3:05:58 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation by the Citizen Review Panel.
3:09:18 PM
SUSAN HEUER, Chair, Citizen Review Panel, introduced the
PowerPoint entitled "Alaska's Citizen Review Panel." [Included
in members' packets] She stated that the Citizen Review Panel
(CRP) was currently comprised of seven volunteer members, slide
1, "Citizen Review Panel: Who." In response to Chair Keller,
she explained that the CRP members would travel to a larger hub
community, and split into groups of two for visitations to
smaller surrounding communities. These visitations would focus
on discussions with staff from the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) and its community partners, as shown on slide 2, "What,"
and then report on the findings. She stated that they did not
visit with any of the cases.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, referring to slide 3, "Where," asked about
the communities in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region.
MS. HEUER replied that the CRP had prioritized its visitations
for communities with the biggest crises.
3:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK encouraged visitations to interior
Athabascan villages.
3:14:14 PM
MS. HEUER addressed slide 5, "Why" and slide 6, "Benefits of
CRP," and reported that there was a CRP in every state for
"grassroots feedback from the communities and the families about
how well services are being delivered." She stated "We're the
eyes and ears of both the public and for you and OCS and we take
this very seriously." She explained that CRP had the unique
function of identifying and advocating for the ancillary
services that OCS could not request, offering as an example, the
Western Region in Bethel. She outlined the presentation, slide
7, "Overview of presentation," to include the prior year's
recommendations, a response from OCS on the CRP annual report,
and reviews and recommendations from this year.
3:16:01 PM
MS. HEUER discussed slide 8, slide 9, and slide 10 "CRP
recommendations from our work last year, Recommendations to
OCS." These recommendations included a need to acknowledge and
address the discrepancy between rural, bush and urban child
protection; a concern for OCS front line workers to have
adequate support staff to allow a focus on social work, not
paperwork; and a suggestion that the training for new OCS
workers be modified to better reflect the on-the-ground reality
of the job. She moved on to slide 11, slide 12, slide 13, and
slide 14, "CRP recommendations from our work last year,
Recommendations to the Legislature." These included a need to
acknowledge and address the discrepancy between rural, bush and
urban child protection; a need to clarify which agency assumed
fiscal responsibility for transportation of children to a child
advocacy center (CAC); a request for capital budget funding for
housing and facility work for OCS and its workers; and a request
that Alaska standardize the resources available to all state
agencies, including internet and housing.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked about the time sensitivity for the
transportation of children to a CAC.
MS. HEUER reported that it was necessary within hours.
3:18:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify which was necessary in a
few hours, financial responsibility or response.
MS. HEUER explained the delays caused by discussion of
responsibility during requests for transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that the response for
transportation was the same in rural and urban areas.
MS. HEUER offered her belief that there was "some kind of a
glitch in the statutes that makes that discussion possible, and
so that needs to be resolved so kids just get on the next plane
and go."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked who to contact if legislators were
made aware of a two to three week delay for transportation and
evaluation.
MS. HEUER suggested that this was a question for Ms. Lawton.
3:21:57 PM
MS. HEUER, explaining that a lack of housing in rural areas was
a major impediment to OCS staff recruitment and retention, asked
that a housing budget be created.
CHAIR KELLER asked if there had been any comparison for this as
an issue in urban areas.
MS. HEUER replied that this was primarily a retention factor for
rural areas.
3:24:04 PM
MS. HEUER, referring to slide 14, stated that the resources
available to all state agencies should be standardized. She
opined that OCS had fewer resources to utilize for retention.
MS. HEUER, addressing slide 15, "OCS Response to CRP
Recommendations," and referred to the alleged discrepancy for
child protective services in urban and rural areas. She stated
the OCS response to be: "Safety is safety, regardless of
location. They have the same expectations; the resources have
been allocated to accomplish this." She expressed encouragement
that it was the statewide policy; she opined, however, that this
was not the practice. She related that OCS had acknowledged
staff retention problems to be a barrier.
MS. HEUER moved on to slide 16, "OCS Response to CRP
Recommendations." She noted that almost every OCS line worker
interviewed had expressed the need for more support staff. She
relayed that OCS had acknowledged this problem, and was studying
the workloads in OCS offices statewide. She stated that one
suggested solution was to reallocate jobs throughout the state
for a more equitable caseload. She reported that OCS was also
studying the best ratio of support staff to social workers.
MS. HEUER spoke about slide 17 "OCS Response to CRP
Recommendations" and stated that the OCS response to training
for new workers was to update the training curriculum and create
a supervisor strategic plan. She expressed her encouragement
for the OCS responses to the issues.
3:28:24 PM
MS. HEUER, directing attention to slide 18, "CRP: This year's
report card," stated that in prior years there had been
criticism of OCS from both communities and CRP. She
acknowledged that OCS had worked hard to comply with the
requirements of the federal Program Improvement Plan, reflecting
in an improvement of child protection policies.
MS. HEUER pointed to slide 19, "Visited Bethel & Wasilla," and
reported on the two site visits each to both Bethel and Wasilla.
She reported on the difficulties of recruitment and retention in
Bethel, and she stated that the Wasilla office "had its own
unique set of challenges." She offered her belief that, as
policies were implemented and staffs were trained, things would
change.
3:30:59 PM
MS. HEUER addressed slide 21, "2011 CRP Recommendations," and
stressed that OCS needed financial support to hire more clerical
staff.
3:32:04 PM
MS. HEUER shared slide 22, "2011 CRP Recommendations," renewed
the CRP request to standardize resources for state agencies, and
pointed specifically to internet connections and housing as two
critical issues.
3:32:44 PM
MS. HEUER moved to slide 23, "2011 CRP Recommendations," and
suggested an external audit of the Wasilla OCS office as a step
toward the resolution of its problems.
3:33:37 PM
MS. HEUER concluded with slide 24, "Most importantly," stating
the Bethel and Wasilla staff concern that the stress and
workload did not allow for the desired level of child
protection. She opined that caseload responses were reactive,
not proactive. She offered support to the OCS requests for
staff redeployment. She stated: "the Wasilla office is in
crisis."
3:35:46 PM
CHAIR KELLER expressed his appreciation for this constructive
work with OCS.
3:35:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked what Bethel and Wasilla specifically
needed, and if that was possible for the legislators to offer.
CHAIR KELLER asked to wait for the OCS response.
3:36:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested that housing in rural Alaska
was a problem for most state agencies.
MS. HEUER agreed, but pointed out that some agencies had
housing, whereas OCS did not. She reflected on the savings from
not having a continual retraining due to a lack of staff
retention.
3:38:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if this was a request for permanent
or transitional housing.
MS. HEUER replied that it was for permanent housing.
^Office of Children's Services
Office of Children's Services
3:39:20 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be
a presentation by the Office of Children's Services.
CHRISTY LAWTON, Acting Director, Central Office, Office of
Children's Services, Department of Health and Social Services,
reflected on the evolving relationship between OCS and the CRP,
noting that it was now an effective working relationship. She
updated the progress of the Western Region, in Bethel, and
confirmed that it now had its own management and administrative
structure. She reported that some of the key leadership
positions were still unfilled, but that Bethel had full staffing
for the front line positions. She affirmed that OCS was working
hard to find staff.
3:44:21 PM
MS. LAWTON expressed her disagreement with CRP regarding the
difference for child protective services in rural versus urban
areas. She opined that it was an equitable response, but she
recognized the problems for very small understaffed offices in
making effective, timely response. She suggested that some of
the rural offices were not aware of all the resources available,
and that OCS was developing a better system for information
dissemination.
3:46:11 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked for details about the transportation
decisions.
MS. LAWTON explained that a protective services report was filed
by a worker, in partnership with the regional staff. She
pointed out that staff in rural communities often arranged
directly with the transportation carriers, with payment to be
paid at a later date.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about the coordination of
responsibility between Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO),
Alaska State Troopers, and OCS personnel for villages without
OCS staff.
3:48:08 PM
MS. LAWTON explained that once an OCS staff received a report,
they contacted the local law enforcement, VPSO, or tribal
representative in that community and, dependent on the nature of
the report, requested accompaniment for the initial assessment
and investigation.
3:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how OCS would become involved, if
the initial report was placed with the VPSO.
MS. LAWTON replied that a call for concern to OCS would come
from the VPSO, the Alaska State Troopers, or a tribal
representative. If necessary, OCS would organize the
collaborative effort with the necessary agencies, including
contact with the child advocacy centers. She clarified that it
was OCS's responsibility for the necessary evaluations and
assessments for child maltreatment.
3:52:19 PM
MS. LAWTON, responding to the CRP recommendation for more
support staff, stated that there was agreement to the need for
more social service associate staff, and that a suggestion for
evaluation had been included in the strategic plan to the
supervisors. She confirmed her need to better understand the
equitable positioning of clerical administrative and social
service associate staff throughout OCS offices. She shared that
research was being conducted for optimal staffing numbers.
3:55:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected on the difficulties encountered
with the OCS data programming and asked if this had been
resolved.
MS. LAWTON reported that $1 million had been invested in rural
area improvements. She confirmed that there were still more
delays than for the systems with fiber optic cable connections.
3:56:49 PM
MS. LAWTON, in response to Chair Keller, explained that the
pilot project for increased internet speed and program
performance was completed in Bethel, but was still being
implemented in other rural offices. She confirmed that this was
not as effective as the fiber optic connections. She pointed
out that a program had been installed to improve the speed and
performance for the OCS program.
3:58:40 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked about the pay range for front line workers
and social service associate staff. He asked if there was an
option to hire support staff without licensing.
4:00:09 PM
MS. LAWTON provided that the starting pay for a frontline social
worker or children's service specialist was about $39,000. She
clarified that not all social workers were licensed; those who
have a degree in social work are required to have a social work
license, but those classified as children's services specialist
are not. She responded that the scope of work for volunteers
would vary, but often it was difficult to find staff to orient
and supervise the volunteers.
4:02:33 PM
MS. LAWTON, responding to the suggestion for improved training,
reported that new worker training had been increased from two
weeks to four weeks. She shared that there were many ideas for
more specialized continued professional development training.
4:04:04 PM
MS. LAWTON confirmed that OCS was continuing its efforts for
staff retention, which would alleviate much of the work load
issues.
MS. LAWTON, in response to Representative Millett, said that
there were 215 Level 1 or 2 social workers, and 6 Level 3
facilitators. She replied that the average retention was 18
months.
4:06:49 PM
MS. LAWTON agreed with an earlier statement that the OCS Wasilla
office had many complex issues and challenges. She reported
that a case by case evaluation to review procedures, and
examination of the supervisory and management levels, were top
priorities for creating a healthy, productive, effective working
environment. She pointed to the rapid increase of case loads in
Wasilla, without the corresponding increase in resources, as a
problem.
CHAIR KELLER asked how the Wasilla OCS caseload compared to the
other offices in Alaska.
MS. LAWTON replied that the significantly higher caseloads in
Wasilla did not allow workers the time to make a proper
evaluation.
4:11:54 PM
CHAIR KELLER pointed to previous audits of OCS, and opined that
these had not resulted in a justifiable use of those resources
necessary to do the audit, as the tendency was to find fault
rather than solutions.
MS. LAWTON endorsed a multi faceted approach for a strategic
plan to implement the review process, and that there was a
search for the correct methodology. She affirmed that the
Wasilla family to family project had not received the necessary
nurturing.
4:15:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked what the Alaska State Legislature
could do for more effective, efficient change.
MS. LAWTON replied that once the problems were identified, most
of the work could be accomplished within OCS.
4:17:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER suggested that more rural housing would
help.
MS. LAWTON replied that housing would help with retention. She
asked for support to increase the public perception of the value
for OCS staff.
4:18:24 PM
MS. LAWTON, in response to Representative Seaton, explained that
TDM, team decision making meetings, were facilitated by OCS
staff members and included the parents, the child, family
members, the OCS worker, and support people during discussions
for making a placement change for the child.
4:19:38 PM
CHAIR KELLER offered his belief that engagement of the community
was the answer to many of these problems. He declared that
policy decisions should not reflect that the state would
immediately become a surrogate parent.
^Alaska Children's Alliance
Alaska Children's Alliance
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation by the Alaska Children's Alliance.
PAM KARALUNAS, Chapter Coordinator, Alaska Children's Alliance,
introduced the other attending members, and asked the committee
for ongoing support for child advocacy centers (CAC).
4:23:20 PM
MS. KARALUNAS presented a PowerPoint, "Alaska Children's
Alliance Update on CACs 2011." [Included in members' packets]
She directed attention to slide 2, "Alaska Children's Alliance,"
which stated that the group's mission was to "promote a
culturally appropriate multidisciplinary response to child
maltreatment throughout Alaska." She moved on to talk about
slide 3, "National Children's Alliance," which set standards for
CACs, and provided support, training, technical assistance, and
accreditation. She talked about the history of the Children's
Alliance in Huntsville, Alabama. She presented slide 4, "Alaska
Children's Alliance provides:" and stated that ACA provided
technical assistance and support, and offered limited funding
through national grants. She spoke about the statewide
projects, slide 5, which included the TeleCam medical peer
review, the biennial Alaska Child Maltreatment Conference, the
forensic photography training, and the statewide data
collection.
4:25:23 PM
MS. KARALUNAS directed attention to slide 6, and spoke about the
Alaska specific projects, which included: training for tribal
entities for regional CACs, development of satellite CACs, and
training for effective support volunteers.
MS. KARALUNAS reported that there were ten CACs, slide 7.
BRIAN MESSING, Program Manager, Southeast Alaska Family
Evaluation Child Advocacy Center, Alaska Children's Alliance,
clarified that the CACs worked together, and he spoke about the
individual CACs: slide 8, Anchorage; slide 9, Bethel; slide 10,
Copper River Basin; and slide 11, Dillingham.
MS. KARALUNAS, in reference to the Copper River Basin CAC, said
that OCS and public safety were both located nearby.
4:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked about the CAC funding.
MS. KARALUNAS replied that Senator Stevens had directed federal
funding to the model, and that funding for the last two years
had come entirely from the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked the time sensitivity for an
evaluation, if there was to be prosecution.
MS. KARALUNAS replied that child sexual abuse generally went on
for a very long time, often without any forensic evidence. She
offered her belief that forensic evidence was most obtainable
for 72 hours.
4:33:10 PM
JESSICA LAWMASTER, Program Manager, Haven House, Kenai Peninsula
Alaska Children's Alliance, explained that quicker was better
for the forensic interview. She pointed out that the need for
safety was more unique in rural communities.
MR. MESSING noted that all the CACs were regional. He presented
slide 12, Fairbanks; slide 13, Juneau; slide 14, Kenai
Peninsula; slide 15, Kodiak; slide 16, Mat-Su; and slide 17,
Nome.
MS. LAWMASTER listed the core components of CACs, which
included: slide 18, "A child and family friendly environment for
coordination of investigative process;" slide 19, "A child
forensic interview should be conducted at a CAC... by
interviewers who have specialized training;" slide 20, "The
multidisciplinary response investigation reduces duplicative
interviews, so basically this response, instead of trying to fit
children into the adult system... brings all of the different
professionals to that child;" slide 21, "The specialized non-
traumatic medical exam... so a child can get a head to toe exam,
or a well child check exam...it might be important for that
child to hear from a medical professional that his or her body
is okay, regardless of what happened to them;" slide 22, "On-
going support and follow up for the family throughout the system
process;" slide 23, "Culturally competent services... Bethel
actually has forensic interviewers that are bilingual that can
conduct forensic interviews in English and in Yupik;" and slide
24, "CACs provide collaboration with mental health services for
earlier response to referrals."
4:42:38 PM
MS. LAWMASTER discussed slide 25, "Case Review:" and stated that
all the centers had monthly child abuse case reviews, which
enhanced the process and allowed for efficient sharing of
information. She explained slide 26, "Case Tracking," and
reported that all the CACs used a comprehensive national data
base case tracking system through the National Children's
Alliance. She stated that CACs provided "community awareness,
education, and outreach, so we are constantly out in our
communities," slide 27.
4:44:54 PM
MS. KARALUNAS pointed to slide 28, and established that child
sexual abuse was significantly linked to an increased risk for
suicide attempts, depression, illicit drug use, and other
"things that kill us as adults." She moved on to slide 29, "Did
you know?" which estimated the annual cost of child abuse to be
$103.8 billion. She presented slide 30, "Why the CAC Model?"
and stated that prior to the CAC, the system would further
traumatize the child and the family. She stated, slide 31, that
it now cost less per case, and it took less time to prosecute
cases. She reviewed slide 32, "Our Children Deserve Nothing
Less!" and mentioned that this child friendly, collaborative,
supportive environment made sense. She offered slide 33 and
stated that 35 percent of the children seen at Alaska CACs were
boys, and that 65 percent were girls.
4:48:26 PM
MS. KARALUNAS directed attention to slide 35, "Numbers of
children served," and offered additional information to anyone
interested in the numbers in their area.
4:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked if the location of the CACs within the
community was critical.
MS. KARALUNAS replied that it needed to be easily accessible,
but in a subdued, less obvious setting.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that the best location
was next to a clinic.
MS. KARALUNAS, in response to Representative Dick, said that the
Copper River Basin CAC was more isolated.
4:53:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|