Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/10/1997 03:04 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 1997
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 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."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to the eligibility of aliens for state public
assistance and medical assistance programs affected by federal
welfare reform legislation; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 153 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29
Supporting an increase in federal funding for prostate cancer
research.
- MOVED HJR 29 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to financial assistance for students attending
certain graduate education programs; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE: FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/12/97 318 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 318 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/27/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/10/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: ALIENS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
02/24/97 442 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/24/97 442 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE
02/24/97 442 (H) 3 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)
02/24/97 442 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS)
02/24/97 442 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/97 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/15/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/97 690 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2NR
03/17/97 690 (H) DP: JAMES, ELTON, BERKOWITZ, DYSON
03/17/97 690 (H) NR: HODGINS, VEZEY
03/17/97 690 (H) 3 FNS (DHSS) 2/24/97
03/17/97 690 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (DHSS) 2/24/97
03/25/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/25/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/01/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/01/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/10/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 29
SHORT TITLE: FUNDING FOR PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)
ELTON,Hudson,Kemplen,Austerman,Kookesh
Berkowitz,Nicholia,Ivan,Dyson,Kubina,Sanders,Davies
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
03/14/97 665 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 665 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS
04/02/97 913 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KEMPLEN, AUSTERMAN
04/02/97 913 (H) KOOKESH
04/03/97 977 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BERKOWITZ, NICHOLIA, IVAN
04/03/97 977 (H) DYSON, KUBINA
04/04/97 998 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
04/09/97 1047 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
04/10/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: REPAY GRADUATE EDUCATION AID
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
03/14/97 665 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/97 665 (H) HES, FINANCE
03/27/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/10/97 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on CSHB 127(HES)
CONNIE J. SIPE, Director
Division of Senior Services
Department of Administration
3601 C Street,Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5984
Telephone: (907) 563-5654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 127(HES)
EDITH McKINNON, Member
Foster Care Review Panel
2203 West 46th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 127(HES)
MASTER BILL HITCHCOCK
Alaska Children's Court
820 West Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-0643
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 127(HES)
L. DIANE WORLEY, Director
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 127(HES)
JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Telephone: (907) 465-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 153
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4947
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 29
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-28, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green,
Porter and Dyson. Representative Brice arrived at 3:06 p.m. and
Representative Kemplen arrived at 3:54 p.m. Representative Vezey
was absent. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Ketchikan and offnet sites.
HB 127 - FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
Number 0059
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the first item on the agenda was HB 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." He said a Citizens' Review Panel assists out-of-home
placement of children who have had various challenges or problems.
Number 0123
PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bunde,
referred to a committee substitute, version H.
Number 0134
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute, version H. Hearing no objection CSHB 127(HES) was
before the committee.
Number 0169
MS. SWENSON explained that CSHB 127(HES) is similar to the last
version, but has been expanded based on recommendations by the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). The name of the
Citizens' Review Panel for Permancy Planning has been changed to
the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board. The local citizen out-of-
home care review panels have been renamed local review panels.
MS. SWENSON stated that Section 1 is identical to Section 1 in
version F. It extends the sunset date for the foster care review
board to June 30, 2000. Section 2 is also the same as the previous
version, requiring DHSS to notify the Citizens Foster Care Review
Board within 60 days after a child is placed in out-of-home care.
Under CSHB 127(HES), the state review board will be the core
support for the local panels. Once notified of a child's out-of-
home placement, the board will advise the appropriate local panels.
MS. SWENSON said there are no real changes from the last version of
CSHB 127(HES). This section requires the court to inform the
interested parties about the review panels within 60 days after the
court orders the child committed to state custody.
MS. SWENSON referred to Section 4, this change allows the Citizens'
Foster Care Review Board or the local panel to obtain confidential
information about a case. This section also allows disclosure, as
necessary, to school officials to protect the safety of a minor who
is the subject of the case. There was some discussion of removing
this provision from the bill. The provision actually protects the
safety of the minor, students and staff and exists currently in
statute. The language of CSHB 127(HES) clarifies that the subject
of the case is to be protected along with other students, this
prevents the subject from being treated differently. To prevent
the current statute from being misinterpreted the language in this
statute should remain.
Number 0345
MS. SWENSON said that Section 5 does not represent a change from
the current statute except to reflect the new name of the Citizens'
Foster Care Review Board. Section 6 amends the name, Citizens'
Foster Care Review Board and requires DHSS to notify the Citizens'
Foster Care Review Board rather than the local panels within 60
days after the removal of a minor from the home. Since there is
only one local panel working, the current statute tells them to
notify it instead of the review board.
MS. SWENSON explained that Section 7 is part of the juvenile
delinquent statute. Usually the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board
does not hear cases regarding juvenile delinquents. However,
because some of the cases are classified as both Child in Need of
Aid (CINA) and juvenile delinquent it might result in a problem if
the panel wants to hear such a case and they are excluded from any
of the juvenile statutes. The Division of Family and Youth
Services (DFYS) is addressing this problem of dual classification
because it impacts their Title IV-E money. Until the problem is
fully resolved, this language should remain in CSHB 127(HES).
Number 0471
MS. SWENSON referred to Section 8, this section reestablishes and
renames the Citizens' Foster Care Review Board. The board will now
consist of nine members appointed by the Governor with one public
member from each judicial district. The board also includes, as
non-voting members, the commissioner from DHSS, the Director of the
Office for Public Advocacy, a member of the Attorney General's
Office and a member from the Public Defender's Office. The make-up
of the board has been changed in this section. It used to be seven
people, but since two people from the Administration were taken off
the board, the amount of public members was raised to nine.
MS. SWENSON said Section 9 adds new language to reflect the new
make-up and the new name of the board. This section allows for
reappointment of board members and was in the previous version of
CSHB 127(HES). Section 10 sets quorum and voting requirements for
the board. This new language sets up requirements consistent with
the changes in the make-up of the board in Section 8. This change
is a slight variation of what was in the last committee substitute,
it creates consistency.
MS. SWENSON explained that Section 11 reflects the name change of
the board and restricts reimbursement of board members to per diem
and travel expenses only, as the board is required to meet at least
twice a year. Section 12 sets the meeting requirements for the
board to at least twice a year, telephonic meetings are possible.
Section 13 allows the state board to have an executive director who
services the board. The executive director is granted the power to
employ staff who will provide technical assistance to local review
panels. This language is consistent with the last version of the
bill.
Number 0586
MS. SWENSON said that Section 14 talks about the powers and duties
of the board. Language has been added from the last version of
CSHB 127(HES), it required the state board to ensure that local
review panels meet permancy planning review requirements which will
allow them to comply with Title IV-E federal requirements allowing
the state to receive federal money for eligible minors. This
section also requires the board to set local review panel
priorities for the hearings. Some guidelines are set out for a
high priority cases; children who are likely to be in out-of-home
care for longer than 90 days, children that have been in more than
one placement or whose parents are likely to loose their parental
rights. The state board is also required, in subsection (c) to
establish procedures for an expedited review of the high priority
cases. Subsection (d) establishes the minimum number, of local
review panels members, who must review the case and it also
provides for the appointment of a substitute local review panel
member to participate in the review. This provision would allow
someone to sit in the review in case of an emergency.
Number 0693
MS. SWENSON referred the change in Section 15, where a new
subsection was added to empower the state board to make regulations
requiring DHSS to provide the state board or a local panels
aggregate data about permancy planning systems and to provide data
and information requested by the state board and local panels.
MS. SWENSON explained that Section 16 sets composition requirements
for local panels. This section adds new language not in the last
version of this bill, it accepts substitute members. She
interpreted this section that when panel members are appointed, the
substitute members are not counted. The intention of this section
is to have people readily available for a scheduled review, in case
of an emergency. This section also sets out the length of a panel
members terms, the qualifications of the panel members, the make-up
of the panels and empowers the state board to appoint additional
panel members when it is necessary. All public members serve at
the pleasure of the board. Panel members are also required to
affirm, in writing, that they will keep all review information
confidential.
Number 0777
MS. SWENSON said Section 17 states that local panels shall meet in
the judicial district where they reside. This language was in
Section 16 of the last version of this bill. Section 18 is also
the same as the last version, but it was Section 17. The public
members of local review panels are entitled to reimbursement if
they are required to travel. Normally, local review panel members
don't travel, but travel might be required if the judicial district
is big and someone else is needed.
MS. SWENSON stated that Section 19 allows local review panels in a
judicial district to request a local panel from another judicial
district hear a case. In order to keep something confidential in
rural areas, the review panel might not want to hear the case in
that village. This language would allow the case to be heard in
another panel for review. Section 19 also changes the initial
review from 180 days to 90 days and adds language to allow lower
priority cases to be heard 180 days after the child has been placed
in out-of-home care. Even though the bill changes the initial
review from 180 days to 90 days, it still allows the panel to hear
a case at 180 days in order to comply with the Title IV-E
requirements. This section gives flexibility to the 30 day notice
of hearing provision required in current statute. The remaining
sub-sections are in statute. The changes reflect the renaming of
local panels, the number of days required to submit a report of the
panel's recommendations is changed from 30 days to 15 days.
Number 0900
MS. SWENSON said that Section 20 requires other executive branch
agencies to disclose confidential information to local panels to
assist them in locating persons entitled to participate in case
reviews. Section 21 requires the DHSS to cooperate and consult
with the state board in the development information systems
relating to children in out-of-home placements. The DHSS is
required to develop information systems to ensure that aggregate
data and individual case information, needed by the state board and
the local panels, is available from all departments. In the past
there have been some problems getting needed information for annual
reports and locating people. Language in CSHB 127(HES) just
ensures that the panel will get the information that they need.
MS. SWENSON explained that Section 22, as in Section 20 of the
previous bill, states that necessary records shall be available to
the local panels, concerning a child and their family, for the
purposes of a review. Section 23 allows the review panel's
recommendations to be entered into the court records. The only say
that a panel has is in those recommendations. The panel's
recommendations have not been allowed in court, unless they were
requested by a attorney. Allowing the recommendations in court
will give some weight to the panel regarding the disposition of the
case.
MS. SWENSON said that Section 24 provides immunity to the board,
panel and staff members. In the past version only the board was
given immunity. Section 25 defines the state board and local
panels and is the same language as the previous version. Section
26 is also the same as the past version, it repeals sections of law
whose subject matter has been added to other sections of the bill.
Section 27 allows a phased in implementation of the bill with full
implementation in two years after the effective date. Section 28
regards the effective date.
Number 1054
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked why the review board was needed and what
exactly do they do.
Number 1064
MS. SWENSON said the local review boards provide an oversight which
works in concert with DFYS. The board is an independent viewpoint
on what DFYS are doing for children that have been in out-of-home
placements. These boards will decrease the amount of time that
children are in out-of-home placements and hopefully save the state
money.
Number 1085
CHAIRMAN BUNDE clarified that out-of-home placement means children
that have been taken away from their parents of record, for their
own good. They are taken out of their home because of such
problems as abuse and neglect.
Number 1109
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how review system was currently
being done.
Number 1114
MS. SWENSON answered that right now only one panel is in existence.
Initially, when this legislation passed, funding was available but
it was never given to the panels. A little bit of money was given
to allow one pilot project. One full time clerk and two others
hold hearings; get the information necessary, notify the interested
parties, gather the panel members and set a date. People come in
and talk about what is happening with the child and what is
happening with the parents. If a case plan is in place, then that
is also reviewed. The board wants to see that permancy goals have
been met for a child. These goals include reuniting the child with
the family or termination of parental rights.
Number 1178
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that enabling legislation established the
citizens' review oversight panels, but the money was only there for
one of them. This panel is about to sunset, it sunsets every three
years and this bill, CSHB 127(HES), would not only reauthorize the
program, but expand it.
Number 1204
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said CSHB 127(HES) goes beyond the pilot
program, it talks about a statewide expansion program.
MS. SWENSON agreed that this legislation would reauthorize and
expand the Anchorage panel, start a Fairbanks panel and implement
the program statewide within two years.
Number 1217
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that, prior to this expansion, this
function was done in Fairbanks by DFYS.
MS. SWENSON answered that currently there are no other panels
besides the Anchorage panel. The DFYS does Title IV-E reviews on
cases in Fairbanks, but there are no independent review panels.
Number 1222
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained that a Title IV-E review is a federal
requirement which reviews children who have been taken out of the
home in order for the division to receive federal money.
Number 1252
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the fiscal note, $600,000 a year
from the general fund.
Number 1270
MS. SWENSON said money is needed to start up the panels on a
statewide basis, expand the Anchorage panel and start a Fairbanks
panel. The fiscal note represents the initial cost for the state
board to meet and receive training. The new position of executive
director of the board should be able to write grants and offer
contracts to organizations in other areas to staff the panels.
Those organizations will gather the information, mail it out to the
interested parties and contact volunteers to do the reviews. She
reiterated that this money represents start up costs for this year,
for the first phase of expansion and implementation of new panels
and expansion of the state board.
Number 1334
CONNIE J. SIPE, Director, Division of Senior Services, Department
of Administration, testified next via teleconference from an offnet
site. She did not have CSHB 127(HES) in front of her but, based on
the fact that the department has been working with staff on these
changes and having heard testimony from Ms. Swenson, she felt the
changes were fairly in line with the changes being discussed based
on what may be needed for the panel. The fiscal note was done in
preparation for the amendments that are in front in the committee,
but it was not done after those amendments. If the committee
adopts those amendments, there is still a possibility of paring
down the fiscal note. She could also explain why those costs are
necessary as the bill moves forward to other committees.
Number 1411
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to the executive director's role of
producing some non-general funds to keep this program running. He
asked if the fiscal note reflected this role.
Number 1429
MS. SIPE answered that it does not. Her experience is that it is
very difficult to find grants for ongoing operations. Very few aid
foundations, very few agencies are willing to use their grant money
for an ongoing business. Grants are usually available to fund a
special experiment, a special pilot project, better training, a
curriculum book to give to the volunteers. Rarely can grant money
be found to fund your ongoing operation. If members of the
committee compare the fiscal note on CSHB 127(HES) as compared to
the fiscal note on the Governor's bill, HB 100, the significant
difference is that HB 100 anticipated that DFYS staff would
actually service the citizens' panels throughout the state. The
DFYS staff would prepare the cases, the case summaries, schedule
and convene witnesses and parties and finally draft a report for
the citizens' panel. The panel would always have the final okay on
the report.
MS. SIPE explained that the panel and the sponsors of CSHB 127(HES)
did not want to have DFYS serving that role, so the Department of
Administration had to go back to an idea of using local non-profit
agencies such as the Anchorage Center for Families. These non-
profits might be interested in having staff assigned to do some of
this work in support of local citizens' panels. A non-profit
agency and a panel could work together, but this concept raises the
cost.
MS. SIPE said the Administration is supportive of the bill. They
want to remind the committee that the initial funding for this
program, when it passed back in Governor Cooper's Administration,
was in excess of $750,000 a year. This program will have a lot of
benefits for children. After a few years, the program will be able
to demonstrate cost savings to the state by helping children get
out of out-of-home placements faster. This program cannot be done
for free and with existing resources.
Number 1555
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if the original idea was to have DFYS staff do
a good bit of the work, but under CSHB 127(HES) state employees are
not doing the work, then why is the fiscal note increased.
MS. SIPE answered that for each hearing the DFYS employee, who is
involved in the case, is going to have to participate in the case.
The employee is going to have to take some of their time to prepare
for the case and to come to the review hearing. In most of the
regions, DFYS has a Title IV-E coordinator staff appointed. This
staff has to comply with many other parts of Title IV-E in order to
keep federal money for foster care coming into the state. The
hearings being discussed are a minor part of this federal
requirement. You cannot have an independent review board perform
this function and say that you don't have to provide a staff from
DFYS.
MS. SIPE explained that this method of having local grant agencies
supply support, training and paperwork is less expensive and can
possibly generate volunteerism. This method also allows it to be
independent and makes the citizens' panel feel most competent that
they see that DFYS, although cooperating, are at arms length.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the fiscal note. He asked if
grants and claims seemed to be the issue that raised the cost from
$200,000 to $600,000 a year over a six year period.
Number 1667
MS. SIPE described what it would take to hear all the cases of
children who stay 180 days in foster care within the Anchorage DFYS
and explained that this does not include children who would fall
into the category of high priority; it would require panel hearings
to occur 18 to 20 working days a month, basically every working day
of every month around the calendar. If there are three to five
panel members consisting of citizens, working on each of those
panels, they figure they will need between 60 and 90 trained,
active panel members. These members will drop off the panel if;
their life changes, they move out of state or they get sick.
Training classes will have to be held several times a year. Each
day cases will be heard consisting of two or three major cases
which take several hours in addition to hearing several minor
cases. These hearings will require a conference room somewhere
that will be used every day, all the time in Anchorage to hear
these review cases. Someone will have to go down to the DFYS files
ahead of time, cull out information for the citizen panel.
Currently the citizen review panel volunteers, spend an average of
one day, nine months out of the year. Only about nine of them
actually put in one day a month. Volunteers not only attend the
meetings, but they spend a couple of days ahead of time reading
through a summary and documents from the cases. Because of these
factors, you cannot expect to keep using the same volunteers over
and over. A large cadre of volunteers will need to be trained and
assisted.
MS. SIPE said the pilot project in Anchorage is only hearing about
one-third of the cases. This bill anticipates tripling the
Anchorage case load. This translates to more volunteers, more
hearings, processing of paperwork in order to get those reports
over to the courthouse in 15 days. Grants will be given to non-
profit agencies or contracts will be given to other entities to
provide clerical, scheduling and support. The current state
employees would become the employees of the state panel, they would
be running the training process. A contractor would probably still
be needed to train that many people. A lot of work is need to
train and use volunteers. Citizen volunteers are wonderful, but if
they are going to be effective then they have to be well trained
and supported. The exact term of the fiscal note can be
negotiated, but the Administration wants to honestly show what
resources they believe will be needed. The original fiscal note on
this bill was $750,000 a year.
Number 1839
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked the committee to stay to the philosophy of
whether or not there should be panels and let the Finance Committee
justify the dollars.
Number 1857
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what the panel would do from a layman's
point of view as compared to what is currently being done. He
asked for the mission, the steps, et cetera.
Number 1871
MS. SWENSON said the goal of the panel is to make sure that
children in foster care don't linger out-of-home unnecessarily.
When the panel meets and reviews cases, they come up with a list of
recommendations. Often the panel members find that goals within
the permancy placement plan, a case worker's initial plan, hasn't
been met. The panel finds out why the goals haven't been met, asks
questions and tries to recommend ways to shorten the placement
time. If the goals aren't met and the interested parties in the
case, the mother and the father, aren't putting any effort into the
plan then the panel may recommend that their parental rights be
terminated and the child be put up for adoption. She explained
that creating these panels will decrease the amount of time that
state dollars will be put into children placed in foster care.
Number 1923
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked for a typical plan.
Number 1945
EDITH McKINNON, Member, Foster Care Review Panel, said what
typically happens is that a packet of information, regarding cases
involving abused and neglected children in the Anchorage area, is
received. These cases involve children who have been removed from
their home, they're in state custody. Generally the cases involve
children who have been neglected and abused, usually drugs and
alcohol are involved prior to their birth and/or the children have
special needs. The panel members get the packet, read the packet
which might have been updated if the panel has heard the case
before. The members sit around a conference table and discuss the
case ahead of time. They figure out what questions they want to
ask; why hasn't the child been getting the proper counseling, are
the parents complying with the case plan, are the parents in drug
and alcohol treatment, et cetera. There are also questions that
will be asked of the foster parents such as whether or not visits
have occurred between siblings.
MS. McKINNON said social workers, foster parents, a DFYS staff
performing the Title IV-E review, attorneys for the mother or the
father might attend the meeting if the parent(s) are trying to get
their children back. Certain people cannot be in the room while
certain things are being discussed. The foster parents might be
dismissed allowing the panel to ask questions to the attorney.
Finally everyone leaves the room so that the panel members have
time to deliberate and make recommendations about what should be
done.
MS. McKINNON stated that the system is overloaded and without an
outside entity to ask certain questions of why these things haven't
been done and why it needs to be done. The panel advocates for the
children. She said the state will pay these costs in ten years if
these issues are not dealt with now. These kids need a proper
placement. If the parents aren't complying, they need to get their
parental rights terminated.
Number 1088
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if it would be fair to say that the panel acts
as an informal judge on the whole process involving the parents,
foster parents, DFYS and the children to ensure that everyone is
pulling their fair share of the load.
MS. McKINNON answered yes.
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked what the panel did to address
situations where a child has gone through 30, 40 different
placements.
Number 2125
MS. McKINNON explained that six months might lag between reviews.
The panel might learn that a child has been moved three times.
This situation is one of the reasons why she wanted to see the
reviews occur closer to the time the child is taken from the home
in order to evaluate what the needs are and to make sure there is
a recommendation of proper placement.
Number 2160
MS. SWENSON explained that CSHB 127(HES) puts the panel's
recommendations into the court record. If the court sees the
recommendation, then people will start paying attention and the
number of times a child moves will change.
TAPE 97-28, SIDE B
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that his wife used to be on the Foster
Care Review Board. He felt the panel was very useful. His wife
commented that the support items received from DFYS were excellent
and credible. He stated that she spent about four hours preparing
for a review. The panel is valuable both for a check on DFYS and
a significant way to help build credibility for DFYS. He supported
the expansion of the program.
Number 0094
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if this panel was advisory or does the
panel's power come through the DFYS staff.
Number 0115
MS. McKINNON explained that a DFYS staff sits in the review to
allow them to do their Title IV-E review. This staff person has
nothing specifically to do with the workings of the panel. The
panel recommendations are forwarded to DFYS, but there is no one
else who sees those recommendations.
Number 0143
MS. SWENSON stated that there is a provision in CSHB 127(HES)
allowing the Title IV-E reviews done by DFYS to be switched over to
the panel. The panel would be required to meet all the
requirements of the Title IV-E, saving the DFYS person from coming
in and sitting in on the reviews.
Number 0172
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if having more people involved comprised
a better review, as compared to having one person do it. He felt
this was a large amount of money if it can be done without having
the panel.
Number 0198
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the panel represents a group who are outside
DFYS. This panel does assessments, overviews and evaluations. He
explained that even if there were enough resources in DFYS,
children still fall through the cracks. This panel provides an
arms length review of the process.
Number 0296
MASTER BILL HITCHCOCK testified next via teleconference from an
offnet site. He stated that he was testifying in his individual
capacity, that his views do not represent any official position of
the Alaska court system. He has had some substantial involvement
with the development of the citizens' review board, both in the
1990 bill and also on the national level with the National
Association of Foster Care Reviewers. He currently sits on the
Board of Directors of that association.
MASTER HITCHCOCK felt CSHB 127(HES) heads this program in the right
direction; keeping the independence of the panel and allowing the
program to move forward to eventually become statewide. The bill
also strengthens the linkage with the formal court process by
making it clear that the reports of the panels should come into the
court at various stages. In the 1990 bill's development, he had an
opportunity to speak with the previous commissioner from the
Department of Administration as well as the commissioner from DHSS.
He stated to them that he thought people needed to look at the fact
that this panel system is not a duplication of effort, this is a
needed, independent overview of the entire child protective system.
MASTER HITCHCOCK stated that the child welfare system is a multi-
disciplinary, it involves the actions and non-actions of a variety
of different agencies, primarily DFYS as the state mandated child
welfare agency. This system can be a benefit or a detriment to a
child based upon the actions or non-actions of courts, of the
Department of Law, the Office of Public Advocacy, the Public
Defender Agency and some of the non-profits who provide services to
these families. This system has become even more complex in the
last 10 to 15 years, it is not simply a matter of riding herd on
what DFYS does or does not do in their particular case plan. The
panel presents a way to balancing the power in the system and put
some checks and balances in place with an independent citizen based
panel. The cost is certainly an issue, particularly in a state
which is trying to control costs. If the long-term yield is
evaluated, not only of bringing that accountability and oversight
responsibility into play, but the involvement of citizens as
volunteers in a very important government action, the welfare of
children and families.
MASTER HITCHCOCK felt citizen involvement would broaden the horizon
for this entire system and begin to educate the community as a
whole about what the system is dealing with in terms of child
abuse, neglect and dependency. The long term yield will balance
the short term costs. He has seen this scenario happen with a
court appointed special advocate program which works with the
guardian ad litem. This program trains dozens of citizens, year
after year, to serve on these cases to broaden the lens with which
we view these cases. The values of having fresh insights and
perspectives into case planning, negotiation, settlement and
permancy planning is invaluable.
MASTER HITCHCOCK stated that only infrequently does he see the
reports of the review panel. He has requested information from the
last two review panels for the case he will hear today. He is
blocked from receiving that information prior to disposition or
review of the case. He supported the early review concept which
would enable both the court and the department to move forward more
rapidly on handling some of these out-of-home placements.
MASTER HITCHCOCK asked the committee to look at the long view of
this process. He also asked them to look at the system which has
gotten a lot more complicated, affecting the lives of many
children. The current system does not do a good job of moving the
lives of these children to permancy.
Number 0654
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how many times the panel would meet and
why the panel would need three different agency attorneys.
Number 0677
MASTER HITCHCOCK explained that he did not have a great deal of
experience with the operations of the state panel. He felt there
was an important function to be served regarding quality control
issue, the recruitment, training and oversight of that process of
the volunteers. These volunteer programs depend on good screening
and quality control. Another function served by the panel is the
annual reporting or periodic reporting to the legislature and the
Governor. He said there has not been an aggregation of data on
systemic barriers to permancy. These are the things that an
oversight panel has to play a heavy role in because they will draw
together the results of many different panel reviews from around
the state in order to make some determinations. This systems level
review, as opposed to a case level review, is almost as important
and in some cases more important.
MASTER HITCHCOCK stated that the Anchorage project has only had a
limited ability to carry this out as there has not been an ability
to gather a lot of the data. The information they have delivered
has been anecdotal, not aggregate data.
Number 0758
L. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services,
Department of Health and Social Services, stated that DFYS is
supportive of CSHB 127(HES) and the Citizens' Review Panel concept.
Back in 1990, when the bill was first passed, she was working in
the non-profit world and was appointed to the first citizens'
review board. She learned about the concept, what was trying to be
done, looking at the experiences of other states as it was a
growing concept at that time. They tried to develop an oversight
for children who are in the state child protection system. She
still believes in the citizen review panels, it is a positive step
towards making the child protection system even stronger than it
currently is.
MS. WORLEY stated that DFYS reviews cases as required by law and,
even if they were not required to do it, they would still perform
these reviews as part of good case planning. Throughout the state,
DFYS does approximately 1,200 six month reviews every year. These
reviews are required under the Social Security Act, Federal IV-E.
The whole point of the Title IV-E reviews is that when the Social
Security Act first came about, the makers realized that children
who ended up in state custody, particularly those children who were
in a lower economic status without advocates or parents who had a
strong voice, appeared to be getting lost in our system. The Title
IV-E regulation set up a process to ensure that the state followed
certain regulations and requirements. These regulations determined
the set up of six month reviews; how to plan these cases to make
sure that the right people were being contacted and everything was
being done to make sure that this case was moving through the
system in a logical, thoughtful planned and appropriate process
with a positive outcome at the end. If this process happened, then
some federal dollars would be attached to help DFYS go through the
system. She reiterated that the Title IV-E was a way to establish
a review process so that children did not get lost in the system,
particularly low income children who seemed to have the least
amount of advocacy.
Number 0892
MS. WORLEY stated that DFYS is required by law to do reviews of
every child who is placed in state custody, in out-of-home care,
every six months. The reviews can be done in shorter periods of
time, 90 days. Ultimately DFYS is required to do the review within
six months and to continue them every six months if they remain in
care. There are many cases in this 1,200 review amount that are
terminated before six months, so they do not undergo an official
Title IV-E review.
MS. WORLEY said, currently, the Anchorage pilot project for the
Citizens' Review Panel does about one-third of DFYS cases. The
reviews done by the panel meet the Title IV-E requirement. A DFYS
staff is there to make sure that all components of a Title IV-E are
met to ensure that DFYS does not have to go back and do another
review. In the other parts of the state and for the other two-
thirds of the Anchorage cases, these reviews still occur with an
in-house staff from DFYS and at least one outside citizens. She
referred to a time, before her current non-Administration position,
when she acted as the citizen participant for the Fairbanks
reviews. There are also panels in Fairbanks for the Indian Child
Welfare Act cases which include two representatives from the Native
Villages. An in-house viewpoint in combination with at least one
citizen providing oversight makes up the formation of these panels.
MS. WORLEY stated that the difference between what DFYS is doing
and the overall concept of the Citizens' Review Panel is the issue
of accountability, having more time and having an outside
perspective to look at the cases.
Number 1121
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to the 1,200 reviews and asked how many
reviews were done in 90 days, in 180 days.
Number 1135
MS. WORLEY did not have that data. She stated that DFYS is
changing their information system because they are not getting
accurate data from their current system. She would estimate that
a majority, of the cases being done, do not have a formal review
until six months. However the supervisor sits down with all the
staff on a regular basis and goes through cases.
Number 1169
CHAIRMAN BUNDE mentioned that CSHB 127(HES) talks about phasing in
the review panel over a two year period.
Number 1178
MS. WORLEY mentioned the difficulty of managing volunteers.
Implementing the program will be a busy process, it will take
willing volunteers and is an ambitious timeline. She concluded
that there are a lot of people in our communities who are willing
to do this type of work.
Number 1215
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked how DFYS would recruit the volunteers to sit
on the panel.
Number 1225
MS. WORLEY did not know if a plan had been set up, but ultimately
the state foster care review board would be doing the recruiting.
On the DFYS panels there are only a few citizens who participate,
and the citizen participants usually come from the service
providing community. These citizens already have some knowledge of
how the system works which eliminates some of the need for
extensive training.
Number 1243
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that the 1,200 reviews could be
broken down into 600 cases. He looked at the fiscal note and
estimated that this would break down into about $500 per child per
review. He asked how long the reviews took.
Number 1289
MS. WORLEY said the DFYS reviews can take anywhere from 15 minutes
to one hour, depending upon the complexity of the case and how many
people choose to attend the case. The division is required to
notify certain people of the review. Sometimes no one will show up
except the social worker and the foster parent, other times it is
a whole array of people and those reviews often take longer. The
circumstances of the review also change the time factor. An
example might be a child in out-of-home placement, who is going
home in two weeks. However, it could be a child who keeps leaving
placements because of their behavior and this situation might
require a lengthier discussion.
Number 1357
MS. McKINNON explained that she gets the packets, reads through
them and writes questions. This is the same process other members
are doing, it adds five different viewpoints. She said some cases
are shorter than others. One case that she attended yesterday was
15 minutes long. The panel tries to include positive things in
their reports, when possible, such as a social worker who is doing
an exceptional job. Another case heard yesterday involved six
children and took the entire hour. This case probably could have
continued for a longer time period, but another case was lined up.
The panel tries to write their report after the case is heard. If
time runs out, then the report is written at the end of the day.
Number 1420
CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that each hearing does not necessarily mean
a single child.
MS. McKINNON verified that it depends on the size of the family.
Number 1430
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that even if the meetings took an
hour, it still works out to about $500 an hour. He asked, if you
have volunteers, why it took so much to come up with a
recommendation. He asked if the fiscal note was inflated or if it
anticipated more cases.
Number 1459
MS. WORLEY explained that the fiscal note was prepared by the
Department of Administration. She could say that a lot of paper
work was involved. The case files are extremely large, some
families have six children, some children have been in the state
system a long time. A panel of five people means five copies of
information. The requirement to notify people results in time to
prepare notification; calling, sending out notification as well as
locating absentee parents. Contact needs to be made with the
Native organizations in cases involving the Indian Child Welfare
Act.
MS. WORLEY believed that coordinating volunteers, providing
technical assistance to do the training would be required.
Volunteerism, while it is a wonderful concept, is not free and
sometimes more effort and money is put into training and assisting
volunteer programs than the cost of hiring someone. The case
review is a fairly complicated process involving many pieces. A
key for the department is that they want the process to meet the
requirements of the Title IV-E to avoid duplication. It has taken
the state almost five years to meet full compliance with the Title
IV-E rules. The DFYS has been able to collect all the federal
money available.
Number 1592
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that currently the annual budget for
the current pilot program is about $120,000 and $130,000, not the
$451,000. This amount drives the price down to about a $100 a
case. The $451,000 represents a number which is spread out around
the state and would represent all cases.
Number 1652
MS. WORLEY said the numbers for the entire southcentral region,
which is not just Anchorage, are 800 cases. The $120,000 amount
represents only a third of the cases in the Anchorage office. The
1,200 cases refer to cases statewide.
MS. SWENSON said the program should be fully implemented within the
next two years with an extra year of flexibility if needed.
Number 1696
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that this is the only budget where he
would overlook the fact that there will be savings and suggested
not trying to get that back because of other needs which are not
currently being met. When this panel system is up and running; the
state board is overseeing the organization, development, training
and the position of volunteers, he asked how much time the board
would meet per month.
Number 1732
MS. WORLEY explained that this is a Department of Administration
program, it enables an arms length review of DFYS. She would not
want to address the state board's role.
Number 1763
MS. SWENSON said the board will have to meet a number of times
within the first few months to determine regulations, set their
policies, appoint panel members, increase the panel members in
Anchorage and do training for the new panels in Fairbanks.
Fairbanks will be the only part of this program set up during the
first year. She could not say what the hours would be, but it
represents a lot of work for one year so she envisioned it as being
a half time or more job.
Number 1788
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he had difficult trying to
figure out the need to have a representative, an attorney, from the
Office of Public Advocacy and someone from the Public Defender's
Agency attend these meetings.
Number 1802
MS. SWENSON explained that those are non-voting members on the
state board. Those people do not have to attend to make a quorum.
Number 1813
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER understood the need to have legal advice.
Number 1816
MS. WORLEY said the reason for their participation was that these
are the agencies represented in a Child Protective Services (CPS)
case, each with a different perspective, a different part of a
review. The Office of Public Advocacy would act as a guardian ad
litem. The attorney general is the representative for DHSS, giving
stating when a case can be moved forward. The public defender
oftentimes represents the parents. The goal of the state board was
to ensure input from all of these different segments, to represent
and speak out for the different people involved in a child
protective services case. She did not view it as legal advice to
the board, but a different representation as policies and
procedures are worked out in the board.
Number 1871
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the Office of Public Advocacy is the
guardian ad litem, but they also take conflict cases from the
Public Defender Agency so they are capable of providing both
perspectives; criminal defense and guardian ad litem. Usually DFYS
would not go after the Department of Law's advice, so he did not
know why those representatives needed to be there all the time.
These agencies are involved in a lot of important functions, to the
extent that we keep drawing off their resources is harmful to
everything.
Number 1897
MS. SWENSON explained that those people were on the original board
and this inclusion of representatives is in current statute. If he
wanted to change this, the bill could be amended.
TAPE 97-29, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that no decision will be made today on
CSHB 127(HES).
HB 153 - ALIENS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Number 0071
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 153,
"An Act relating to the eligibility of aliens for state public
assistance and medical assistance programs affected by federal
welfare reform legislation; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0113
JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Health and Social Services, said this bill
grandfathers in all of those legal aliens, who were in the country
as of August 22, 1996, into the Medicaid program, Adult Public
Assistance and Alaska Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP). This is
the date when the federal welfare reform passed. Congress put
restrictions on the programs for which legal aliens would be
eligible. This reform says that for food stamps and Supplemental
Security Income, which are federally funded programs, legal aliens
would no longer be eligible no matter when they entered the
country. Congress also said, for those programs which are half
state funded and half federal funded, that states have a choice.
A state can choose to grandfather in all of those aliens who are
covered as of August 22, 1996, and then choose to exclude aliens
who come in after August 22, 1996.
MR. LIVEY explained that the proposed legislation grandfathers in
those legal aliens, who arrived into the country before August 22,
1996, into those type of programs; Medicaid and ATAP. He said the
other program grandfathered in is Adult Public Assistance (APA)
which is a general fund program. Legal aliens arriving after
August 22, 1996, would not be eligible for these programs for five
years.
Number 0315
MR. LIVEY stated that there is a fiscal note for each program. For
APA and ATAP, some people are currently eligible because they are
in the program and arrived in the country before August 22, 1996.
The DHSS has provided negative fiscal notes for those programs
because, over time, that pool of people will slowly become smaller
as people leave the programs due to the general attrition of the
programs. Those two programs have a negative fiscal note. There
is a zero fiscal note for the Medicaid program because the state
has to affirmatively choose, through the Governor's legislation, to
continue the provision of eligibility. If the Governor's bill
doesn't pass, then people are not eligible for Medicaid.
Technically however, the Medicaid provision is not based on the
Governor's bill passing. The fiscal note talks about a slight
savings if this bill doesn't pass. If the bill passes, the savings
that accrue are not due to the bill passing and so the fiscal note
is zero. The savings which accrue is a DHSS budget item.
Number 0485
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to move HB 153 with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, HB 153 was moved from the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee.
HJR 29 - FUNDING FOR PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH
Number 0516
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda as HJR 29,
Supporting an increase in federal funding for prostate cancer
research.
Number 0526
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON, sponsor of HJR 29, stated that he was
piggy backing on the hard work and the commitment of a lot of
people in his community and around the state. Prostate cancer is
the second most common form of cancer among males in the United
States. One of out every five men will be afflicted with this
cancer. This year, an estimated 334,500 men will be diagnosed with
the disease and the disease will cause over 41,800 deaths. This
resolution asks the President to increase funding for prostrate
cancer programs as prostate cancer remains an enigma to the medical
community. He wanted HJR 29 to accompany an effort by the American
Cancer Society and people all across the United States who are
trying to deliver a million signatures to the President by Father's
Day in June of 1997.
Number 0711
CHAIRMAN BUNDE added that 80 or 90 percent of all males will die
with prostrate cancer.
Number 0745
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move HJR 29. Hearing no
objections HJR 29 was moved from the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CHAIRMAN BUNDE
adjourned the meeting of the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee at 4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|