02/07/2005 01:30 PM Senate HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB84 | |
| SB51 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2005
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson, Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chair
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyda Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 84
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of investigations, court
hearings, and public agency records and information in child-in-
need-of-aid matters and certain child protection matters;
relating to immunity regarding disclosure of information in
child-in- need-of-aid matters and certain child protection
matters; amending Rules 3 and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 51
"An Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public
assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for
regional public assistance plans and programs in the state;
relating to grants for Alaska Native family assistance programs;
relating to assignment of child support by Alaska Native family
assistance recipients; relating to paternity determinations and
genetic testing involving recipients of assistance under Alaska
Native family assistance programs; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 84
SHORT TITLE: CHILD PROTECTION CONFIDENTIALITY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/05 (S) HES, JUD, FIN
02/07/05 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 51
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/12/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/05 (S) CRA, HES, FIN
01/26/05 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
01/26/05 (S) Moved SB 51 Out of Committee
01/26/05 (S) MINUTE (CRA)
01/27/05 (S) CRA RPT 4DP
01/27/05 (S) DP: STEVENS G, WAGONER, KOOKESH, ELLIS
02/07/05 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Marcia Kennai
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 84
Jan Rutherdale
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 84
Scott Calder
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 84
Katherine Farnham
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 51
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR FRED DYSON called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:31:58 PM.
Present were Senators Kim Elton, Gary Wilken, Donny Olson, and
Chair Dyson.
SB 84-CHILD PROTECTION CONFIDENTIALITY
CHAIR DYSON asked Marcia Kennai and Jan Rutherdale to present SB
84.
MARCIA KENNAI, deputy commissioner, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), and Jan Rutherdale, assistant attorney general,
Department of Law introduced SB 84. Ms. Kennai said SB 84 would
protect children's rights while providing disclosure of some
agency information. SB 84 opens all child-in-need-of-aid (CINA)
hearings to the public except in certain circumstances. It
expands the circumstances under which the department is required
to share confidential information on CINA proceedings. SB 84
would increase accountability and increase public awareness and
trust.
1:36:51 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE offered historical background on the issue. Child
protection cases were open hearings in the past due to the fear
of children being sold into slavery. Hearings were later closed
to protect children and the stigma attached. Federal law
provides confidentiality of records, presuming it includes court
hearings. In the last 10 years, the press has exposed problems
in the system.
1:40:16 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked Ms. Rutherdale, "Since federal law has
changed to open up court proceedings, how many other states have
done so?"
MS. KENNAI advised 13 states were open with judicial discretion
and 5 states are completely open.
SENATOR ELTON asked how it works when a judge admonishes people
who fail to keep secrecy.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied if the court asks for secrecy and a
person divulges information, next time they come to court they
could be excluded from proceedings. The press is generally
respectful of abuse victims.
1:43:36 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked whether the person would be subject to
contempt of court.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered yes. Alaska allows the court to open
proceedings if no one objects. The courts announce when the
proceedings are confidential.
1:44:47 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked whether Paragraph (11) on page 6 takes care of
allowing for critical information to be dispersed to
professionals who provide services to the child.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered it does not. Paragraph (11) deals with
issues such as a sex offender living in a neighborhood. The
Office of Child Services, (OCS) could warn the mother of a child
living next door. That section allows the release of information
to a child at risk. The term caregiver is a broad definition.
1:47:35 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE advised an existing provision in subsection 9,
subparagraph 2, "a person or agency requested by the department
to provide consultation or services" that would include a
professional to give services to a child or parent. That section
allows appropriate information to be shared.
CHAIR DYSON noted the amendment added the word "confidential" on
line 21.
MS. RUTHERDALE advised it was done as a housekeeping measure.
MS. KENNAI stated item 11 refers to childcare providers, and the
department can now share any vital information with a parent or
municipality.
1:50:20 PM
CHAIR DYSON clarified the issue is whether the professional
treating the child can access necessary information in order to
treat the child.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered SB 84 has that issue covered.
SENATOR ELTON asked whether the state determines the information
to be released.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered it is at the discretion of the records
holder. The person determining what is released has the complete
record. This saves time. Some information is private even to
relatives.
1:52:57 PM
CHAIR DYSON said some information in the record is not relevant
even to the people treating the child.
MS. RUTHERDALE advised the system has checks and balances.
Information can be released as a court order.
CHAIR DYSON reminded the committee that due to previous
legislation, legislators could get access to those records.
1:54:07 PM
SENATOR DONNY OLSON mentioned the situation with the Mat-Su
abuse case and said SB 84 seems to give a broad ability for
information to be too available to the public.
MS. KENNAI answered a lot of erroneous information comes out
anyway. When a parent or foster parent gets charged, the
documents are public.
SENATOR OLSON said reading into SB 84 appears to further open
information to the public.
SENATOR OLSON asked what happens if you have parents who are
separated and they disagree regarding disclosure.
MS. RUTHERDALE emphasized there are two sections to SB 84. One
has to do with court hearings and records and the other, agency
records. There are two parts of agency records, one is the
"shall release appropriate information", and the other section
allows for release to the public, but only in three narrow
situations.
1:57:32 PM
OCS is allowed to respond to the report of harm, the outcome,
the services provided, and the course of action. The task force
addressed the issue of parents trying their cases through the
press. SB 84 allows the state the ability to respond to such
situations. SB 84 is tailored to respond to a particular parent,
or a narrow report of harm having to do with the parent. The
reason it is so narrow is there are still federal requirements
for confidentiality. Federal law allows parents to waive their
right for confidentiality.
2:00:34 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked whether anything in SB 84 would have prevented
what happened in the Mat-Su valley situation. He added in that
case the children had been adopted and once the adoption process
is finished, the state is finished.
MS. KENNAI replied it would not have prevented that particular
situation and agreed with Chair Dyson's comments.
SENATOR ELTON stated Paragraph (11) appears to allow a broader
release of information, but it removes the requirement to adopt
regulations that might determine to whom information can be
released. He asked who makes the determination on whether it is
appropriate to release information.
MS. RUTHERDALE responded the verbiage was moved to Section 13,
subparagraph (N) that allows the agency to adopt regulations.
2:03:30 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked Ms. Rutherdale to speak to the issue of
dropping the word "shall" and introducing "may".
MS. RUTHERDALE could not reply.
CHAIR DYSON advised he is open to amending SB 84 and addressing
it in judiciary.
SENATOR ELTON reported he is not sure how he feels about SB 84.
2:04:42 PM
CHAIR DYSON advised his interest in Section 16, page 8.
"However, the court may limit the presence of those persons in a
hearing that has been closed."
2:05:59 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE clarified it is not a change it is the current
law.
2:09:15 PM
SCOTT CALDER, Fairbanks, testified via teleconference that SB 84
is intrinsically related to a history of problems. He finds
Sections 1 and 2 acceptable. Section 3 has problems on lines 9-
13 where hearings are closed to the public during an initial
court hearing and a hearing following an initial hearing in
which a parent, child, or other party of a case is present but
has not had an opportunity to obtain legal representation. The
first few court hearings are when the family is most violated by
agency activity. This is when public scrutiny is most needed.
2:11:00 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Calder if initial hearings should be open
to the public.
MR. CALDER replied the DOL often relies on the appearance of
judicial review on its activities. In the early stages, many
times the people are at a disadvantage.
2:12:31 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked about a handbook for parents explaining their
rights.
MR. CALDER said it was never produced. The agency did produce a
"fill-in-the-blank" publication, which causes the parent to feel
subservient.
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Rutherdale if parents have a clear right
to ask the judge for legal help.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered yes.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether they have the right to ask the judge
to postpone the action until they have legal representation.
MS. RUTHERDALE replied she was not sure.
2:14:30 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE explained in an emergency state custody hearing,
the judge would inform the parents of their rights and give them
the option of leaving the child in state custody until their
attorney was available.
MR. CALDER said the public should be involved early and often.
Section 7 puts the parent in a disadvantaged position unless
authorized by the court. He advised the committee to eliminate
Section 7. Section 8 is unacceptable. Section 9 should have the
parent at the top of the list of people who can receive
information. Confidentiality has been used as a weapon against
children and families by the DOL. Parents should have all
information regarding the child unless good cause to do
otherwise has been shown.
2:17:12 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Rutherdale why the parent isn't on the
list.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered parents are parties in the action. The
attorney may share any documents concerning the case with their
client.
CHAIR DYSON asked what is the reason for not having parents on
the list.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered the reason is that attorneys are given
full access to the information and they can share the
information with their clients. There have been instances where
parents have left sensitive information in a public place.
2:20:11 PM
CHAIR DYSON said the list involves a lot of people who have less
interest in the case. He asked if they could add parents to the
list.
MS. RUTHERDALE advised she would get back to the committee
regarding that issue. The court order allows the parents to get
any necessary information they need. AS 47.10.093 (a) says you
cannot release records without a court order. Subsection (b)
says you can disclose the appropriate information under certain
circumstances without the court order. It's a known provision.
2:23:03 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked whether that works for parents who are
representing themselves.
MS. RUTHERDALE said they would have to go back to the court.
CHAIR DYSON noted in the case of parents who live remotely from
court, it could be inconvenient.
MR. CALDER cited a US Supreme Court ruling that says, "Parents
are not any other person". He maintained parents are innocent
until proven guilty. Section 9 refers to a review panel
established by the DOL to review actions by the DOL. Mr. Calder
maintained that this is unacceptable.
2:25:17 PM
The DOL should receive public scrutiny. Section 11 should be
broadened to include parents generally, in terms of the interest
of their own children. Section 13 should point out the fact that
the parent has the authority to request the information. Section
14 should not allow immunity from liability.
2:27:53 PM
Page 9, Section 17, (a) and (b) [version\A] should be eliminated
because it denies public access to the initial court hearing.
2:29:31 PM
MR. CALDER summed up his testimony advising that there is a
history of abuse of power by the state government.
2:31:26 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Mr. Calder for his written testimony.
SENATOR ELTON asked regarding page 6, line 26 [version\A], what
is the purpose of saying information could only be disclosed to
a departmentally established review panel.
MS. RUTHERDALE said anything could be discussed within the
department. On a specific case the DOL will have an internal
review, Section 9 allows them to bring in a member of the public
who is knowledgeable of the case.
2:33:14 PM
SENATOR ELTON said this would preclude the review established by
the Governor. The Governor may want to move the review outside
the department.
MS. KENNAI said the DOL has a public citizen review panel that
reviews policy and procedure, but this section of SB 84 refers
to the commissioner or deputy commissioner being able to
establish an internal review panel, which allows the department
to bring in someone from the outside who is knowledgeable about
the particular case.
2:35:56 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked the reason the citizen review panel is not on
the list of people able to access the information.
MS. RUTHERDALE answered the citizen review panel addresses
system problems not specific cases.
SENATOR ELTON asked whether there is anything in SB 84 or
current state law that allows confidential information to be
shared with either a governor's panel or a legislative panel
staff member.
MS. RUTHERDALE said in specific cases there are mechanisms in
existence.
2:39:16 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if a legislative audit staff has access to
confidential information.
MS. KENNAI answered legislators can request a legislative audit.
SENATOR ELTON asked whether both the legislator and the audit
staff could have access to confidential information.
MS. RUTHERDALE did not know the answer.
SENATOR GARY WILKEN repeated earlier questions regarding why
parents are not included in the list of people able to access
confidential information.
2:41:47 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE advised the committee that mechanisms already
exist and those mechanisms are adequate. This is a partial
discovery tool. More records are available through the court.
SENATOR WILKEN asked Ms. Rutherdale to give an example of what
trouble could be caused by adding a line with qualifications
that speaks to the parent privileges.
2:45:04 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE could not think of one.
CHAIR DYSON said it seems strange to not have parents on the
list. He advised the committee that he would hold SB 84 until
the next committee meeting.
CHAIR DYSON asked whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
representatives should be on the list.
2:47:18 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE said the system is already set up to share
information. If a tribe intervenes in a case, the order will
allow free flowing exchange of information.
2:49:57 PM
SENATOR OLSON suggested eliminating Section 8.
MS. RUTHERDALE said it would open up everything.
SENATOR OLSON announced he would like to have everything open to
the parent. He stated he is in favor of parents raising children
as opposed to the government raising children.
MS. RUTHERDALE: answered AS 47.10.093(a) refers to children who
fall within the chapter, meaning there has been a petition
filed. Parents and attorneys do have full access in formal
cases. SB 84 addresses non-parties.
MS. KENNAI pointed out most of the information they have comes
from the parent.
2:52:30 PM
CHAIR DYSON noted this would be a case involving a child who
comes to the state through abuse. Chair Dyson suggested the
committee take SB 84 up again in the next committee meeting and
asked to have "parent" added to the list or have a solid reason
why they would not be added.
2:56:10 PM
SB 51-PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
CHAIR FRED DYSON announced SB 51 to be up for consideration.
2:56:51 PM
KATHRYN FARNHAM, Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
introduced SB 51. In 1996 the federal welfare reform program
allowed states flexibility in the implementation of welfare
reform with an emphasis on employment. That legislation has been
successful in Alaska. The caseload reduction is 58 percent since
1994, saving the state $66 million dollars. The block grant
program allows the states to create programs that emphasize
work. This same flexibility was offered to Tribal organizations
in the 1996 law, which allows them to run a tribal Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Native
organizations may apply for a federal block grant for the
families in their region and serve them directly.
To run a fair and equitable program that is on par with what the
Native families could have received from the state, it is
necessary to provide state funds. In 2000 the Alaska Legislature
created and passed the Native TANF program providing the
opportunity to help fund locally relevant programs. The law was
made to sunset in June 2005. It was also designated to four of
the 13 original entities. The four included the Tanana Chiefs
Conference (TCC), the Association of Village Council Presidents
(AVCP), Tlingit Haida Central Council (TLCC), and Metlakatla.
3:00:03 PM
Reports show the tribal TANF programs are working. They are
achieving migration to self-sufficiency though employment. This
year they are in discussions with three new native organizations
that are interested in running a tribal TANF program. The three
are Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Bristol Bay Native Association
and the Maniilaq Association.
3:02:22 PM
The recommendation in SB 51 is to extend the program and make it
permanent in the statute, and to extend it to the 12 regional
non-profits plus Metlakatla. Many of the regional non-profits
have been contractors to the State of Alaska providing case
management services. If Cook Inlet establishes their TANF
program there will be fiscal impacts. The attached fiscal note
pertains to Cook Inlet.
3:04:59 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked Ms. Farnham the kind of provisions there are
for auditing a contractor who provides services such as case
management.
MS. FARNHAM advised current contracts are under an umbrella
called "work services." Contracts have monitoring and
performance tracks in them. In FY05 those contracts were pay for
performance contracts.
3:06:39 PM
SENATOR WILKEN asked Ms. Farnham what percent would Anchorage be
in the budget if the committee re-authorized the programs.
MS. FARNHAM replied they have not assessed the size of the Cook
Inlet, Bristol Bay and Maniilaq caseloads. Cook Inlet will have
close to 700 cases.
SENATOR WILKEN asked the guarantee that federal funding will
continue and what is the obligation of the state.
MS. FARNHAM said the federal law authorizing Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families is currently up for
reauthorization. It has been reauthorized for several years
without any substantial changes. If there are structural changes
to the block grant, the program will have to be re-examined.
3:10:43 PM
SENATOR WILKEN asked Ms. Farnham if the federal money was
reduced in the future could he expect the general fund to make
up the difference or could the legislation pare back the
program.
MS. FARNHAM was reluctant to speculate.
CHAIR DYSON noted in this program the caseload has diminished
but recipients may be receiving other assistance.
MS. FARNHAM said she has seen cash assistance cases drop
dramatically. Some cases are picking up bridge programs but she
is also seeing families utilizing benefits that can help them
stay off cash benefits, for example, child care assistance.
3:12:52 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Farnham whether the fiscal note reflected
state money fluctuations in programs.
MS. FARNHAM answered no, but the budget for the division of
public assistance would show services trends.
3:14:04 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Farnham the number of people reflected in
the caseload reduction who have gone to work.
MS. FARNHAM answered there is a recent division study of why
people leave TANF programs. Often they quit applying. A report
is available on their website. Multiple issues affect a family.
3:16:07 PM
CHAIR DYSON said the federal TANF program encourages states to
invest in making families stay together. He asked Ms. Farnham
how the funding is used to accomplish those federally emphasized
goals through the funding stream.
MS. FARNHAM answered the four purposes of TANF include promoting
strong families and healthy marriages. Because of their high
success rate, Alaska has received a high performance bonus for
three straight years.
3:18:50 PM
CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Farnham to talk about tribal fraud.
MS. FARNHAM replied part of the provisions for tribal
organizations to have a TANF program is that they have fraud
mechanisms in place.
3:20:42 PM
MS. FARNHAM pointed out the food stamp error rate in Alaska was
the worst in nation in 2003. Under Tony Lombardo's direction
they turned it around and Alaska is now on par with other
states. All the other programs have seen a marked improvement as
well, by identifying trends and through training.
CHAIR DYSON said national statistics show that 60 to 70 percent
of all welfare applications have errors or fraud and 25 to 30
percent are fraudulent to some degree. He would like to know how
many people are prosecuted and are making restitution.
MS. FARNHAM said DHSS has a strong fraud unit. Of the number of
cases that are suspected fraud and are reviewed, 30 percent pan
out to be actual fraud.
3:23:10 PM
SENATOR WILKEN asked Ms. Farnham for clarification on the fiscal
note.
MS. FARNHAM answered the details are on page four. The current
funding level has been the same since 2001. Annually the budget
includes 8.7 million dollars. Cook Inlet is in the fiscal note
because it is new. The other three are already built into the
budget.
3:25:48 PM
SENATOR WILKEN asked about Maniilaq and Bristol Bay.
MS. FARNHAM replied they were not factored because talks are
ongoing.
CHAIR DYSON announced he would hold SB 51 until the next
committee meeting. There being no further business to come
before the committee, Chair Dyson adjourned the meeting at
3:26:47 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|