Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/10/1997 01:02 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HCR 4 - SEPARATE RECORDS FOR DELINQUENTS & CINA BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide to Representative Pete Kelly, addressed the committee on HCR 4, Relating to records generated and maintained by the Department of Health and Social Services. MR. CAMPBELL advised members that HCR 4 was a companion bill to HB 6 and was a resolution that enables the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to separate the staff who handle child abuse cases from the staff who manage criminal records within the Youth Corrections division. MR. CAMPBELL explained that the separation of staff and personnel would protect the agency from the loss of most of the federal funds received for out-of-home placement. He noted that currently, over $7 million in federal funds was spent each year for out-of-home placement for abused children, and the separation would protect funds used for children in need of aid cases. Mr. Campbell explained that the separation would not protect funds used for foster placement of delinquent children. MR. CAMPBELL advised members that removing children from dysfunctional homes was an important option for breaking the cycle of violence for children who commit criminal acts. MR. CAMPBELL pointed out that through discussions with the department, he would be offering a technical amendment for the committee's consideration. Mr. Campbell stated that the issue was not so much the separation of records, but the task necessary so delinquency records could be disclosed with a minimal loss of federal funds. He noted that the primary task the department would be taking on was the restructuring of individuals who handle those types of records; personnel dealing with Children in Need of Aid (CINA) records would fall under one section of the department, and personnel dealing with delinquency records would fall under a separate section within the department. MR. CAMPBELL pointed out the restructuring costs and process was explained in detail in the department's fiscal note. Number 1014 Representative Pete Kelly arrived. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it was his understanding that presently the judge would receive a packet of information in a delinquency proceeding, and CINA records would be included in that file. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY stated that depending on the case, that would be correct. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Representative Kelly to explain how HB 6 and HCR 4 were interrelated. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY advised members that achieving disclosure was a multi-step process. He stated that prior to effective disclosure it would be necessary to reorganize within the division so that a sizeable amount of federal funds would not be jeopardized. Representative Kelly felt HB 6 and HCR 4 would be mutually inclusive and felt HB 6 would not be achievable with out the results of HCR 4. CHAIRMAN GREEN added that he viewed HCR 4 as enabling legislation for HB 6, which the committee would consider the following Wednesday. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS), Department of Health and Social Services, explained that the issue of restructuring the DFYS was a direct result of HB 6, which would allow the department to disclose information on juveniles involved with the system. She explained that both family services and youth services were administered within the same division of the department. MS. WORLEY advised members that part of the department's function was related to the ability to collect federal 4(e) dollars, which was related directly to children who are in out-of-home placement. She explained that the state receives approximately $7 million in 4(e) funds from the federal government. One of the requirements, in order to access those funds, was to have strict confidentiality regulations regarding clients within the division's care. MS. WORLEY explained that in order to continue receiving those federal funds it would be necessary for the department to restructure the youth and family services division. She advised members that the state currently collects approximately $7 million in federal 4(e) dollars, of which approximately $700,000 were for the juvenile population. MS. WORLEY stated that even with the restructuring, the department would still lose federal 4(e) dollars attached to the juvenile population. The state would not lose the $6 million plus, currently claimed on the CINA families. Number 1520 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this was an idle threat from the federal government, and questioned whether other states which had failed to comply with the federal requirements had ultimately lost those federal funds. MS. WORLEY stated that the majority of states who were disclosing information on juveniles were not set up with both family services and youth services administered within the same division, so it was not an issue for those states. Those states who had systems similar to Alaska's were considering similar restructure changes. Ms. Worley noted that the federal government was very clear on the issue of confidentiality, and that was one of the primary criteria for receiving those federal funds. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that it would be possible for a child in need of aid to become a delinquent and asked how the department would accommodate that situation. MS. WORLEY did not feel that would be an issue as long as the department kept their files and accounting explicitly separate between the two segments, which would be the case after restructuring. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES presented a hypothetical situation of a delinquent child becoming a CINA child, at some point in time, and questioned whether that child would be able to go over to the CINA side of the structure after first falling under the division of youth services. MS. WORLEY felt that was an excellent question, and one she had not thoroughly considered. She stated that it was her understanding that if a disclosure occurred in the juvenile section and later became a CINA case, the department would not disclose any further information relating to the juvenile case. Ms. Worley noted that she would research that further and advise the committee if she had any misunderstanding of the process. TAPE 97-13, SIDE 1 Number 000 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, advised members he had worked with Ms. Worley the previous year on the proposed legislation, as well as having several conversations with officials of the Children's Bureau in Washington, D.C. and Region 10 in Seattle the year before that. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked why the courts could not release their records and avoid DFYS problems with release. MR. CHRISTENSEN advised members that he was told that any information the court system received from the DFYS could not be re-released without DFYS losing funds. He stated that unlike adult cases where the arresting officer brings the name of the offender to the court's attention, with children's cases the arresting officer does not actually file the charge with the court; the charge would always come from the DFYS. The court system is not allowed to release the name of the child, adding that if one could not release the name of a child it would not make sense to release any other information even if internally generated. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his dissatisfaction with the federal government's philosophy on that issue. Number 103 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the juvenile records looked like, who they were generated by and who had access to them. MS. WORLEY advised members that the juvenile record would include the arrest record and any additional information that had been discovered since that point. It would include information regarding discussions with the probation officers, information relating to discussions with the parents and discussions as to the possible outcome of the case; i.e., petition the court or adjust the case. Ms. Worley noted that the file could also include other information relating to psychological evaluations or other testing that might have been done. ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, pointed out that other documents that might be included in the juvenile file would be a risk needs assessment which involved a formal evaluation of what the individual's needs are, as well as what levels of risk they could present to the community. Medical records could also be found in the file that might indicate special issues that the department would need to be aware of when determining placement or treatment intervention programs, and financial issues relating to parent income. Mr. Buttcane pointed out that a great deal of information relating to victims would be contained in the juvenile file, along with negotiations that had taken place with them; restitution agreements, assignment of restitution levels between multiple co-defendants, and occasionally extensive school records, especially if the youth were deemed a special education student. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt that some of the information contained in the juvenile record could be considered privileged or confidential, and asked if that would present a problem within the proposed resolution. MS. WORLEY stated that in the Governor's proposed disclosure of juvenile records there was a distinction as to what could, and what could not be released, such as medical records, psychologic evaluations and information relating to personal family history would not be open to the public. She thought those types of exclusions were included in Representative Kelly's resolution also. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that she was having a difficult time trying to figure out why the state was attempting to protect personal records for the purpose of not losing federal funds, when what they really want to know are the names of the juveniles who were committing crimes. MS. WORLEY agreed with the statement made by Representative James; however, stated that people also wanted to know how the situation was handled after the juvenile was suspected of committing a crime. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that the juvenile records Representative Berkowitz was referring to are provided to the court system, but HB 6, that would be addressed by the committee at a later date, does not address those records. The context of that proposal was the release of the names of the juveniles and the parents. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the committee was, or would be considering HB 3, HB 6 and HCR 4 as a package, basically, because they were all interrelated. He noted, however, that the Governor had introduced legislation and asked what the department's position was on that. MS. WORLEY advised members that the current position of the Department of Health and Social Services was that they did support the Governor's bill that was developed as a result of the Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice. She also expressed that the department was working closely with Representative Kelly on HB 6, and continue working towards some compromise in that bill. Ms. Worley advised members the department did not support HB 3 because they did not agree with the time of disclosure. Number 1378 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to adopt Amendment 1 as follows; page 1, line 8, after the word "disclosure;" delete the word [and], delete lines 9 and 10 in total; on line 13 delete [existing CINA and delinquency records are], and insert delinquency information can be disclosed with minimal loss of federal funds., and delete lines 14 and 15 entirely. There being no objection, Amendment 1, HCR 4 was adopted unanimously. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that the Governor's bill was a result of the recommendation of the Juvenile Justice Commission and that he and Representative Kelly served on that commission. He explained that the original organization of the commission had been broken down into three groups. Representative Porter stated that he served on the group that dealt with the issue of the release of juvenile records. The recommendation Representative Porter's group arrived at was somewhat stronger that what was contained in the Governor's bill, and more typical of Representative Kelly's bill. SCOTT CALDER, Fairbanks resident, advised members that one of the primary problems with access to records was the ability of parents to obtain records on their own children. He felt that would be one of the initial problems to resolve, adding that he had not heard any discussion taking place on that issue at all. CHAIRMAN GREEN appreciated the comments of Mr. Calder; however, explained that HB 6 would be considered by the committee the following Wednesday and invited Mr. Calder to provide comments during that hearing. ADJOURNMENT
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|