Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 03:07 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 209-PROGRAM FOR FORMER FOSTER CHILDREN CHAIR DYSON announced that the last order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 209, "An Act directing the Department of Health and Social Services to establish a foster care transitional program; relating to that program; and providing for an effective date." Number 0794 CHAIR DYSON, speaking on behalf of the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 209, stated that the federal government has recognized that there is a problem with kids who have spent their lives in state custody and may be ill-equipped when they are 18 and take up independent living. He said the federal government has developed a program that includes funding for transition services for those kids. [The legislature] will have to change its law in order to comply. THERESA TANOURY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services (DFYS), Department of Health & Social Services, came forth and stated that HB 209 is needed in order for [DFYS] to accept some funding through the federal bill - the Chafee (ph) bill - that gives [DFYS] the authority to serve kids who have been in foster care until they are 18. The Chafee bill requires [DFYS] to serve kids ages 18 to 21 who are no longer in state custody. Currently, under state statute [DFYS] does not have the authority to spend money on kids who are not in state custody. She added that HB 209 also codifies an independent-living program for this certain population. She clarified that it does not include kids who are being adopted, have a guardian, or are returning home. CHAIR DYSON asked when this has to be in place in order for [DFYS] to get the federal money. MS. TANOURY answered that there are no regulations in place for the federal law. She stated that the federal government has told [DFYS] that there will be a penalty, but didn't specify what, and that [DFYS] must demonstrate that a certain percentage of the money must be spent on kids not in foster care over age 18. She said [DFYS] can receive the funding now. CHAIR DYSON asked, if [the committee] doesn't pass this law, whether [DFYS] can receive the money. Number 1000 MS. TANOURY responded that [DFYS] can receive it but will be subject to a penalty unless it can prove where it can spend the money. Right now, she said, it does not have the authority to spend money on kids who are not in state custody. She added that [DFYS] also went to the federal government with the idea of extending custody, which is done occasionally for kids who are in foster care and haven't completed high school. The federal government had responded that those kids will not count for that federal requirement; they have to be former foster care children. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Chair Dyson what his concern is. CHAIR DYSON answered that he does not have a big problem with [the legislation]. He said he wants to push [DFYS] to start preparing these kids for transition when they are 16. He stated that in theory there is nothing that is keeping [DFYS] from doing that now, but this money is not available to do that. He said he was also trying to inject a magistrate into that decision. He added that given all that, some "neat" things are happening: the universities have promised five scholarships for these kids; virtually every labor union is going to offer a couple of free apprenticeships; and housing, mentors, and health care are being determined. Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that when he thinks of an 18- to 21-year-old, he thinks of a person who is ready to leave as quickly as he or she can. He stated that he needs to be convinced that someone who is 18 or 21 is in a situation in which he or she needs to have the state shepherd him or her into life. He asked if a kid is having trouble at 18, whether [DFYS] can get that person in better shape by the time he or she is 21. CHAIR DYSON responded that some of these kids have prenatal alcohol damage and other things. He said that [DFYS] is not going to do this with every kid, and it is largely voluntary. If the kid wants to avail himself or herself, and learn how to get a driver's license or use a checkbook, he or she will have those services available. Number 1320 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated that having worked with adolescents, adolescents today are not the adolescents "we" used to have. She said some of it is due to the kind of pressures that kids have now that they didn't have 30, 40, or 50 years ago; they mature more slowly. The average adolescent today has not really taken on adult symbols of maturity. She stated that the kids who have been in the foster care system oftentimes have been in situations in which the people they were with weren't professionals helping them develop full maturity as adults. They have missed out on a number of the steps that normally a parent is going to very deliberately have been working toward for years. She remarked that these kids have "holes" in their development, and this would pick up those missing pieces. MS. TANOURY stated that this bill, as well as the federal bill, tells [DFYS] to identify the kids who are likely to "age out" of the foster care system. This creates a program around these children that isn't there today, because there hasn't been any funding. The focus has been to get kids with families; however, there are some kids who aren't going to go back to the family or be adopted. She stated that what happens to those kids is that at age 18, or the day the custody ends, there is no support for them. She said there is a feeling of obligation to these children to make sure that they have the right start, given the history that many of them have endured. Number 1490 CHRIS CROMER testified via teleconference in support of HB 209. He stated that he has been a foster parent for many years. He stated that he heard Ms. Tanoury say that this does not have an impact on children taken into the guardianship program; however, he thinks that is a big population that is being left out. He noted that 79 children this year taken into guardianship will enter adulthood while still in high school. He asked if there are any plans to add that into this. MS. TANOURY responded that the federal bill refers to kids aging out - those kids who are in foster care on their 18th birthday. She said [DFYS] has had three or four 17-year-olds this year who were adopted. Most of the time a guardianship takes place early; therefore, there is a significant adult in their life. She stated that [DFYS] would like to see those kids in the guardianship program get some independent-living skills, but [DFYS] is trying to prioritize the population in order to address those kids who have no adult [in their lives]. MR. CROMER stated that he can see the point. He said, in his case, [he took a child in, under guardianship] after that child was under his care for four years. By the time all of the proceedings went through, the child was 17. However, regardless of his age, that wouldn't have stopped the fact that he graduated at 19. Mr. Cromer stated that if he were to have taken this child at 5, 12, or 17, he still would have lost his benefits at the age of 18 and would have had to complete his entire senior year of high school without Medicaid and without subsidies provided by the state. CHAIR DYSON asked Ms. Tanoury if the federal law would exclusively preclude children who had only been in guardianship for a relatively short period of time from participating in this transitional services. MS. TANOURY responded that the federal law says, "children who are likely to age out of the foster care system." She stated that she thinks it is good practice - for any kid who is in custody at 16, whether he or she is going to be adopted or have a guardianship - for [DFYS] to be talking to them and the foster parents about the preparation that the youth needs. CHAIR DYSON asked when a guardianship ends. MS. TANOURY answered, [when the young person is] 18. CHAIR DYSON asked, "Can't we argue that these kids are aging out as well?" MR. CROMER responded that he thinks, parallel to this bill, the federal government, through the Title IV-E, allows [protection] until the age of 21; however, the state has put a limit on that to the age of 18. Number 1280 MS. TANOURY stated that [DFYS] has had many discussions about extending the subsidy program as well as extending foster care. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked, if that population were added to the guardianship population, whether there would be any fiscal implications. MS. TANOURY responded that she would have to look at the number of kids being discussed. She stated that [DFYS] will get federal money to do this program - $500,000 for approximately 50 kids a year. This was authorized to last for five years. She clarified that [DFYS] can spend money on kids younger than 18, and has to spend a certain amount of money on kids between 18 and 21 who are former foster kids. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if it is $500,000 for as many kids as can be covered. MS. TANOURY answered, "That's correct." Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how many of these kids have mental health issues. MS. TANOURY referred to documents provided in the committee members' packets and replied that [DFYS] had conducted a survey, which found that about 52 percent did not have any disability. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that [the legislature] is looking at a significant cost in housing. He asked if this is going to back up programs that are already working with people with disabilities. MS. TANOURY responded that those kids will probably transition into the developmentally disabled programs or the mental health programs. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if any of this money will go with them. MS. TANOURY answered, no. CHAIR DYSON stated that he and Representative Cissna are thinking of one of three options: do nothing, have [DFYS] serve some of the kids who are aging out of guardianship and have needs, or put that in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said maybe there should be some priority for kids who really need what can't be provided. Number 2025 TIMOTHY SPENGLER, Division of Family & Youth Services, Department of Health & Social Services, stated that a good portion of the $500,000 will be used for children who are still in foster care - ages 16 to 18. It will not all be used for those who are aging out of the program. He added that guardianship of a DFYS child is considered a permanent plan, like adoption or going home. Hopefully, someone who was guardian to a child would continue to be involved in that child's life, just as if he or she had adopted that child. He stated that the money is limited, and if it is spread too thin with youngsters who have significant people in their lives, it will limit what can be accomplished with the youngsters who have nobody in their lives. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked what percentage of this money would be for the kids [DFYS] would want to get ready prior to 18, and if [any of that money] would go to training foster parents. MS. TANOURY responded that [DFYS] has not specified that amount but has talked about putting some money into foster parent training. She added that when the guardianship takes place, the case is closed. If the child has special needs, [DFYS] provides the subsidy until he or she is 18, and annually reviews it. She said this is a little different from having a kid age out and keeping an open, monitored case. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Mr. Cromer, in terms of the guardianships, whether there are ways [DFYS] can provide training or extended opportunities, but not "drain the bank" specifically on [guardianship]. MR. CROMER responded that he has no desire to add guardianships specifically to HB 209. He clarified that he is in full support of this bill, but thinks there is a simple remedy for the guardianship issue. The guardian should take on the responsibilities as a standard parent; however, subsidies and Medicaid should continue until the age of 18. If there is school left, these [guardians] need to be supported. Number 2201 CHAIR DYSON remarked that he has two proposed conceptual amendments. The first one would allow [DHSS] to receive grants as well as program money, and the second limits the age to under 21, instead of under 22. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to adopt the foregoing as conceptual Amendment 1 and conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 1 and conceptual Amendment 2 were adopted. Number 2299 AL SUNDQUIST, President, Alaska Chapter, Americans United for Separation of Church & State, testified via teleconference in opposition to HB 209 as it is currently written. He stated: This bill is unconstitutional and should be amended. Americans United is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to preserving the constitutional principles of separation of church and state and religious liberty. ... In the definitions section of this bill, "qualified entities" includes churches and religious organizations. This is unconstitutional. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits funding of [religious organization. TAPE 01-47, SIDE B MR. SUNDQUIST continued, stating: The Alaska constitution includes similar prohibitions, also specifying churches, is evidence of privatizations of one faith, which as additionally prohibited. An amendment would easily remedy this by changing the language on page 3 from "churches and religious organizations" to religiously affiliated organizations". If funding is provided through religiously affiliated organizations, there will need to be safeguards, as usual, so that indoctrination and proselytizations of beneficiaries is prohibited; that government funding precludes discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion; and that no funds can be used for religious purposes. Number 2282 RANDALL LORENZ, Staff to Representative Fred Dyson, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the committee aide to the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee, stated that what Mr. Sundquist is referring to comes under Article VII of the [U.S.] Constitution, which dealt with the public school system only. There were two arguments: one was direct and indirect funding of a private or religious school. [Article VII] only talked about direct funding of a school and did not address indirect [funding]. Therefore, as long as a single private entity is not directly funded, the constitution is not violated. Number 2207 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE moved to report HB 209, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 209(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|