Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB110 | |
| HB324 | |
| HB283 | |
| HB126 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 324 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to continuing the secondary public
education of a homeless student; relating to the
purpose of certain laws as they relate to children;
relating to tuition waivers, loans, and medical
assistance for a child placed in out-of-home care by
the state; relating to foster care; relating to
children in need of aid; relating to foster care
transition to independent living; and relating to
juvenile programs and institutions."
4:24:57 PM
Co-Chair Hawker moved to adopt CSHB 126 26-LS0309\Q,
Mishel, 4/9/10. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Gara informed that HB 126 increases the
chance for the approximately 2000 foster youth in the state
to succeed in greater numbers. Similar efforts have
occurred in many states. President Bush signed a law called
the Fostering Connections Act in 2008. Fostering
connections recognized that the former foster care model
was ineffective. Some foster youth are not prepared to
leave the home environment as early as those from stable
families. The effort in HB 126 is to extend foster care to
age 21 where it is in the child's best interest.
Educational achievement in states providing foster care
until a child is 21 are twice as high as those states that
provide foster care until 18 years of age. He shared a
story about foster youth leaving home at age 19 with
unsavory results. The cost for extending foster care to age
21 will equal $470 thousand per year. Matching federal
funds are available under the Fostering Connections Act.
4:28:26 PM AT EASE
4:53:41 PM RECONVENE
Representative Gara discussed other provision in the bill,
which came out of the HESS committee. The co-chair of the
HESS committee worked on language under Section 2. If a
foster child has opted out of state custody after age 16,
but then desires reentry the standards in Section 2 are
used. He pointed out that a young person must prove that
they are in need of foster care to avoid personal harm or
homelessness or to enhance the ability to continue in
education or successful transition. The department may
request conditions prior to reentry. Reasonable terms might
include an education plan, a job training plan or other
reasonable terms deemed so by the court. He stated that he
endeavored to expedite the process by eliminating the
requirement of annual court status reports. The Department
of Law opined that it was best to retain the annual court
status reports. He mentioned a separate bill section that
is since unnecessary as is passed as a separate bill on the
House floor recently.
4:57:56 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, FACING FOSTER CARE IN ALASKA (via
teleconference), stated that for youth who exceed the age
requirement for care in Alaska, forty percent end up
homeless, thirty percent end up incarcerated, and a high
rate of early pregnancy exists. He explained that foster
care extensions beyond age 18 create better overall
outcomes and those children are more likely to graduate
high school and receive postsecondary education and
training. The program helps youth reenter foster care
successfully.
Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged the substantial support for
the program.
5:01:43 PM
Representative Fairclough asked about the differences
between the CS and the original bill. Representative Gara
discussed an additional provision in which the Covenant
House faced a problem with federal funding because they
housed greater than 20 people and under federal law a state
law must certify that more than 20 people can be housed. A
separate piece of legislation was filed by the Senate
Health and Social Services (HSS) committee, which led to
deletion of the issue from the CS.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked which section of the bill (Z
version) passed the HSS committee. Representative Gara
responded Page 3, Lines 14-18.
Representative Fairclough asked about Page 2 of the HSS
version beginning on Lines 3-23, which appears as new
language. Representative Gara responded that the language
is included in the CS currently before the committee. In
the Z version of the bill, the court's one year renewal
period was inadvertently removed but the Q version inserts
them. Beginning on Line 9, Page 2 the provision to reenter
foster care is found. Specific language listing standards
was requested. He stated that the language on Page 3, Line
2 of the current bill clearly states "you're in need of out
of home care to avoid personal harm or homelessness or to
enhance the person's ability to continue the person's
education or training or otherwise improve the person's
successful transition to independent living and if
requested by the department agrees to reasonable terms for
resuming state custody that may include matters relating to
the person's education, attainment of a job, or life skills
or other terms found by the court to be reasonable and in
the person's best interest." He noted that DOL requested
the use of the word resume to make clear that the section
referred to reentry into foster care.
5:06:39 PM
Representative Fairclough pointed out that Page three of
the Z version shows bolded type different from the version
presented to the committee. She noticed words that were
removed, but she did not know the consequence of the
removal as compared to the recommendations from the HSS
committee.
Representative Gara informed that on Page 2, Line 9 of the
Z version, the language, except for the words "resume care"
is the same as the new version beginning on Page 2, Line
14-24. One change is some language from Page 2, Lines 4-6
which addressed the old procedure of the yearly hearing. He
stated that the annual review for younger children was
removed.
Representative Fairclough requested an explanation of the
difference on Page 2, Line 11. Representative Gara replied
that the language between the two sections includes the
definition of youth who left care and wish to reenter. He
noted that DOL recommended new language to define the group
as people who resume care. Before the youth were described
as "persons released for a reason other than court ordered
reunification with person's parent." The new language asks
if the children were released to their own custody as
stated on Page 2, Line 31.
Representative Fairclough noted that the HSS committee
recommended that the new language provides an exception if
the foster child were removed due to a court order.
5:11:25 PM
Representative Gara explained that there was no substantive
reason for the change. The DOL intended to define the youth
that leave care and then seek reentry. The DOL advised that
a youth released to a youth's own custody was more
informative language.
5:12:33 PM
Representative Kelly recalled the late Representative
Richard Foster's great support of state involvement in
foster care.
Vice-Chair Thomas requested that the Attorney General's
office speak to the questions.
JAN RUTHERDALE, ATTORNEY, CHILD PROTECTION SECTION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that she was not involved in the
earlier versions of the bill, but was familiar with the
current version. Substantively, the difference between the
two bills is that the new section is lumped into the old
sections. The action of removing the section and creating a
new subsection preserves the old section. She stated that
the requirement is no longer an annual return to court. She
noted that the change provides a protection for the child.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if the different versions of the
bill are the same. Ms. Rutherdale informed that the
difference addresses the annual court review. In version Z,
no court review exists until the end of the youth's foster
care. This allows for a yearly review. If the child changes
their mind about the reentry, they can always petition.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if she followed the debate in the
HSS committee. Ms. Rutherdale responded in the affirmative.
5:17:55 PM
Representative Fairclough asked if there were any
exceptions for release to their own custody in the way of a
court order. Ms. Rutherdale answered that the Version Q
explains that when a child is released, it is typically to
their parents, commonly known as reunification.
Representative Fairclough stated that she is supportive of
the concept, but was respectful of changes made by the HSS
committee. She asked about potential conceptual amendments
made to the bill during the HSS committee hearings. She
expressed trepidation about the new CS that does not have a
HSS committee recommendation.
5:20:05 PM
Representative Gara responded that the language in HSS
committee was an express written amendment. The substance
of the standard of required proof for reentry is the same
now as it was in the HSS committee. He noted that the
original version stated that reentry was possible if
economic hardship was faced by the youth. He stated that
the words "economic hardship" were removed from the
version. The issue in the HSS committee was that standards
for reentry were set.
5:21:45 PM
ALISON ELGEE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FINANCE AND
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, spoke to the three fiscal notes. She stated that
the fiscal notes for the first year comprise a six month
time period. The greatest of the fiscal notes is the foster
care base rate note which represents the additional cost
for extending foster care to these elder youth. Another
fiscal note covers the foster care special needs provisions
for extraordinary costs that foster care families incur.
The third fiscal note addresses the changes necessary to
the case management system as a result of the legislation.
Representative Gara pointed out that he was economically
prudent by delaying the effective date on fiscal note
number six to January 1st, which was the time period
necessary for the department to implement the program.
Co-Chair Hawker asked if the maximum advantage of federal
funds available were utilized. Ms. Elgee responded yes. She
noted the difficulty in estimating the amount of federal
reimbursement for foster children.
Co-Chair Hawker asked Representative Gara if federal
reimbursement was availed.
Representative Gara answered yes, the bill is called
Fostering Connections and was signed in by George Bush in
2008.
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report HB 126 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 126(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with attached previously published
fiscal notes: FN4 (DHS), FN5 (DHS), FN6 (DHS).
5:26:08 PM