Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/23/1998 03:45 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 23, 1998
3:45 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. 434
"An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of
assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 340
"An Act relating to child abuse and neglect, child-in-need-of-aid
proceedings, delinquency hearings, and review of cases involving
certain children who are in the custody of the state; relating to
the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor; relating to
disclosure of information about children and their families;
amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17 - 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need
of Aid Rules; amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 25, Alaska
Delinquency Rules; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 302
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 302(HES) FROM COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 434
SHORT TITLE: DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/18/98 2354 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/18/98 2354 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 340
SHORT TITLE: TESTIMONY AT CINA HEARINGS; CHILD ABUSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HODGINS, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/98 2100 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/21/98 2100 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
3/12/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
3/12/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/03/98 2869 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
4/03/98 2869 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/03/98 2869 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
4/21/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/21/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 302
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA OPERATING BUDGET
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BUNDE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/12/98 2023 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98
1/12/98 2023 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/12/98 2023 (H) HES, FINANCE
2/12/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/12/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/27/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/27/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/07/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/07/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/09/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/09/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/16/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/16/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RANDY LORENZ, Staff Intern to
Representative Norm Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented proposed CSHB 434.
VALERIE THERRIEN, Legislative Chair
Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Abuse
779 8th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-8113
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed committee
substitute for HB 434.
RON KREHER, Special Assistant
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110640
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640
Telephone: (907) 465-3349
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed committee
substitute for HB 434.
PATRICIA ARNOLD, Social Worker
3600 Crittendon, Number A3
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-3746
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for HB 434.
MARTHA HODSON, Representative
Guardians for Family Rights
P.O. Box 3687
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 260-9156
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute
for HB 434 and in support of SSHB 340.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3779
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SSHB 340.
GARY CADD, Researcher to
Representative Mark Hodgins
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3779
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340.
DIANA BUFFINGTON, President and State Coordinator,
Childrens' Rights Council of Alaska; Chairman
Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform
317 Maple
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-2290
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340.
WALTER GAUTHIER, Representative
Guardians of Family Rights
Box 2246
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-2809
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 340.
EDGAR PAUL BOYKO
711 H Street, Suite 510
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 279-1000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340.
THERESA TANOURY, Administrator
Child Protective Services
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 SSHB 340.
DEBORAH DOWNS
Child Protection Services
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 SSHB 340.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
Statewide University of Alaska System
P.O. Box 755000
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 474-7582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 302.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-48, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green,
Dyson and Brice. Representatives Kemplen and Porter arrived at
3:50 p.m. and 3:55 p.m., respectively. Representative Vezey was
absent.
HB 434 - DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS
Number 0005
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the first item on the agenda was HB 434,
"An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of
assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and
providing for an effective date" sponsored by Representative Norm
Rokeberg. He asked Randy Lorenz, staff intern to Representative
Rokeberg to come before the committee to present HB 434.
Number 0010
RANDY LORENZ, Staff Intern to Representative Norm Rokeberg, Alaska
State Legislature, directed the committee's attention to the
proposed committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE made a motion to adopt proposed committee
substitute, 0-LS0495\K, Lauterbach, 3/30/98, as the working draft.
There being no objection, that version was before the committee.
Number 0095
MR. LORENZ said the proposed committee substitute brings HB 434
into alignment with the Division of Public Assistance which has
already started working in the area of dealing with substance abuse
in welfare recipients by doing an assessment of each person that
comes in, and individuals showing a possibility of being substance
abusers are required further evaluation at a treatment center. It
makes it a part of the family self-sufficiency plan which is
already in place. Basically, this legislation places the
division's policy in statute.
Number 0160
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if a recipient has any recourse to
testing positive.
MR. LORENZ responded the committee substitute does not require drug
testing on any recipient; it is only an assessment which is
primarily a questionnaire that's completed at the time of
application for public assistance. He said there are a number of
available screenings that are nonintrusive to the individual and
give an indication whether a person could have a substance abuse
problem or not at that time. Then as part of the family plan, the
person is requested to get a more in-depth screening at a drug
treatment center. The committee substitute does not require a
urine analysis; it's only a questionnaire-type assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired about the other sanctions if the
family fails to comply with the family plan being in existing
statute.
MR. LORENZ confirmed it is in statute; the only thing that's been
added is that benefits may be eliminated, which is at the
discretion of the Division of Public Assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about the discretionary
authority to withhold benefits.
MR. LORENZ said it's not a problem. Basically, it's up to the drug
treatment center to decide if the person does have a problem and
what the treatment should be.
Number 0320
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said based on a comparison of the
original bill and the committee substitute, he suspected the
sponsor started out to do something simple and ended up getting a
lot of argument that just doing testing on all the perspective
recipients was problematic and couldn't be done.
MR. LORENZ said, "No sir, that wasn't the case. Representative
Rokeberg had originally written the first bill and I looked at it
and I made some suggestions because I've already gone through the
training for drug certification - I only lack actually applying
through the state to be a certified drug counselor myself - and
national statistics have shown that if you take the total
population across the United States, only 20 percent of those
people in the United States have a substance abuse problem. It
doesn't mean that it affects their normal life, but of all those
people, only about 5 percent of them actually have it to the
severity that it prevents - their unable to function in society.
We find that's the exact same breakout in those people that are
receiving public assistance, so it's a misnomer that everybody on
public assistance has a problem; we're only taking about a small
majority of those people. So, drug testing - in fact, even in the
literature that's - I just handed out an item here - it just came
out from the National Conference on State Legislation - this
particular item here also comes out with the fact that drug testing
doesn't meet what you planned for it. If you test everybody,
you're not going to pick up alcohol; there's a lot of drugs you're
not going to pick up. But if you do a screening, it will pick up
that possibility and then you can go into it deeper and you're only
aiming at those people that really have the problem with alcohol or
substance abuse and you're looking at it as a barrier to them
having self-sufficiency. And we're also looking at it as a disease
model rather than a behavioral problem."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the Administration was sympathetic to
this?
MR. LORENZ replied that representatives from the Division of Public
Assistance were available to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON questioned the lack of a fiscal note.
MR. LORENZ said a fiscal note was not available, but it was
Representative Rokeberg's understanding this was already being
implemented as part of the division's normal operation, so it
should be included in the appropriation for division operations.
Number 0500
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced he would take public testimony at this
time. He asked Valerie Therrien to come before the committee.
Number 0555
VALERIE THERRIEN, Legislative Chair, Advisory Board on Alcohol and
Drug Abuse, testified in support of the proposed committee
substitute for HB 434. She said the Advisory Board on Alcohol and
Drug Abuse opposed the original bill which required testing for all
recipients. The board does however, believe that screening is
very important and supports the committee substitute because the
screening would be done by the department and the participant is
then referred for further evaluation by a professional.
Number 0615
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any conflict with either
state or federal law regarding the right to refuse a screening
test.
MS. THERRIEN said, "I don't think that this bill requires a
screening test; it just requires screening to a rehabilitation
program where you can get a professional to talk to them - whether
or not, as a result of that recommendation, they go into a program
and then they have to have maybe some UAs (urine analysis) or some
drug tests as a result of that plan, is beyond what this bill deals
with and I'm not really prepared to address that. We were not in
favor of random UAs for everybody that applied for this assistance.
Plus, I think it would be very discriminatory, myself."
Number 0672
REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN asked Ms. Therrien to explain how
the department would screen a person, particularly if a person
looks like an alcoholic or a drug dealer.
MS. THERRIEN said as an alcoholic and member of Alcoholics
Anonymous, she didn't think she looked like an alcoholic. She felt
it was important to dispel those myths and for people to admit
they've successfully overcome the problem. She explained the
workers conduct what is known as a "cage screening" during the
course of the interview in which there are four buried questions:
Do you ever feel guilty about your drinking; have you ever had to
have a drink in the morning to get you through the morning; has
anyone expressed concern; and anxiety, attention, et cetera. An
individual determined to have answered yes to any two of those
questions or to another subtle screening program used by the worker
will be sent on to a professional for an evaluation.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if he was correct in assuming that everyone
will answer these questions.
MS. THERRIEN surmised the division would ensure these questions
were asked of everyone to avoid prejudice toward any one person.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Therrien for her comments and called Mr.
Kreher forward to present his testimony at this time.
Number 0835
RON KREHER, Special Assistant, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services, testified in support of
the proposed committee substitute for HB 434. He directed the
committee's attention to a draft service delivery model the
division hopes to soon be piloting in the Mat-Su area. In response
to an earlier question, he said there will be universal screening
but the division hasn't yet determined which screening tool will be
used. While the division in essence has the regulatory authority
to do screenings and assign people to assessments, this legislation
gives the statutory authority which the division may need when
individuals request a fair hearing or appeal an adverse action
resulting from assignment to assessment or screening.
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Kreher to explain how the division
plans to implement it.
MR. KREHER said the division plans to do universal screening with
all clients using a screening tool yet to be defined, and the staff
who will receive training, will be able to identify whether or not
an individual may have a substance abuse issue that may impede
their ability to be self-sufficient. At that point in time, the
individual's family self-sufficiency plan would be developed
requiring participation in an in-depth assessment process. The
assessment process would then be able to determine if the
individual had a significant problem with chemical or alcohol
abuse. The treatment program would then be developed and included
in the family self-sufficiency plan and the individual would be
required to comply with the condition of that plan to avoid
sanctions against their program benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if this would be done in writing or
orally.
MR. KREHER said it depends on what assessment tool is chosen; the
cage can be incorporated into an interview, while other assessment
tools are written. At this time, he wasn't sure what tool had been
selected by the team developing the service model.
Number 1005
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said it is his understanding that a number
of public assistance recipients have difficulty with the English
language and he wondered what impact that would have on the
department's ability to adequately screen.
MR. KREHER said he is hopeful those sorts of problems will be
identified in the pilot project so methods for addressing them can
be developed. In addition, there will be issues regarding the
cultural appropriateness of some of these tools in particular
areas, so the division will need to be fairly inventive once the
assessment from the pilot project is received.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I'm wondering if there isn't an
affidavit - if there isn't some sort of a 'you sign this at the
risk of perjury' or something. How would you, for example, the
prior testifier with that angelic face that she had, said that she
was a member of AA and was apparently an alcohol abuser - you ask
her or anyone - 'Now you realize that if you answer these questions
two of four yes, we're likely to cut off your support' - the
chances are quite good that you're going to cause someone that you
ask - even if they're users, to not give you the right answers.
How will this law without any kind of teeth in it, gain us
anything?"
MR. KREHER said first, individuals will not be penalized through
the screening process unless they fail to comply with conditions
once they're in the family self-sufficiency plan which is the step
after the initial screening. He stated all clients realize that as
a condition of eligibility, they must comply with the family self-
sufficiency plan. It's up-front, it's in writing, it's on their
application and it's also specified as a condition of the family
self-sufficiency plan. He noted that many of the screening tests
are subtle tests and the responses interpreted by trained staff,
are such that capture potential false or manipulated answers. He
frankly didn't suspect that would be an issue. Most of the
individuals in treatment now have self-identified and are very
interested in becoming self-sufficient. There are still some
people feeling challenged by that issue, but people are realizing
that welfare reform is a very real event in their lives and are
making very honest efforts to move toward self-reliance.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked he has read statistics that an
alcohol abuser will deny having a problem and would most likely
answer no to the four questions even if they had a significant
problem. He asked if this type of a voluntary indictment-type
program has worked in any other state.
MR. KREHER replied other states that have operated these programs
and have been operating them for some time, have had mixed success;
however, many of them have had some very positive successes. He
directed the committee's attention to the information in committee
packets regarding the high success rates other states have been
having with screenings, assessment and treatment. He noted one of
the requirements of Alaska's program involves up-front work search.
Whether or not an individual is less than honest when completing an
assessment form, oftentimes their success in the job market is an
indicator of a substance abuse issue. If an individual passes the
screen, but still has an issue in that substance abuse or chemical
dependency is impairing their ability to achieve self-sufficiency,
get off of assistance, find a job and keep a job, that person will
be required to go through a more in-depth assessment.
Number 1296
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "And I can understand what you're
saying, if I were one of these individuals and I had -- like
stopping smoking -- before I could stop smoking I had to want to
stop smoking and until that time, I talked about it - I even tried
a couple of times, but I really didn't want to bad enough to quit.
So, I'm wondering how many of the people will take the screening
test and those who really truly, truly want to quit, will answer
reasonably, but those who don't think they have a problem and
continue to want to have some welfare help, will not be answered
honestly. And if the statistics are on those who answer, and that
recovery rate is pretty good, you've already screened I guess --
you've screened five or ten percent of the people who really want
to get off this and their success ratio is 50 percent -- that's
pretty high. But it's only 50 percent of the people that said yes,
and that may only be 10 percent, so you've got a 5 percent cure
rate and that's pretty bad. So, I'm wondering what these
statistics are and .... it just seems to me that without some sort
of penalty or teeth you're not going to get the purpose who doesn't
already want to comply and already want to shake the habit."
MR. KREHER said while there may be some problems with getting all
the people with a substance abuse problem into the treatment
program, once those individuals have established treatment as part
of the family self-sufficiency plan, the division has plenty of
teeth to penalize that individual for noncompliance with those
requirements. Noncompliance will be defined by the treatment
program, not by the case manager and any individual refusing to
comply with the assigned treatment or assessment will be subject to
a penalty severe enough to make most people give it a second look.
Number 1415
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if Mr. Kreher was familiar with
the unresolved Fourth Amendment legal issues around search and
seizure.
MR. KREHER responded no, but it's his understanding the issue has
to do with invasion of privacy.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "In terms of search and seizure for a
drug test, you're not demanding to search, you're saying 'you
should waive your concern about searching and if you don't then we
will not provide this benefit to you,' so I don't think that's a
substantial issue."
MR. KREHER said it would only be a substantial issue if the
division was pursuing drug testing as an eligibility criteria, I
believe. The only time that drug testing might be a requirement is
if it's a requirement of a treatment program.
Number 1480
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was an intermediate assessment
between the screening and treatment.
MR. KREHER explained that once an individual is screened and there
is a determination that this is a person with a high likelihood of
having a substance abuse issue, the person will go then to a
professional for assessment to determine the proper course of
treatment.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted there were individuals waiting to testify via
teleconference. He asked Patricia Arnold to present her comments
at this time.
Number 1552
PATRICIA ARNOLD, Social Worker, testified via teleconference from
Homer stating her belief that a urinalysis as a part of any
application process short of a DWAI is discriminatory. She is more
open to a questionnaire which takes into account the fact that
humans apply for welfare assistance because of both medical and
employment problems which are often outside of their control.
Therefore, it remains important to respect both that self esteem
and the feelings of self-worth the applicant carries upon his/her
request for temporary financial assistance.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to the penalties that were
previously mentioned by Mr. Kreher for individuals not fulfilling
their self-sufficiency plan and asked what type of penalty Mr.
Kreher was talking about - denial of benefits, violation of a
misdemeanor or felony?
MR. KREHER replied it's a reduction in benefits. Basically, the
person who is noncompliant, loses their temporary assistance
benefit and the associated Medicaid benefits. He estimated it was
a $300-$400 reduction in benefits for the household.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Martha Hodson to testify at this time.
Number 1666
MARTHA HODSON, Representative, Guardian for Family Rights,
testified via teleconference from Kenai. She foresees a lot of
problems with the bill in that it's real hard to even get judges to
order a urine analysis or a blood test for drugs and alcohol. She
said in terms of noncompliance and reducing benefits, it's the
children who will suffer. Not all parents who drink or do drugs
are necessarily neglecting their children. She is of the opinion
there are still too many issues that need to be ironed out and it
could be challengeable in a courtroom.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Hodson for her comments and announced
that HB 434 would be held in committee for further consideration.
SSHB 340 - TESTIMONY AT CINA HEARINGS; CHILD ABUSE
Number 1765
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was SSHB 340,
"An Act relating to child abuse and neglect, child-in-need-of-aid
proceedings, delinquency hearings, and review of cases involving
certain children who are in the custody of the state; relating to
the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor; relating to
disclosure of information about children and their families;
amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17 - 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need
of Aid Rules; amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 25, Alaska
Delinquency Rules; and providing for an effective date." He asked
the sponsor, Representative Mark Hodgins to come before the
committee to present his bill.
Number 1784
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, Sponsor of HB 340, directed the
committee's attention to the sponsor substitute before the
committee.
Number 1800
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Sponsor Substitute for
HB 340, Draft 0-LS1106\P as the working document. There being no
objection, that version was before the committee.
Number 1820
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said this Act implements an enforceable
penalty for false reporting of child abuse or neglect and
endangering the welfare of a child with respect to intoxicating
liquor or a controlled substance. It gives notice of all hearings
and an opportunity to be heard at all hearings for a child in need
of aid to the child's grandparents, child's current and previous
foster parents, and the child's health care providers. It also
gives a foster parent or grandparent the right to disclose
confidential or privileged information about a child in need of aid
to a government official or their employee. The court cannot find
a child in need of aid solely on the basis that the child's family
is poor, lacks adequate housing or lives a lifestyle that is
different from the generally accepted lifestyle of the community.
Number 1865
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the committee recently passed legislation
introduced by Representative Dyson very similar to SSHB 340. He
asked if there was a problem with overlapping.
MR. HODGINS said Representative Dyson's bill is identical to
sections in SSHB 340 and as long as the language remains the same,
there's no problem.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to the provision relating to notification
of grandparents and asked if reasonable effort was sufficient; in
other words a hearing wouldn't be held up while the grandparents
were being tracked down.
MR. HODGINS replied it would be reasonable effort.
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Representative Dyson's bill was
currently in the Judiciary Committee with several proposed
amendments. He asked if Representative Hodgins would be tracking
SSHB 340 with that bill or would HB 340 stand alone.
MR. HODGINS said he had anticipated the child in need of aid
language being put in one bill; however, a couple different
vehicles were chosen. There are some areas in SSHB 340 that are
similar, but not overlapping. He called on Gary Cadd to provide
more specifics.
Number 1953
GARY CADD, Researcher to Representative Mark Hodgins, Alaska State
Legislature, explained there are several areas that overlap and
this particular bill goes further in notifying grandparents and
foster parents.
Number 1982
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that if both pieces of
legislation were to pass, there might be conflicting sections.
MR. CADD said it may be more appropriate for the Department of
Health and Social Services to comment on that issue, but for the
most part, it's the same language, but SSHB 340 allows for more
people to be involved in a hearing.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented he would like to take testimony via
teleconference at this time. He asked Diana Buffington to present
her testimony.
Number 2020
DIANA BUFFINGTON, President and State Coordinator, Childrens'
Rights Council of Alaska and Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family
Law Reform, testified offnet from Fairbanks. She said one section
had been left out of HB 375 which was the false child abuse
allegations. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary testified in 1996 that nationwide over a million children
a year are abused and neglected. While these numbers may be
staggering, the nation should also be concerned about the nearly
two million false and unsubstantiated reports of child abuse and
neglect that are filed wrongfully and in some cases, maliciously.
The Executive Director of the Child Welfare League of America
admits 62 percent of the allegations of child abuse and neglect are
false and child protection agencies across the United States have
estimated false and unwarranted allegations up to 80 percent. Ms.
Buffington said high level of false allegations lead to more severe
cases going uninvestigated, under-investigated or slipping through
the cracks entirely. Most false allegations are made by the
residential parent who has recently separated or divorced to gain
control of the custody settlement. She pointed out that Section 2
of SSHB 340 would address the false allegation issue.
Number 2108
MS. BUFFINGTON said a good job was done up to a certain point on
the recent audit of the Division of Family and Youth Services
(DFYS). The audit touched on reports of harm prioritization, the
screening and investigative process and workload adjustment. The
1997 reports of harm in Alaska are staggering at 15,547 statewide,
with 10,529 reports of harm assigned for investigation, 3,740
workload adjusted and not assigned for investigation and 1,278
reports were unaccounted for in the audit. She pointed out the
audit does not indicate, except on page 12, how many 1997 cases
were confirmed with the child left in the home, confirmed with the
child removed, unconfirmed closed, unconfirmed (indisc.) and
invalid.
Number 2266
MS. BUFFINGTON spoke in support of SSHB 340. She added that it's
time the DFYS quit considering foster families as babysitters.
Many foster parents feel they have little say in the parenting plan
and little or no input in case hearings. Sponsor Substitute for
House Bill 340 will give foster parents more participation in the
child's future.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Buffington for her comments and asked
Martha Hodson to testify at this time.
Number 2275
MARTHA HODSON, Representative, Guardians for Family Rights,
testified via teleconference from Kenai in support of HB 340. She
said, "There's a lot of information that parents either don't
understand or (indisc.) that they can't understand at the time when
these things are going on, that's an area I get into or I try to,
but without the information, it's hard for me to help them
understand." She discussed the problems grandparents in the Kenai
area are having with supervised visitations with their
grandchildren, amongst other problems, which is totally uncalled
for. She admitted that the grandparent's issues are definitely
different from the parental issues in CINA proceedings.
MS. HODSON stated she supports SSHB 340; there's good parts and bad
parts in all legislation.
TAPE 98-48, SIDE B
Number 0002
MS. HODSON continued with a discussion on the impacts of false
reporting. She referred to the DFYS audit and said there were a
number of cases in Kenai that could not be accounted for in the
audit.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Hodson for testifying the asked Walter
Gauthier to testify at this time.
Number 0135
WALTER GAUTHIER, Representative, Guardians of Family Rights,
testified via teleconference from Homer in support of SSHB 340. He
agreed that it is somewhat duplicative of HB 375 but without the
other 40 some pages of additional governmental power. He referred
to page 6, Section 10 and page 13, Section 24 and expressed concern
that the phrase, "The court's official records under this chapter
may be inspected only with the court's permission and only by
persons having a legitimate interest in them" is repeated twice in
regards to both CINA courts and delinquency courts. He said the
Guardians of Family Rights has been filing numerous reports to the
Alaska Judicial Council and the Judicial Conduct Commission
concerning judges who do not follow their own CINA court rules and
procedures. The current law states that a parent has a right to a
copy of the court file and a copy of the recording of the court
hearing. Oftentimes these are the only evidence and documents that
parents can get. The language regarding the inspection of records
only with the court's permission disturbs him because no court or
judge likes having their decisions overturned or criticized and if
left up to the judge, the permission will not be granted.
MR. GAUTHIER stated he supports SSHB 340, but he suggested the
language be changed to reflect that parents still have a right at
any time to the court files and court hearing tapes.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Edgar Boyko to present his remarks at this
time.
Number 0322
EDGAR PAUL BOYKO testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
commented on the legitimate concern expressed by Chairman Bunde of
the potential overlapping between this legislation and HB 375. His
opinion is that SSHB 340 is a good bill that's needed and agreed
with the last speaker that perhaps the sponsor should consider
amending the issue of access to court records. The sponsor has
recognized the legitimate interests of foster parents, but has not
addressed the fact there is no standard given to when permission
should be given and denied. He expressed concern that this bill
might be sidetracked because of similarities with HB 375, which in
his opinion has many problems. He considers SSHB 340 to be a good
bill and should go forward.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the overlap or duplication he had referred to
was with HB 366 sponsored by Representative Dyson. He asked if
there were any questions of the sponsor. He announced the
committee would not take any action on HB 340 because it was the
first hearing. He suggested that Representative Hodgins get
together with Representative Dyson to discuss the strategy for
SSHB 340 and HB 366.
Number 0540
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted he and Representative Hodgins have been
communicating and coordinating.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked the representative from the Division of Family
and Youth Services to come before the committee at this time.
Number 0589
THERESA TANOURY, Administrator, Child Protective Services, Division
of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social
Services, said the issue of false reporting is interesting and she
appreciates the sponsor's concern about false reporting. She said
it is not appropriate for the system to be dealing with false
reporters, but she added that false reporting is very difficult to
prove and most of the time people are making good faith efforts in
reporting. She explained the department does not capture false
reports; in other words the numbers of reports that may be viewed
as false are not captured. With regard to the 1,000+ reports in
1997 that were not considered legitimate reports of abuse and
neglect, she said reports coming into the division fall into one of
two categories. The first category is insufficient information
where the reporter has not given the division enough information to
determine abuse or neglect and/or enough information about the
family or the child to proceed. Second, is the non-child
protective services category in which the division does a risk
assessment based on the information given by the reporter and
determines the report doesn't include child protection concerns.
This category has to be documented and the reason for placing the
report in this category must be explained. She noted these are not
considered legitimate reports and are above and beyond what the
division refers to workload adjusting.
MS. TANOURY informed the committee of a national study on false
reporting by the Kempe Center which found that very few reports are
considered false reports and that of those reports that are
considered false, many of them are in divorce/custody situations,
which are very hard to investigate. She stated, "One of the things
the study found was that of the number of divorce situations that
happen and the ones that are contested and then the ones that
actually come to our attention are those in which there's such
severe conflict going on that maybe - you never know - maybe there
is some abuse, somebody needs to check on the child, but there are
lots of allegations. It is difficult to investigate, but at the
same time it's a horrendous conflict going on within two parents
struggling over a child or the child's caught in the middle. So
there is some grounds to understand that maybe there should be
somebody checking on the family and being involved."
Number 0815
CHAIRMAN BUNDE assumed that in order to have a legitimate report,
the department has to know the identity of the reporter.
MS. TANOURY said the department does accept reports from anonymous
reporters.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if it was fair to assume that someone making
a malicious report wouldn't give their name.
MS. TANOURY said there are anonymous reporters and mandated
reporters.
Number 0870
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "Are we talking about a perception here
because the teleconference indicated 62 or greater and most of
those were by the resident parent. Is there a perception that if
that person was thinking that there were that high a percentage of
false reports and you're indicating it's very low, is it because
they're saying 'well, okay there was a report of a problem and when
they got there, there was just a difference of opinion and that was
okay' - you're saying that same difference of opinion though may be
a bonafide report because that's systematic of maybe a bigger
problem. So, are we talking about that wide difference there in
statistics because of perception or different sets of statistics?"
MS. TANOURY thought there may be some difference in terms of what
is called "reports" and how those reports are categorized. She
said the division also has a category called "invalid" which means
the division may have gone out to investigate the report, but
didn't think the report was valid. Some people feel that is a
false report, but the division considers a false report as someone
maliciously making a report against someone that is not right to
do.
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to Section 2 and asked if the
statement "knowingly makes a false report: would be considered
malicious intent.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "This would require an element of
proving knowledge that the report was false which is tantamount to
saying intentionally making a false report. That's a high standard
- that's a tough standard."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I am interested in the categorization
of the complaints. I just - as we all did I think - received some
information from the municipality of Anchorage Health Department on
child abuse reporting and there's two different types of
categorizations; one reports and one substantiated reports. Yet
there's an abundance of folks telling us we're the highest state in
the nation in child abuse and I've had a theory of my own for a
long time, but I think that that's not quite correct: We happen to
have one of the most educated public and tough reporting laws that
exist in the United States and the three or four categories of -
short of substantiated complaints that you have seems to indicate
that we get all sorts of reports and that the statistics that the
municipality, at least, put together, we're the same as the rest of
the United States - 15 out of 1,000 kids. So, I don't know - I
would, for what it's worth, beg the department to use that
statistic rather than the reported statistic considering that we
have facilitated reporting to the nth degree which is very good,
but not to use it."
Number 1095
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented this legislation will make it a
crime to knowingly report that a person suspected there was abuse
and neglect. In his opinion the use of the world "suspected" is a
major hole.
Number 1154
DEBORAH DOWNS, Child Protection Services, Division of Family and
Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said
there appeared to be some confusion in semantics - some people are
making the assumption that when the division designates a report of
being unsubstantiated, that equates to a false report. She wanted
to clarify that those are entirely different situations. She
further stated, "Also, regarding Representative Brice's question,
I think the issue of false reporting is the intent - the word used
in here is "knowingly". If a person has cause to believe that an
injury has taken place or a child is neglected or at risk and makes
a report, that is not making a false report. However, if the
person is knowingly making up the information being provided and
are aware that it's a false report, it's the intent that is the
difference.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE closed public testimony and said SSHB 340 would be
heard at a future hearing.
HB 302 - UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA OPERATING BUDGET
Number 1219
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 302,
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date." He noted the committee had adopted committee
substitute 0-LS1285\F, Ford, 4/16/98, at a previous meeting.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE read the following intent language from the 1989
legislature:
"It is the intent of the legislature that the University
of Alaska administration review and compile information
on student enrollment, credit hours and productivity at
all university campuses. It is the further intent of the
legislature that this information be used to develop a
formula approach as an alternative method of allocating
and reallocating funding for these campuses, and that
this formula approach alternative be presented with the
university's FY 89 budget request."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked why the university has not complied with the
intent of the legislature some ten years ago.
Number 1310
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University of Alaska
System, said, "Actually, we did comply with the intent. We had a
model that we used -- as you may recall we -- since you were
elected in 1992, I believe -- I believe that was the last year we
had an increase - the only increased funding we've received other
than we had two years in the last six where we got some salary
money for the collective bargaining agreements - other than that
the only new money we've received was money that you were helpful
in getting $2 million for University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) for
instructional positions. And that's really the last increment that
we've had for any money. So, we've been using the model that was
developed - we have two models that were developed -- actually it's
a series of models -- an instructional model, physical plant model,
and a faculty salary allocation model that were developed in 1991.
We worked on them through the course of that year and they've been
used essentially to sort of help us figure out how to reduce the
budget and models aren't as effective to reduce the budget as they
are to increase the budget."
Number 1380
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Chairman Bunde how he arrived at the
four different groups.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE responded it was based on his experience working at
the university and modeled on other states.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "There are a couple of other statements
I want to be very clear. We'd made mention that this was a funding
formula; it's not a funding formula, it's an allocation formula,
first of all. The next concern I have is what happens if the
university develops a program that isn't in one of these four
groups that are currently here? I mean, we're making the
assumption that the university is a static institution; that these
are the programs that will be provided forever and ever and that if
any other new program is to ever be developed, they're going to
have to come back to the legislature to be put into one of these
four groups. What was your thoughts on that?"
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said certainly future programs would be placed in
one of these categories based on the university's point of view.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that caused him concern - it will be
based on the university's point of view, as well as the political
support the program might have. He said discussions involving
allocation of a shrinking pie is never a fun issue, and he believes
the discussion should focus on how to increase the pie.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he agreed; he thinks the allocation comes
before the pie increases, but he advocates for enlarging the pie.
Number 1528
MS. REDMAN expressed her appreciation to Chairman Bunde for the
changes that were made to HB 302 and said it now comes very close
to the formula currently being developed with Chancellor Gorsuch's
committee; however, she still believes it should not be put in
statute. She also appreciated that HB 302 provides for allocations
of increased money.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out it also calls for a 2 percent
inflationary increase.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled the UAA campus has a significant
number of part time students and inquired how the head count on a
part time student compares to a full time student under HB 302.
MS. REDMAN said everything is converted to full time equivalent
(FTE) so it accommodates the part-time students the same, so
there's no advantage or disadvantage. She further explained, "It's
depending on the number of credits that are taken by students and
then we divide the number of credits by 12 and that equals one
FTE."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ms. Redman for the FTE of the various
campuses.
MS. REDMAN said the Fairbanks campus is approximately 3,500; the
Anchorage campus is at about 6,800; and the Juneau campus is
approximately 1,000.
Number 1634
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "Relating to the inflation - now if
you've got an inflation increase on an allocation formula for all
campuses equal, how does that work if the funding level stays
stagnant?"
Number 1650
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the inflation factor is for the total budget
and then it's factored out through the formula.
Number 1660
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would be a formula program, much like
the others, there would be a demand for increase, whether it's by
student or by consumer price index (CPI).
CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained, "The Chair's vision of this is that we
have "x" amount in the university this year, inflation factor would
2 percent, so it would be "x" amount plus 2 percent and that money
then would be disbursed through the formula."
Number 1715
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move from committee CSHB 302
as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson,
Green, Porter and Bunde voted in favor of the motion.
Representative Brice voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 302(HES)
moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee on a vote of 4-1.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|