Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
04/13/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB27 | |
| HB7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 27-DHSS DUTIES;CINA; FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION
1:06:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first 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."
1:06:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt CS for Sponsor Substitute
HB 27, 29-LS0176\I, Glover, 4/16/15 as the working document.
There being no objection, the committee substitute was before
the committee.
1:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, offered the
committee substitute changes that include legislative intent
toward cost efficiency, yet allowing changes in the foster care
system giving children a permanent loving home and a chance life
to succeed in life as other youth with a stable family. He
referred to a letter from the Department of Health & Social
Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS) admitting it made
a mistake as "we are an underfunded agency in crisis." He
advised this bill requires an OCS worker, appearing before the
court during a [normally ordered] status hearing, to show the
court they have performed their duties and made reasonable
efforts to find a permanent placement for the child. He opined
there are incidences wherein very young social workers, with
caseloads 70 percent higher than they can handle, make mistakes
out of inexperience and being overburdened. He extended that
better coordination between OCS and tribal entities must be
offered, and the sponsor is currently working with all of the
group to determine acceptable language in that regard. He
commented that should acceptable language be offered, possibly
another committee would consider it.
1:10:08 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how many committees the bill has to go
through.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered the bill will go to the floor and,
if it reflects the House committee assignments, it will go
through the Senate Health, Education and Social Services
Standing Committee, and Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that Representative Gara has the summer to
determine language and offered to hold the bill and offer it to
the House floor with appropriate language.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA extended that is Chair LeDoux's discretion,
but his preference is to move the bill along as next session the
House Judiciary Standing Committee's schedule is unknown. He
related that OCS is attempting to determine a way to pay for a
dorm room, or a place to live, after a child leaves foster care
in that the child has overcome obstacles and performed in a
manner to enter college, or job training, but cannot pay for
housing. The bill adds a no cost provision giving OCS the
ability to determine how to offer a [post]-foster child housing,
he conveyed.
1:11:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked where that provision is located.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed Chair LeDoux to [Sec. 8, AS
47.14.100(a)], page 8, lines 1-11, which read:
(a) Subject to (e), (f), and (i) - (m) of this
section, the department shall arrange for the care of
every child committed to its custody by placing the
child in a foster home or in the care of an agency or
institution providing care for children inside or
outside the state. The department may place a child
in a suitable family home, with or without
compensation, and may place a child released to it, in
writing verified by the parent or guardian or other
person having legal custody, for adoptive purposes, in
a home for adoption in accordance with existing law.
For a child 16 years of age or older, the department
may authorize another transitional living arrangement,
including student dormitory residence at a
postsecondary educational institution, that adequately
meets the child's needs and is designed to assist the
child's transition to independent living.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that "the department may" which
give the department the ability to work on a solution, of which
they have worked on for years.
1:12:21 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she does not understand how a
solution can be found without a fiscal note. She asked in what
manner OCS can arrange for dorm rooms without a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that it is "the department may" so
the department will have to come back to the legislature for
funding. He pointed out that this legislation give the
department the authority to find a solution. He anticipates the
department will come back to the legislature and advise it will
continue to keep the child in foster care at $80 per day so that
the child has a place to live. Although, the department may
determine a cheaper way a child can leave foster care and stay
in college. He summarized it is all subject to a future
legislative appropriation.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned how long a youth stays in foster care.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained there has been a national
movement, including Alaska, of roughly 40 states that allow a
youth, given the damage they have suffered, to stay in foster
care as late as age 21, but can be released earlier if it is in
the youth's best interests.
1:14:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Chair LeDoux, opined that
the earliest a youth can be released is age 16.
1:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, referred to the topic of a fiscal note,
and pointed the committee to [Sec. 6, AS 47.10.080(x)], page 7,
lines 12-24, which read:
(x) If the department transfers a child from one
placement setting to another and it is reasonable and
in the child's best educational interests, the
department shall immediately, and in advance of the
transfer if possible, coordinate with the school the
child is attending to ensure the child is permitted to
attend that school through the end of the school term
if the child's new placement is in the same
municipality and connected by a road to the school.
If federal funds and school district transportation
funds are not available to pay for the cost of
transportation for the child, the department shall pay
the costs of transporting the child to school. The
department shall work with the family or agency where
the child is placed to arrange for transportation.
The department shall consult with the school district
regarding the child's best interests, but the school
district may not override the department's decision to
allow a child to remain in the current school through
the end of the school term.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that OCS is required to provide
transportation costs within the district and asked why the
fiscal note would be zero.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered there is currently money in the
budget, but no language in statute. He described a scenario of
a child moving through three foster homes within one school
term, and thereby attending three different schools.
Consequently, he offered, that child is set back academically an
average of three months each time they change schools. He
extended that federal law, for homeless children but not most
foster children, says a child should be able to finish their
school term in the same school when living in the same
community. He reiterated there is money in the budget for OCS
to pay transportation, but no statutory language. He opined the
statutory language would be that rather than waiting for the
child to move between foster homes and sent to a new school, the
bill is asking OCS to coordinate, if reasonable and able, with
the school before the transfer. In that manner the child
remains in the school in a seamless manner.
1:15:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that OCS is "getting the job done
now, right."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered that OCS is trying to get the job
done which goes to the double checks in the bill.
1:16:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that currently OCS pays for transportation
costs when a child moves from one school to another school in
order to keep that child in the same school.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA verified that OCS will, as a first option,
offer mileage money to the foster family so the child can remain
in the same school for the rest of school term, if in the
child's best educational interests.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that many people in Anchorage, not OCS
people, move from one place to another and the government
doesn't give them money for transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied "No," but he is speaking about
foster care children, who sometimes move between 15-16
placements, with no connection to a real family and no real
support, who attempt to overcome hurdle after hurdle after
hurdle, that are moved to a brand new family the child does not
know. He opined the last thing the state wants to do is give
the child another piece of dislocation in taking them out of one
school to another school [before the school term is completed].
In the case of children with responsible loving parents, it is
easier for the children to move between schools. He described
foster children as basically being left on their own, and
advised non-profit programs give these children suitcases
because they move so often. He said the children are
vulnerable, who have already been neglected, and have very high
adverse childhood experiences scores just from being through the
system. He noted that [moving a child from school to new
school] is an issue that could be the straw that breaks the
camel's back for a child.
1:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined there is a federal requirement
that there be transportation for homeless children.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered in the affirmative, and advised the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, applies to
homeless children, which covers some small group of foster
children also. He offered that it is the science that children
with who have been neglected the last thing to do is make them
move between schools in the middle of a term. In that regard,
under federal law, there is funding for a homeless child to keep
them in the same school for the remainder of the term.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed that homeless children at
risk may have at least one parent which is an advantage, and
foster children do not have parents and are not homeless with
the same type of problem. He opined that federal money cannot
be accessed and in order to help these children it must be at
the state level.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA reiterated there is money in the budget that
passed a number of years ago.
1:20:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the state is already [providing
transportation] and there would not be a change in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA advised the language codifies it in the law.
1:20:23 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX further surmised that previously OCS was providing
transportation, but there was no statutory requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that "certainly" OCS has the power
to do these things, and in 2009 a budget appropriation was
passed with intent language and has been in the budget ever
since, with no statutory requirement. He advise this bill, as
opposed to intent language in the budget, asks OCS to coordinate
an advance of the move so that the school district and OCS are
on board, to the extent it is able. He described a possible
circumstance wherein the child is forced to move between
schools, then OCS coordinates with the school, and they then
move the child back to the original school.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the school districts grant waivers
for the children.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered in the affirmative.
1:21:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA began his presentation and advised that
currently 24 percent of foster youth end up in jail, 20 percent
end up homeless by the strictest definition, and 20 percent end
up couch surfing because they do not have their own home.
Although, couch surfing was previously considered homelessness
at a 40 percent homeless risk rate and is now at a 20 percent
homelessness rate because the definition was changed, and that
youth awaiting an adoptive home total 849. He pointed out that
OCS describes itself as an agency in crisis due to short
staffing, young case workers, and a turnover of workers. He
pointed to the first part of the bill specifying how important
it is to give a child a permanent home and, thereby, requiring
that a OCS worker show the court they have taken reasonable
steps to find a permanent home for the child during a status
hearing. He expressed these cases cannot keep slipping through
the cracks so the legislation asks the court to ask that
question. In the event a social worker has not made the
efforts, the court will order the worker to perform their
required work.
1:23:01 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked the page number of this discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to [Sec. 4, AS 47.10.080(l)], page
5, lines 10-11, which read:
... and shall demonstrate in its report that the
department is making reasonable [ON] efforts [BEING
MADE] to find a permanent placement for the child.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA then referred to [Sec. 4, AS 47.10.080(l)],
page 6, lines 24-28, which read:
(6) if the court finds, under (4)(C)(ii) of this
subsection, that the department is not making
reasonable efforts to find a permanent placement for
the child, the court shall order the department to
make reasonable efforts to find a permanent placement
for the child unless the current placement is in the
best interests of the child.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA advised it is a court double-check to
ascertain that the process is working and social workers are
performing as required.
1:24:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed the importance in the world of
foster care to find a family placement or a placement close to
the child's family, if that is in the best interests of the
child. Currently, within the first 30 days of a child being
taken into foster care, under federal law OCS is required to
make a diligent search to find available good family members or
friends of the family for the child. This legislation requires
that between each new placement OCS must determine whether there
is a [natural] family placement. Thereby reminding OCS this is
an important issue for the child as it is often a better
placement than a stranger. He focused on the discussion of a
child going to college, or job training, with no place to live,
and giving OCS the ability to find a solution. He noted that
currently, in 12 states, the statistics are that 50 percent of
youth are still living with their parents up through age 25. He
referred to foster youths going through 2-15 placements who
suffer damage and sometimes are not ready to leave foster care
at age 18. He pointed out that in line with 40 other states,
this legislation extends foster care up to age 21, and noted
that sometimes a less experienced social worker releases a child
before they are 19-21 without a strong factual basis, and not in
the child's best interests. He related that in the event a
child is released from foster care before the age of 19-21, the
case worker must demonstrate to the court that it is in the
child's best interests, which is the standard.
1:26:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to [Sec. 11, AS 47.18.320(2)], page
9, lines 1-2, which read:
(2) assistance in obtaining educational
[BASIC EDUCATION] and vocational training;
REPRESENTATIVE GARA advised that currently the state requires
the department to give children assistance in obtaining a basic
education. He opined that all children are entitled to more
than a basic education, and some children are ready for
traditional schools and others for vocational training. It is
now OCS's duty to grant assistance in a child obtaining
educational or vocational training and related he is offended by
the term "basic."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed "I am offended to go back to
basic, and I would hope we don't do that."
1:28:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA continued that this bill has been supported
by both national and Alaska advocacy organizations as an
important piece of legislation they see will make a difference.
He called attention to the "Independent Living Program" for
youth ages 16-23, mostly funded by the federal government with
some state funds, to help youths get into college, job training,
or on their feet, so they become success stories and not people
the state pays for in the criminal system. This legislation
requires a report to the legislature as to whether adequate
employment training voucher funds are available and, he
indicated that the bill does not require an appropriation from
the legislature. He explained the department has gone from 1700
foster children five years ago, to 2400 foster children with
essentially the same number of social work staff.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
1:29:48 PM
AMANDA METIVIER, Executive Director, Facing Foster Care in
Alaska (FFCA), said she represents Facing Foster Care in Alaska
(FFCA) and is a three year alumni of the foster care system who
aged out of the system. She advised she supports HB 27, has a
Bachelors and Master's degree in social work from UAA, and has
been a foster parent for quite a while as well. Currently,
almost 2500 children and youth are in foster care in Alaska,
which is more than one percent of its child population and is
growing in epidemic proportions. She expressed there are
approximately 1400 foster homes so the foster children are in
settings such as residential treatment facilities, homeless
shelters, children's homes, and basically anywhere there is an
open bed. She noted there are high rates of homelessness,
incarceration, and early pregnancy for youth aging out of the
foster care system. This legislation ensures that youth give
their consent, or have a say prior to being released at age 21.
She conveyed that most youth extending foster care until age 21,
have not achieved a permanent family, with no ties back to their
family, and need a little extra help.
1:31:33 PM
MS. METIVIER pointed out that most 18-year olds are still in
high school, working toward graduation, and may not possess job
skills. She reminded the committee that legislation was passed
a few years ago allowing a youth to extend foster care until age
21, because they were not ready and needed a little extra help
before moving into society. This portion of the bill is very
important because she has actually seen youth released at age
17-19, with no high school diploma, no graduation, no housing,
no job, and no job skills, who are literally released to the
street on a regular basis. She expressed that the state holds
these children in care for several years and doesn't prepare
them, then dumps them out into society. In order to combat that
issue this legislation offers foster children an opportunity to
get ready and work within the Independent Living Program,
thereby acquiring job skills, and preparing for issues necessary
to complete in order to become successful adults, therefore, the
cycle doesn't continue. She remarked that she has seen youth
having children and coming back into the system. Ms. Metivier
pointed to the important provision of promoting permanency, and
there are federal timelines requiring that within 12-24 months
moving toward adoption, legal guardianship, or reunification, as
foster care is meant to be temporary. She submits that the
state takes children away from their parents stating it can do a
better job, which means the children need to be put into a
permanent loving home. She said she currently works with youths
who have been in care for 10-18 years, and that legislators
should consider not only the foster care rate, but the cost of
social workers and the court system. She expressed there is
more the state could be doing to move foster children quickly
out of the system. This legislation, she described, is
supporting quick time lines to permanency by enforcing that the
state take them in and move them to a family supporting them.
1:33:48 PM
MS. METIVIER referred to the educational provisions and advised
she manages education and training voucher funds for foster
youth at the UAA Child Welfare Academy, and specified she is not
testifying for the Academy. She remarked that she completed her
master's practicum at the Anchorage School District with the
Homeless Project and testified that the Federal McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 reads that homeless children
receive transportation services for families with children
living in vehicles, in hotels. Assistance is provided for
transportation so children can stay in their same school for the
remainder of the school year as they are bouncing around. She
opined that that law also includes children awaiting foster care
placement, or have experienced an emergency move in the last 24
hours. She related that for a child that has come into custody
and is possibly an emergency 30 day placement with a foster home
or in a shelter ...
CHAIR LEDOUX advised Ms. Metivier that testimony is limited to
five minutes per person.
1:35:06 PM
MS. METIVIER responded that the legislation promotes educational
stability and allows for youth transitioning out on their own to
have the support of the Independent Living Program in the
system.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that the bill is very well intended and
she respects Representative Gara's passion with respect to the
foster care system. Although, she noted, it appears to be a
band-aid for a totally broken system. She related that people
have come to her office who have been placed in 15-20
placements, and she does not know whether the legislation will
correct that issue, or what will correct it. She offered a
scenario of Ms. Metivier as the empress of the foster care
system, what would she do.
1:36:32 PM
MS. METIVIER replied that she was one of the people speaking
with her in her office. She admitted the legislation is a small
fix in terms of the bigger picture of things the state could do,
or should do. Ultimately, she pointed out, the department has
very high turnover, while the state suffers from a budget
deficit and other fiscal issues. In a dream world, she offered,
OCS would have adequate staffing as many issues are tied back to
worker turnover and workers not meeting the monthly requirement
to visit children monthly. Also, she pointed out, in an ideal
world, OCS could staff better trained social workers thereby
allowing a more effective system, in that inexperienced,
overworked case workers are the root of many problems.
1:37:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked her feeling about orphanages as opposed to
foster care.
MS. METIVIER responded that most states have moved away ...
Alaska has not moved toward what is called congregate care, or
orphanages, or residential program type programs, or group
homes. She opined that many states over the last 20 years have
relied on that heavily and are actually moving away from that
now. She expressed she is glad Alaska didn't move in that
direction because ultimately youth do better when they have
connections to a family, and a support system in place that
isn't staff people, or social services, or an institution. She
assessed that when youth have natural community support, foster
children do better which comes with having a permanent family.
1:38:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated she understands Ms. Metivier's testimony in
theory, yet in practice when speaking with someone moving so
many times, she wonders whether a group home in which they stay
in the same place might be better than the theoretically great
foster family, which is sometimes greater in theory than in
practice.
MS. METIVIER advised that a federal law recently passed
"Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act"
113th Congress (2013-2014), promoting permanency, but again if
the state relied on orphanages it would still pay the foster
care rate out-of-pocket every day for possibly 10-20 years until
the child ages out versus moving them quickly out of the system.
She suggested that if a child comes in at age 12, and are put
into a permanent family, it could be 1-2 years in and out of the
system quickly with the family caring for them versus the state.
1:39:29 PM
RACHEL BEDSWORTH, Anchorage Representative, Facing Foster Care
in Alaska, said she is 18 years old, a senior and works at the
Red Robin Restaurant part-time. She expressed that she has been
in foster care for 12 years, had 45 foster home placements, and
has been sent to different schools. She advised she has gone
through five different social workers, and her current social
worker maintains a heavy case load and Ms. Bedsworth barely sees
her, or talks to her, or has any one-on-one time. She offered
that her social worker is currently attempting to push her out
of care and she is still in high school and "clearly" not ready
to be on her own. She asked the committee to pass HB 27 so
future foster care youth, like her, will not go to as many
placements and find permanency with a family.
1:40:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Bedsworth her opinion of the 45 homes she
has been in rather than a permanent group home.
MS. BEDSWORTH replied that a group home would not be as
beneficial as a foster home because within a foster home
sometimes a connection is made even if the youth moves out. She
advised she has been to a group home and sometimes an all-girls
group home, and the youth do not talk to each other after
leaving. The staff are only there because they are getting
paid, not because they want to help the youth. She expressed
that a foster home will actually have an at-home area where
there can be one-on-one time with her, him, or the family,
thereby receiving benefits as compared to a group home. She
expressed she does not like the group home idea, "to be honest."
Group homes are not beneficial to anyone, she opined.
1:42:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that HB 27 is attempting to fix
what is currently in place in that the state must make foster
homes work as well as it can. He supports the discussion of
exploring orphanages or large group homes, but in the meantime
the legislature needs to fix the current system to the best of
its ability. He stated he supports the bill.
1:43:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed to the section of the bill that
puts into code that the department must make a reasonable effort
to find permanent placement, and asked within her 45 placements
whether she believes the department made reasonable efforts on
her behalf for permanent placement.
MS. BEDSWORTH answered that when she was younger, ages 11-12
years of age, the department might have tried harder, but she
doesn't remember because she has been moved in-state, out-of-
state, and all over Anchorage. She admitted that sometimes it
was her fault, but the majority of the time the foster family
became overwhelmed with the foster care system. She opined that
the department has not exactly made those reasonable efforts for
her or with other youth she works with. Currently, she
describes herself as "doing good" so the department doesn't help
her with the things she needs which is the same with other youth
her age as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that he did not mean to imply
she might be at fault. Declaring that the department does not
take reasonable efforts to do its job, the committee needs to
hear from the department and OCS, he remarked.
1:45:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned, of the 45 foster placements,
whether she had homes lasting a couple of years.
MS. BEDSWORTH replied that she is currently living in a home of
almost two years, which is her longest placement. She referred
to this home as "independent living" because she is on her own
as the woman just takes the paycheck foster care parents
receive. Although, she pointed out, the woman pays her phone
bill, but other than that she works for everything she has and
the independent living program helps her. She advised the
committee that the majority of her homes were weeks or months,
and she had never been in a placement over one year, other than
this one.
1:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that this placement sounds like it
is going better.
MS. BEDSWORTH remarked it is because she is allowed to make her
own choices. She highlighted that she grew up being independent
as she took care of herself while her parents were doing their
own thing. She described herself as more an independent person
so this home is what she wanted, but not when she was younger.
When she was younger, she recollected, she did not know what she
wanted, but being age 18 and about to graduate high school, she
wishes she had received permanency when she was younger because
it would have been more helpful.
1:47:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether her case workers had a
manageable case load or did it feel like they always had more
foster children to manage and supervise than they had time to
work with.
MS. BEDSWORTH advised that case workers have always had more
kids than they can work with. She said she is really close with
her social worker ... or used to be, and because she has been
doing so good and hasn't needed her, the case worker hasn't
checked in on her, although, she sent an email to her school to
see how she was doing. She reiterated that the social worker is
trying to push her out of care, and said the case worker did not
indicate it was due to a high case load, but because Ms.
Bedsworth is doing so well the case worker doesn't feel she
needs to be in foster care any longer, "and I do." She pointed
out that her prior four social workers always seemed overworked,
and would only see her once a month at the end of the month when
they are rushing everything. It was more "let's get these
youths checked off and see how they're doing" so they could get
back to their job.
1:49:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Ms. Bedsworth's future plans.
MS. BEDSWORTH stated that she is graduating May 13, 2014, and
will then attend UAA. She will use her current funds to get
into college and after that she does not have a plan.
1:50:14 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether Ms. Bedsworth is currently in
foster care, or an independent living home, or is in the
independent living home part of ...
MS. BEDSWORTH interjected that independent living is her term
because it is a foster home giving her independence, but she is
currently a foster youth.
1:50:40 PM
ROBIN CHANEY said she is adopted, is the parent of three
naturally born children and an adopted child, and is currently
fostering a two year old. She stated that being from Southwest
Alaska, has noted that many of the Native youth are
disproportionally represented and in foster care. She pointed
out that Alaska has the highest load of Child in need of Aid
(CINA) cases, with highly over worked workers, and very few
resource families. Currently, she remarked, there are seven
licensed resource homes in the Bristol Bay Region and one is a
group home for children with special emotional needs. Two of
the six homes are at capacity without a permanent social worker,
although a couple of itinerants have gone through to provide
care for all of these villages. She indicated that her
licensing worker contacted her requesting help in recruiting
foster families in this region. The licensing worker advised
Ms. Chaney that they would have to find creative ideas because
her budget for recruiting foster and resource families in the
Bristol Bay Region was $100. She explained that having been a
foster parent in this region she finds it difficult for her, in
good conscious, to recruit other families even though she finds
it rewarding and she can protect and help these children, "but
to be honest, working with OCS is so, so difficult." She opined
that if it was just a matter of caring for children she would do
it every single day, but unfortunately foster care comes with a
whole legal and bureaucratic process that many families are
unprepared to deal with.
1:53:23 PM
MS. CHANEY spoke to the portion of the bill encouraging tribal
cooperation as often tribes are inadvertently or intentionally
left out of this process even though they have equal legal
status. She remarked that within Southwest Alaska, Native
children and their families belong to tribes and need the
protection of their tribes for permanency and to encourage
family placement, which often times does not happen. She agrees
that OCS is an agency in crisis as case workers have too many
cases, are supremely over worked, and are unable to reach out.
She stressed that the discussion is regarding children's lives,
young people's lives, and involves the health of entire families
and communities. She conveyed that her daughter's family was
originally from the Bethel area, born in Anchorage, and her
mother chose not to parent. Her premature daughter required
extensive medical care and after 3-4 placements, was placed with
a non-ICWA compliant family for two years who did not intend to
adopt her. She indicated she should have had her daughter's
placement at 18 months, but because her placement was changed
between August and January, and her social worker changed five
times during that period, their contact information was lost and
she was not contacted. She reiterated that even though the
legislation appears simple and does not fix the entire problem,
it is very important there is continued effort to find
permanency for these children. She expressed she strongly
disagrees with the idea of orphanages although there may be a
place for structured group homes for children with needs above
and beyond an average foster family. She pointed out that being
a Native from a rural community and watching generations of
Alaska Natives still recovering from the historical trauma of
orphanages, and also from forced removal from their families,
she strongly opposes the idea of orphanages.
1:56:24 PM
SARAH ANDREWS said she deeply appreciates the ongoing advocacy
and commitment to children in state custody demonstrated by
Representative Gara. She opined that HB 27 is a step in the
right direction in correcting many challenges inherent in the
child protection system. She offered that she and her husband
are currently licensed, ICWA compliant, rural Native foster
parents providing an alcohol, drug-free, culturally enriched,
healthy environment for children in state custody. They have
great role models and playmates in their two children, ages 7
and 9. She offered that their daughter came to their family
through a private adoption facilitated by Tribal Children's
Service workers and they are still in contact with their
daughter's birth family in a different region. She described
herself as an early childhood educator with a Master's Degree in
special education, and training in trauma and support for young
children. She commented that her husband has worked with adults
with disabilities for 20 years and is a skilled carver, wood
worker, and subsistence provider. She further commented they
are lifelong Alaskans with a large extended family in the
Bristol Bay Region, South Central, and Southeast Alaska
communities, are active in their church, volunteer at local
schools, and participate in year round subsistence activities.
1:57:54 PM
MS. ANDREWS provided that they have offered foster care to three
children over the last three years, and tried to adopt through
OCS twice and in both cases were forced to decide not to proceed
with the adoption. She explained this was not due to the
circumstances or exceptional needs of the children, but entirely
through the mismanagement of cases by OCS. She shared that at
this time, they do not intend to renew their foster care
license. She opined it is important for child advocates and
decision makers to understand pressures put upon foster parents
and why there is such a lack of foster parents in rural Alaska.
They were initially contacted by OCS regarding a two-year old
Alaska Native boy from their region who needed pre-adoptive
placement. They were interested and completed the home study
and other requirements laid out by the case worker, and advised
the case worker they would be in Anchorage in approximately six
weeks and would like to visit the child. Unfortunately, she
related, they heard nothing for over one month even though she
sent email reminders regarding their travel itinerary and still
received no response. Even the Tribal Children's Service worker
was unable to receive a response from the OCS office so they
traveled to Anchorage and visited with their family for two
weeks. On the day they were to return home she received a call
from the case worker saying she wanted to set up a meeting to
finalize the child's pre-adoptive placement with her and then
they could take him home, she said. At that time she advised
the case worker that she had not even met the child and it
wouldn't be fair to him or her family to handle the transition
in such an abrupt manner. The case worker stated this is the
only option as the current foster placement was no longer
available.
1:59:18 PM
MS. ANDREWS advised the committee that she told the case worker
they were ready to meet the child but were not prepared to take
him home with them immediately. The case worker then stated
that if they didn't take him home she would have to look for a
different pre-adoptive placement. Ms. Andrews and her husband
agreed this would not work for their family given they had two
small children who had not had a chance to meet this child. She
stated they felt very guilty and disappointed that they had to
say no, but were not willing to put their family in crisis mode
because a case worker had not adequately planned for the
transition. Subsequently, she commented, they provided
temporary foster care for two children whose parents were in
residential treatment for three months. Somehow their phone
number was given to both parents as well as extended family
members thereby receiving angry phone calls. She said she
referred them to the case worker and asked the family to set up
visitation through OCS, but they continued to call and harass
them with complaints and angry voice message rants. At one
point, she had to inform the case worker they felt threatened by
the increasingly aggressive tone of the communications from
family members. The case worker's response was that she
shouldn't have given them their phone number and advised the
case worker she was not the person sharing that information.
The case worker said she would tell them to please back off, but
they continued to call whenever they felt like it until the
children were returned to their custody, she expressed. Their
last fostering relationship was with a baby placed with them
when he was two months old from their region and, she related,
he identified as an extended family member. The baby lived with
them for 22 months, and he just transitioned from their home to
approved adoptive placement after hunting two years. During his
time with them, he had five OCS case managers and only one
actually saw him, or his birth parents, or his family, she
emphasized.
2:00:50 PM
MS. ANDREWS related that the majority of communications from the
OCS office were completely reactive and created multiple crisis
for her family. These events were due to a lack of information
and support from OCS as she was regularly left out of
communications regarding visits, court hearings, and case
reviews. She said her requests for basic forms and child care
assistance were ignored until the last minute, and while she
provided regular updates on his health and developmental status
she received very little response and the only time she
understood ...
2:01:29 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Andrews to begin wrapping up. Chair
LeDoux acknowledged that her testimony is very disconcerting and
that she is listening. Unfortunately, Ms. Andrews must wrap it
up for purposes of this hearing, but she can call her anytime or
any of the committee members, and also forward written
testimony, she extended.
MS. ANDREWS expressed that when they decided not to adopt the
last case, they were confronted by the social worker, "who was
furious with us and she blamed us and said that if we had set up
clear boundaries with the birth mother that there would have
been no challenges in the adoption process." She related that
her biggest concern is that foster families are set up to become
adversaries with OCS workers and that it is undermining the
foster care system in urban and rural areas. She offered she
has ideas about specific support that would work for rural
areas. She reiterated they have tried to adopt and currently do
not plan to pursue adoption through the OCS system.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she found her testimony to be very
disconcerting and asked whether this bill addresses any of her
concerns.
MS. ANDREWS replied that the bill will "absolutely" help as the
fact that case workers are so overworked affects the quality and
quantity of communications. She commented that probably 75
percent of the crisis and stress of being a foster parent is not
knowing what is going on with the case plan and legal status of
a child, especially if hoping to adopt. She reiterated that the
bill addresses that issue and also addresses the need to support
and recruit more foster parents. She described the bill as an
incremental step to a system that needs many fixes and support.
2:04:45 PM
NAOMI HARRIS, Community Relations Manager, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health & Social Services (OCS),
[Available to testify and answer questions.]
2:05:10 PM
KATIE LYBRAND, Assistant Attorney General, Child Protection
Section, Department of Law, [Available to testify and answer
questions.]
2:05:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Naomi Harris and Katie Lybrand whether they
have comments regarding the bill or regarding testimony
previously presented.
2:05:25 PM
MS. HARRIS related that the testimony has "honestly" been very
moving. She stated it is a sad reality of the current system
wherein there are an unprecedented number of children in care
and OCS being low staffed with many frontline social workers new
to OCS. In the instance of a new inexperienced case worker
immediately becoming overworked makes it difficult to stay long
which results in a high turnover rate as well. She described
the agency as being overstressed and overworked, and that it is
hard work for everyone, the children, families OCS is working
with to reunify, the foster families and recruitment efforts.
She opined that this bill will codify many of the efforts of
OCS, provide oversight to young workers, and be beneficial in
aligning many internal practices, federal mandates, and
prioritize and highlight more efforts for the children in care.
2:06:43 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the department supports HB 27.
MS. HARRIS responded that while the department is neutral on
this bill, it has been working with the sponsor and can easily
implement many of the provisions.
2:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether the bill in its current
form, other than training, will cause the department to do
anything differently.
MS. HARRIS answered in the affirmative, and remarked that there
are many points in providing oversight for the young workers and
will highlight efforts that will benefit children in care.
Especially, she pointed out, with children getting older and
still in care as it will allow workers to continue working with
the youth, and should the youth decide to leave the system the
youth will sign a consent to be released from care, which is
important. The bill also includes identifying dormitories as a
placement option which will enable OCS to support children as
they enter into higher education.
2:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that it begs the question of
how, being overworked, this bill could have a zero fiscal note
if it causes OCS to do things differently.
2:08:41 PM
MS. HARRIS replied that the zero fiscal note is due to current
funding, and commented that the bill allows increased oversight
by the court thereby giving increased structure to the existing
work OCS performs.
2:09:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to the requirement to change
court rules in telling the court to make a finding as to whether
reasonable efforts were undertaken [to find permanency]. He
questioned whether it is the potential of new findings the
courts will make, or are there findings now that do this without
using the term reasonable. He said he was trying to understand
why that section is in the bill.
MS. LYNBRAND asked whether Representative Keller was asking
about the new requirement of the court to rule whether or not
OCS made reasonable efforts to find a permanent placement for
the child.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to [Sec. 4, AS 47.10.080(D)(6)],
page 6, lines 24-28, which read:
(6) if the court finds, under (4)(C)(ii) of
this subsection, that the department is not making all
reasonable efforts to find a permanent placement for
the child, the court shall order the department to
make all reasonable efforts to find a permanent
placement for the child unless the current placement
is in the best interests of the child.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER then referred to [Sec. 13], page 9, lines
17-21, which read:
INDIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENTS. AS 47.10.080(l),
as amended by sec. 4 of this Act, has the effect of
amending Rule 17.2, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules
of Procedure, relating to permanency hearings, by
adding a requirement for the court to make findings
relating to the permanent placement of a child in need
of aid and to the efforts of the Department of Health
and Social Services to find a permanent placement for
a child.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER indicated that they go together.
2:10:27 PM
MS. LYBRAND responded that Representative Keller is correct in
that there is an additional finding the court would be required
to make at permanency hearings. She stated she believes the
indirect court rule amendment is speaking to adding that new
finding to the existing court rule for permanency hearings.
2:10:46 PM
MS. HARRIS, in response to Representative LeDoux, advised she is
the Community Relations Manager and the Legislative Contact for
the division.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether she meant oversight with the
department.
MS. HARRIS responded that it is the court's oversight for young
workers to prove OCS has made reasonable efforts for placement
thereby adding a layer of accountability.
2:11:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the department is saying it needs the
court to mandate OCS to make reasonable efforts. She further
asked why reasonable efforts are not being made right now
without the court mandating. Isn't that something OCS would do
naturally without the legislature demanding the court's
oversight that OCS make reasonable efforts, she inquired.
MS. HARRIS pointed out that responding to state and federal
mandates is very complicated, and with many young or new workers
to OCS the turnover rate is very high. In that regard, it is
adding that extra level of accountability to a practice
currently in place.
2:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that Chair LeDoux's line of
questioning leaves him stunned as he has never heard someone
from the administrative branch ask for more guidelines and
restrictions. He advised his previous interactions with social
workers and OCS is that they are caring social workers with real
problems out there "so get off our backs so we can get the work
done," and yet Ms. Harris is asking for oversight.
2:13:50 PM
MS. HARRIS opined that it is indicative of the imbalance of the
system in that currently there are more children in care than
ever before and add to that the issue of many case worker
vacancies due to high turnover. She related that when a plate
is so full sometimes things fall off and this is a manner in
which to ensure nothing falls off.
2:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN remarked that this bill is a good step as
this is a challenging system, "Don't let the perfect be the
enemy of the good." He asked what meaningful options are there
to improve the caseloads and longevity, short of increasing
money to hire more workers.
MS. HARRIS replied that off the top of her head, the answer is
that due to OCS burdens of workers and support staff, as
Representative Claman heard through testimony, the youth are
visited at the end of the month to get the monthly visits in.
In reality, she pointed out, that worker is visiting as many
kids as quickly as possible, but the documentation and follow up
pieces the workers have to adhere to after [visiting] are just
as important so that there is oversight at every level. She
opined that unfortunately during these budget cutting times it
comes back to requiring more staff in critical areas where there
are the most vulnerable populations needing care.
2:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN highlighted that the number of [foster
care placement] turnovers are worrisome as it does reflect
people taking on kids for short periods of time, but reflects a
pattern of the placements not working out at a high frequency.
MS. HARRIS advised that this bill supports current recruitment
efforts in that there has been a shortage of foster homes. She
surmised that this bill supports prioritizing a child remaining
in their school where they have their peer supports. Within
this bill are many pieces and multiple levels to provide safe
stability for a child, she stated.
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining that no
one further cared to testify.
2:19:19 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Representative Gara what section requires
work.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded there was a section, not discussed
in this meeting, "there are sometimes where a foster youth ...
or youth does not go into foster care, but in the investigation
... or a Native family." He pointed out that 60 percent of all
Alaska foster youth are Alaska Natives, which is 90 percent
disproportionate of the population. He offered that sometimes
OCS determines that someone is not a good foster parent in the
Native community, but no information is shared with the Native
entity to enable them to make a decision as to whether it was a
reasonable decision or whether there is something they could do
to make that home a good home. It is in the child's best
interests to keep the child in the community. He stated he
can't find language on how to do that legally at this point and
advised that Ms. Lybrand is working with some of the tribal
groups, but has not been able to find language at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Chair LeDoux, advised that
the language is not currently in the bill.
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that the bill could go through both bodies
and pass and five years from now figure out the language and
introduce a new bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referred to the Native entity sharing
portion and stated he does believe they will be able to figure
it out, but probably not in the next week.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded to Chair LeDoux that the language
is not currently in the bill.
2:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA stated he is in a conundrum as he could ask
for 3 million and OCS could help fix the foster care system, but
legislators are under a charge to provide legislation with a low
or zero fiscal note. Therefore, his responsibility is to
improve as many lives as possible at no cost, and HB 27 will
improve a number of lives and keep a number of youth from
becoming homeless, and also help ensure more youth find a
permanent and loving home. A discussion in the committee was
very salient in that many of the youth are bouncing between
foster homes and that is a main issue HB 27 fixes. He
reiterated that most social workers try their best, are given
extensive caseloads, and go home very emotional at the end of
the day. This bill addresses a youth bouncing between homes
because social workers do not have the time to do what the law
requires. He pointed out that federal law requires putting a
child into a permanent loving home within 12-24 months, and in
that regard the child is not in foster care, the state is not
paying $60 per day to take care of the child, and OCS does not
require additional social workers. He referred to the bill and
stated sometimes inexperienced, overburdened social workers are
not able to do their job to ascertain reasonable efforts have
been taken to find a permanent home. He offered that in that
case, the legislature does want the court to ask whether the
case workers have made reasonable efforts and if the court finds
they have not, the court orders them to "go out there and do
it." He suggested that possibly supervisors should be more
involved, but the answer cannot be that reasonable efforts were
not made to find a reasonable home, and it is okay. He pointed
out that OCS encourages the court's overview because it does not
have enough supervisors to determine whether a case worker is
performing as required. He explained that this is one extra
question the court will ask at a normal status hearings.
2:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Gara whether he
can live with the language in its current form.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied "I can absolutely live with the bill
the way it is."
2:25:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report CS for Sponsor Substitute
HB27, labeled 29-LS0176\I, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the forthcoming fiscal note. There being no
objection, CSSSHB 27(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
2:26:26 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:26 to 28:59 p.m.