Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
02/24/2015 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Ocs Response to Crp Annual Report | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 27-DHSS DUTIES;CINA; FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION
3:37:06 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to
the duties of the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to hearings on and plans for permanent placement of a
child in need of aid; relating to school placement and
transportation for children in foster care; relating to foster
care transition programs; relating to emergency and temporary
placement of a child in need of aid; relating to the
confidentiality of information regarding child protection; and
amending Rule 17.2, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure."
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, noting that
the proposed bill had a zero fiscal note, explained that this
was an evidence based and cost effective bill. He acknowledged
there were many problems with the foster care system, although
many of these would require a lot of money to fix. Instead, as
there was limited funding, it was necessary to "live with
overworked social workers" with caseloads that were 50 percent
higher than they should be. He stated that the proposed bill
would address evidence based aspects. He declared that studies
revealed that foster youth who were removed from their homes,
and often bounced among many homes, suffered emotional damage.
He referenced the Adverse Childhood Experiences studies (ACE),
and pointed out that foster youth tended to have very high
adverse experiences scores, which got worse when youth were
bounced from home to home. He stated that Alaska now allowed
youth to stay in a foster care home until 21 years of age, and
that OCS should have to show it is in the best interest of the
child to release them prior to this age. He declared that this
was the standard for children, "is it in the best interest of
the child." He shared that the proposed bill required that the
court ask about this standard for evidence based practice for
foster youth. He referenced a study by the Casey Foundation
which stated that kids released from foster care before the age
of 21 will be "less likely to complete high school, more likely
to have physical, developmental and mental health challenges,
most lose their existing support system when they reach 18 and
are discharged into state custody." He stated that, in Alaska,
this manifested itself by the person living on the street, and
he shared that 40 percent of foster youth in Alaska end up
homeless or couch surfing, while 24 percent end up in jail. He
emphasized the importance for giving a child stability, and
reducing the number of placements and disruptions in a child's
life. He reported that in 12 states the average child was
staying with their parents at home until 25 years of age. He
stressed that a key part of the proposed bill was that a judge
needed to be shown that it was in the child's best interest to
be released from foster care before they were 21 years of age.
He declared that this was a cost savings program and a measure
of our humanity as a society.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA emphasized that permanency was a key in
foster care, that foster children needed a stable home. He
reported that the national standard for foster youth placement
in a permanent home was between 12 and 24 months, depending on
whether the youth was being re-united with their family. He
said that OCS did well with reunification for some youth,
although with others this could take longer than 10 years. He
explained that the proposed bill ensured that the court would
ask if all reasonable efforts had been taken to find a permanent
home for a youth. He shared that "all reasonable efforts" was
the same standard as used in other sections of the statutes. He
explained that this was important as the social workers were
young, and often only lasted in the job for 18 months before
they burned out. He opined that it could take more experience
to get a foster child placed into a permanent home, so this
would act as a check in the system to ensure that OCS was doing
everything possible for finding a permanent home. He stated
that children being bounced around homes created institutional
child abuse and neglect, even if it was not intentional.
3:44:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referenced the Permanente Journal, a nursing
publication, which stated that the more foster homes a foster
child lived in, the higher their adverse childhood experiences
(ACEs) score, the more damage to them, and the higher likelihood
for the need of public assistance in the criminal system or in
social services.
3:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to the third part of the
proposed bill, which also reflected a nationally recognized
standard. He stated that moving a child from school to school
during the school term caused them to fall up to three months
behind in the curriculum. He stressed that this would make any
academic achievement worse than if they were allowed to finish
the term in their original school. He reported that there was a
national standard for homeless children which required they stay
in their school of origin for the remainder of the term, if it
was reasonable and in the child's best interests. He
acknowledged that, although there should not be a high burden
placed on the understaffed foster care system at OCS, there was
a national duty that when a child was taken from their parents,
within the first 30 days they were placed in an emergency
placement home, which tended to be a larger home and often not
the best homes for youth. He explained that these emergency
homes were often limited to a 30 day stay and youth could
sometimes "bounce from one 30 day home to another 30 day home."
He surmised that sometimes the best placement for a child was
with a member of the extended family, and that, in some cultures
in Alaska, these family members could be as important as the
immediate parents. He noted that current law required that a 30
day search for friends and family members start when a child was
taken from a home. He stated that the proposed bill would
extend this by adding that it was necessary for a constant look
out for family members even beyond the first 30-day period, for
as long as the child was in foster care. He declared his desire
to include the standard for a continual search for family
members both before and after the emergency placement, as OCS
was able. He emphasized that, as there was a shortage of foster
care parents, a loving relative who was willing to take care of
the child was best, as this would save a lot of money and be
more humane.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that a portion of the proposed bill
was really a message to the governor and to OCS. He noted that,
although money had been placed in the capital budget over the
last few years to advertise for more foster and adoptive
parents, there were still 849 youth waiting for adoptive homes
in Alaska, which he deemed to be "way out of proportion of many
other states." He asked that the governor and OCS staff pitch
the need for foster care and adoptive parents, noting that this
had been placed in the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that there was a provision in the
proposed bill important to Alaska Natives which allowed OCS to
negotiate a confidentiality agreement and share information with
the local tribal organization.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to two other small
provisions in the proposed bill. He pointed out that, under
statute, foster youth were only entitled to a "basic education,"
whereas everyone else was entitled to an "adequate education."
The proposed bill changed this in statute to allow for an
education that involved a traditional school or vocational
education, and deleted the word "basic." He addressed the
independent living program, part of the OCS system which
affected youth ages 16 - 23, and reported that there were only
six staff responsible for helping older youth with this
transition into the community. He reported that there were 300
- 400 of these youth. He said that the proposed bill required a
simple annual report from OCS for whether the funds for
employment and training vouchers for youth were adequate for the
need. He explained that these vouchers were used by youth for
vocational education, college, or general education degrees and
helped keep youth off the street, supporting their success. He
stated that the proposed bill did not include any costs, as the
legislature would only review "low and no cost bills right now."
3:53:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES directed attention to page 4, line 23, of
the proposed bill, "another suitable person" and asked if there
was a definition somewhere in statute. She noted that the word
"reasonable" was also frequently used in the proposed bill, and
asked if that also had a definition in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response, explained that "another
suitable person" was not a change from existing law and that OCS
would interpret this, as they always did, as a person who was in
the child's best interest. He pointed to page 5, line 11, and
said that "making reasonable efforts" was a standard which OCS
had worked with throughout the statutory system, and was defined
as the kind of efforts that a reasonable person would engage in.
He said that this was the statutory standard by which OCS
currently operated, and this would keep the language consistent
with existing law.
3:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked where she could find the OCS
definition of reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that reasonable efforts was defined
in the statute.
3:56:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if foster kids over 18, but under 21
years of age, were allowed to be released from the system upon
request.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that current law made it mandatory for
OCS to allow a foster youth to leave after 19 years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Wool, said
that existing law was confusing, but that the proposed bill was
not changing any existing law. He stated that a youth could
request to leave once they were 19 years of age. He opined that
there might be an exception for a youth with a mental challenge
who had a conservator.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if OCS had commented on the
proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he had worked closely with OCS on
the proposed bill to make it workable and had changed the
language where possible to meet their needs, but he did not know
their position.
CHAIR SEATON relayed that a person from OCS was available. He
referenced page 7, line 27, and asked for a definition to the
"disclosure of appropriate information" and whether this
referred to confidential information.
3:59:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to line 30, and noted
that, as this would all be subject to a confidentiality
agreement, it would be confidential information. He
acknowledged that some federal laws, such as the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) could not
be violated, but that the intent was to give OCS and the tribal
entities flexibility to agree on a confidentiality agreement to
allow for information that could be used by the tribal entity to
help the child that lived in their community.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 8, [line 28] which
changed from "a child" to "or person," and asked if there was
any limitation that ended at 21 years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that foster care had only been
extended to 21 years of age in Alaska, and he was not aware of
any other state which had extended it past this age. He
explained that the words "or person" referenced a person over 18
years and one day of age.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the requirement for searching
beyond 30 days for family members to provide foster care was an
added burden on OCS that it may not be able to fulfill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that this additional time period was
proposed as a much more relaxed standard than the current
federal standard which required a comprehensive family search
and was a very strict standard. He reported that the proposed
bill suggested that OCS should always be looking for a family,
but it was not the same comprehensive search standard as for the
first 30 days.
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the zero fiscal note from HB 27 to
SSHB 27. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
4:04:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ offered her support for the conceptual
direction of the proposed bill, but she expressed concern to the
possibility of a zero fiscal note.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the fiscal note had been written by
the department, and he suggested to next query the department.
[Public testimony was opened]
4:05:23 PM
TREVOR STORRS, Executive Director, Alaska Children's Trust,
declared that kids were the number one resource in Alaska, and
that they defined us for who we would be tomorrow. He stressed
that the treatment for kids today would determine the future.
He stated that the proposed bill reduced trauma in kids' lives,
ensured resiliency, and leveled the playing field. He said
that, although most children did not experience this level of
trauma, it was sometimes necessary for OCS to step in and remove
children from their families. He shared that even though these
traumas would have lifelong impact if not addressed, removal
from the family could add to the trauma. He stated that society
recognized that it was important to remove children from an
unsafe environment, but that it was done in such a way as to
reduce the trauma and provide a resiliency and strength to
overcome this experience. He referenced the ACE study which
showed the relationship of impact that toxic stress such as
child abuse and neglect had on the development of a child's
brain, which would then lead to a higher increase of risk for
experiencing the many physical, social, and behavioral ills with
which communities had to deal. He listed diabetes, obesity,
child abuse, failure to graduate from high school, substance
abuse, and suicide as costs to the state. He observed that the
proposed bill was an opportunity to change policy and strengthen
these children. As soon as a child had permanent residency, the
sooner they would be able to deal with their trauma and the
issue of separation from their family. Placement closer to
their family made it much easier. He stated that the proposed
bill ensured that the State of Alaska, OCS, and individuals
would take the responsibility to work hard and make sure these
children were as close to family as possible. He said that the
connection to an adult loved one offered the resiliency to
adversity. He pointed out that the family connection offered
even more resilience. He declared his support for the proposed
bill, even if there was a new fiscal note. He declared that
"this is priority, because either we pay today or we will be
paying tomorrow." He pointed out that there were many
individuals without a high school diploma, in the correctional
facilities, or receiving treatment for substance abuse who were
kids that had experienced life in the foster care system. He
emphasized that "it does take a village to raise a child" and
that passage of the proposed bill would ensure that children
would have the resiliency to overcome trauma and become true,
productive members of the community.
4:11:44 PM
NAOMI HARRIS, Community Relations Manager and Legislative
Contact, Central Office, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health and Social Services, in response to
Representative Vazquez, said that the department had worked with
the bill sponsor and that the administration was neutral on the
proposed bill. In response to Representative Wool, she
explained that efforts to continue to search for relatives
throughout the life of the case was already in policy.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the actions of the department would change
with passage of the proposed bill.
MS. HARRIS offered her belief that it would not change existing
practice.
4:13:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if OCS projected any additional
cost to implement the proposed bill.
MS. HARRIS replied that the fiscal note was in response to this
version of the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for an explanation to the neutral
stand by the department.
MS. HARRIS explained that many of the activities were already
federally mandated or observed in policy or practice.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if passage of the proposed bill would
change the current day to day procedures and practices.
MS. HARRIS offered her belief that this would not change any of
the practices that the agency already observed in response to
federal mandates, state statutes, or OCS internal practices,
although it did provide some alignment or clarification.
4:15:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for clarification that children
were currently in custody up to 18 years of age.
MS. HARRIS stated that children could remain in care until 21
years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if the proposed bill would make
that mandatory and result in more children in foster care.
MS. HARRIS explained that there would not be any increase, and,
in response to Representative Vazquez, said that this was
existing practice, whereas the proposed bill outlined when a
child could be released with their consent or in their best
interest.
4:16:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if education and vocational training
was currently provided. She expressed her concern for the lack
of a fiscal note.
MS. HARRIS explained that the proposed bill had been thoroughly
reviewed and that the fiscal note was accurate for the proposed
bill. She stated that education and vocational training were
currently provided, and that the expansion was in the language
from "basic education."
CHAIR SEATON asked if this would change the practice for current
educational opportunities.
MS. HARRIS replied that this was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her assumption that, with the
absence of a fiscal note and the department's neutral stance,
the proposed bill did not make any difference for [Due to
technical difficulties, part of the testimony was unclear.] or
the relationship with any individuals at this time.
MS. HARRIS replied that many pieces of the proposed bill already
existed in federal mandate or state statute, or were existing
best practice policies, and that an overall alignment existed.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification that the proposed
bill did not offer any significant changes to current practice.
MS. HARRIS replied "not at this point."
4:19:25 PM
CHAIR SEATON said that HB 27 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB027_ SS_ Fiscal Note-DHSS-02-23-15.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Deborah Bock Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Pat Cunningham Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Tamara Dietrich Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB027 Version P.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 HSS Hearing Request Memo.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Sponser Statement Version P.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Sectional Analysis Version P.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Research Documents.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Letters of Support 2 11 2015.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Cunningham Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB027_letter of support_McCarthy.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| Citizen Review Panel_2014 report.PDF |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Reports presented to HHSS |
| CRP_OCS-Response_2014.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM |