Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/30/1997 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 127
"An Act relating to the citizen review board and panels
for permanency planning for certain children in state
custody; renaming the Citizens' Review Panel For
Permanency Planning as the Citizens' Foster Care Review
Board; extending the termination date of the Citizens'
Foster Care Review Board; and providing for an
effective date."
PATTI SWENSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that
HB 127 would change existing state laws for the Citizens'
Foster Care Review Panel which are currently inadequate.
The existing statutes do not give enough power to the local
panels.
* Existing statutes make foster care review
panels look like a weak duplication of some
Division of Family and Youth Service
functions.
* Existing statutes do not permit the local
panel's recommendations to be placed into the
court records for consideration in the
disposition of a case.
* Existing statutes do not require state
departments to supply necessary aggregate
data. Specific data is needed to measure the
performance of the child protection system.
* Existing statutes do not give local panels
the authority to develop priority for early
reviews of the worst cases.
* Existing statutes require the current foster
2
care review system to sunset on June 30,
1997.
HB 127 would correct the weaknesses in our current statutes
and would give a strong independent voice to local review
panels. The legislation would establish local review panels
throughout the State which will advocate for children, their
families and for needed changes in our child protection
system.
The National Association for Foster Care Reviewers will
guide the implementation of the Alaska program. There are
26 states with active state review boards and foster care
review panels. Those who have served on foster care review
panels throughout the United States have found the effort
worth their time. All state boards and local review panels
share the same goal to decrease the amount of time children
linger in out-of-home care. Ms. Swenson stressed that the
legislation is needed by everyone who deals with Alaska's
child protection system. She urged the Committee's
favorable consideration of HB 127.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the increased the number of
voting number to the newly established State board. Ms.
Swenson replied that originally there were four
administrative types on the board; the Commissioner of
Health and Social Services, the Director of the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA), the Attorney General and a designee
from the Public Defenders office. Those positions were
deleted and the State board was increased from seven to nine
members; public board members were also increased. The
increased number will expand the representation each
district has in the four judicial districts.
Representative Martin asked if there would be a distinction
between public board members and voting board members. Ms.
Swenson explained that in the initial legislation, the
administrative members were also voting members; in the next
version of the bill, they were advisory only and in the
following version, those members were completely removed.
All nine public members are voting members.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the State panel
previously met twice a year. The new legislation recommends
that the State panel meet at least twice a year. Ms.
Swenson pointed out that some of the meetings could take
place telephonically, although, initially, when the board is
formed, it will be important that they meet when creating
policy and regulations.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced Section #13, pointing out
that the program coordinator position would be replaced by
3
an executive director at a greater fiscal impact. Ms.
Swenson advised that an executive director would not be
required to be a social service person. The $139 thousand
dollar request currently in the FY98 budget would cover one
full-time administrative clerk, one 30 hour social worker
coordinator, and one full-time social worker II. The
additional funding request in the fiscal note would add an
executive director who would work with the State board and
would be responsible for grant writing. That position would
interface with all local panels to effectively implement the
program.
Representative Mulder suggested that if the board was
assuming some of the functions of the Division of Family and
Youth Services, the fiscal note should indicate a negative
amount. Ms. Swenson replied that when the board initially
forms, they will not be entitled to any of the federal Title
IVE fund. Down the line, the board would be able to apply
for federal funds under Title IV.
Ms. Swenson noted that the Anchorage program has been in
existence for four years. Co-Chair Therriault felt that
Anchorage should be able to fulfill the federal requirements
to qualify for some of those funds. Ms. Swenson explained
that the panel has been operating on a very low budget, with
capabilities of reviewing only one-third of the Anchorage
cases. In order to reorient, a State board is needed.
Increasing the number of cases will require a larger number
of volunteers. The panel, with current funding, has not
been able to adequately train volunteers.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the $29 thousand dollar
travel component of the fiscal note. Ms. Swenson responded
that amount would cover costs for the executive director to
provide the training and allow a board member from each area
to participate. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the full
amount was warranted.
CONNIE SIPE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SENIOR SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, commented that forming a state
board would provide the benefits of tapping upon a large
group of volunteers throughout the State. Currently, only
one-third of the total Anchorage cases are being reviewed.
It would take an active, trained group of 80-100 volunteers
to address the cases only in Anchorage. Most volunteers can
hear one case per month. A State board would be providing a
constant recruitment and training of volunteer panel members
which would hear foster care child cases.
Ms. Sipe stressed that "volunteerism" must be managed well
or a poor system will result. The State board will be
responsible for a positive functioning group. She pointed
4
out that the consideration before the Committee would leap
from one-third of one city's foster child group to the
State's entire population. Until the burden is removed from
Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), there will be
duplication of services. The State board will be a very
busy operation. They will be trying to make maximum use of
citizen volunteers.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the amount of federal funds that
the State brings in for the IVE match.
KATHERINE TIBBLES, SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM COORDINATOR,
DIVISION OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, advised that the requirement for
getting any IVE dollars is that six month reviews are
provided on all kids in out-of-home care. The $7 million
dollar federal funding would be reduced when the service was
not done effectively. Co-Chair Therriault asked if it was
reasonable to think that a volunteer panel could assume
these responsibilities and functions in relieving the
Department from their effort.
Ms. Sipe explained that Title IV requirements include the
180 day review. If that requirement and all the others are
met by the State, the State will then be given $7 million
dollars to help pay for foster care for those children.
DFYS currently attempts to get citizens from outside to help
review cases. Twenty-six other states throughout the nation
currently use the State board panel to tap those funds. Ms.
Tibbles added, an additional function of the panel would be
to develop packets. The panels are not funded at this time.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if a certain level of expertise
and education would be necessary before the federal
government would allow the IVE monies to be disbursed. Ms.
Tibbles said no, although, there are specific requirements
which must be met:
* The review must occur within six months of
removal of a child;
* The process must be open to participation of
the parents; and
* The Court reviews must occur within twelve
months.
Beyond that, there are an additional eighteen procedural
protection steps. She stressed that the system develops the
"expertise" not the "agency". The panels could take over
the functions.
5
(Tape Change HFC 97-117, Side 2).
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the initial intent was to
cover the Anchorage area. He pointed out the frustration in
the rest of the State that their foster care concerns also
be met. Ms. Sipe commented that at this time, there is no
State board, only an Anchorage panel. The Anchorage panel
does not have voting powers and can not set policy for the
new panels. There is a lot of work which needs to be done
in the first year. The phase-in will be expensive in
establishing a State board responsible for policy and
regulations. Implementing one-third of one town is very
different than implementing the entire State. Providing
service for part of the cases would be difficult and would
result in duplication of services with DFYS.
She added, the legislative intent would be to bring one town
up to 100%, so the entire system could see how well it works
and then, as quickly as possible, begin to up-date the rest
of the State. She stressed that the intent is not to
discriminate. Current recommendations are to stagger
implementation of the program and then begin with start-up
grants for all regions.
Ms. Sipe stressed the need for adequate program funding.
Historically, when the bill was passed in 1991, it carried a
$750 thousand dollar fiscal note. The suggested new fiscal
note could max out at $550 thousand dollars. She
summarized, no one wants to live with the constant criticism
that the Legislature has established a goal without
providing the proper resources.
Representative Mulder inquired if there was a less expensive
alternative to the proposed program. Co-Chair Therriault
asked if there was something in the public agency system
which would make more sense. Ms. Sipe replied that the
Governor supports the concept that whenever the reviews
occur in the agency only, all of the parties of that case
witness it as an administrative function. The value of
getting away from the agency, and using citizens that care
about kids would be valuable. Over the long term, there
will be maximum savings, money and advocacy on behalf of
kids. This is a complex system, and the volunteerism must
be handled carefully as it is a delicate issue.
Ms. Sipe responded to Representative Mulder's repeated
concern regarding fiscal costs. She reminded members that
most states do not realize cost savings in the first two
years. The Commission on Justice pinpointed this as their
prime recommendation. It will save money in the long-run.
6
Co-Chair Therriault agreed that in the out-years the budget
subcommittees will look at the effort and determine if a
shift of monies could be made. He placed the legislation in
a Subcommittee with Representative Mulder as Chair and with
members Representative J. Davies and Representative Kelly.
He asked the Subcommittee to address the legislation's
wording and the fiscal note phase-in.
HB 127 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|