Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
02/03/2005 03:00 PM House HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Children in Need of Aid | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2005
3:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): CHILDREN IN NEED OF AID
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous committee action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
MARCIE KENNAI, Deputy Commissioner
Central Office
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview regarding children
in need of aid.
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted in presenting the overview
regarding children in need of aid.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:02:24 PM.
Representatives Wilson, Seaton, [Gardner], and Kohring were
present at the call to order. Representatives McGuire and
Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW(S)
^CHILDREN IN NEED OF AID
CHAIR WILSON announced that the only order of business would be
the overview regarding children in need of aid.
3:04:12 PM
MARCIE KENNAI, Deputy Commissioner, Central Office, Office of
Children's Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), presented the overview regarding children in
need of aid. She said that the OCS is an agency specializing in
intervention, offering only limited prevention services. The
OCS only becomes involved in a family's life if it receives a
report from either a [member of the] community or a mandated
reporter that a child is being harmed. Any reporter can remain
anonymous if he/she so chooses. When such a report is received
by any of the OCS's 28 offices, a series of questions is asked
of the person making the report in order to determine how
serious the situations is, whether intervention is called for,
and how quickly the OCS needs to act in its investigation.
MS. KENNAI said that during the initial screening process, the
OCS uses an actuarial-based decision-making tool, which is also
used nationally, in order to make its determination in
accordance with three categories of priority. Emergency
situations are considered priority one referrals, and warrant a
visit with the child within 24 hours; situations that are
considered priority two referrals warrant a visit with the child
within 72 hours; and situations that are considered "lower level
reports" warrant a visit with the child within seven days. When
conducting an investigation, the OCS will go to the child's
home, school, or other location in order to look at the child
directly, and will conduct interviews with the parents and
others that have information. At that point in time, a
determination is made as to whether the report of harm is
substantiated.
MS. KENNAI added:
Throughout the course of the investigation, if we feel
that the child is in danger ... or in a situation
where there might be imminent harm, we can take
emergency custody. [When we] take emergency custody,
we need to be in court within ... 48 hours of filing a
petition. So we file the petition within 24 hours,
and we need to be in court within 48 hours. And so
there are some checks and balances in the system; ...
[for example, the] OCS might file a petition and
intervene, but the court ... will hear the facts
surrounding the case to determine if [the] OCS should
continue to have custody. Of course some of those
investigations result in ... the case not being
substantiated. We [can] then refer the family for
services if [we think] they're at risk. We do
contract with providers in a variety of communities
[in order to provide] family preservation services,
... so families who have some risk, but who do not
rise to the level where the children need removal,
would be referred for those community-based services.
3:10:06 PM
JAN RUTHERDALE, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
assisted in presenting the overview regarding children in need
of aid. She relayed that statewide within the DOL's Human
Services Section, there are 24 attorneys representing the DHSS,
with 19 of those attorneys working on child in need of aid
(CINA) cases. She said that her division starts working with
the OCS well before the aforementioned petitions are filed. She
elaborated:
A social worker will call and say: "I have a case.
... Here are the facts. Do I have enough to go
forward or not?" And we'll provide legal advice for
that. ... There's two types of petition: ...
emergency and nonemergency. ... An emergency
[petition] is filed within 24 hours of the emergency
custody being taken, and there are certain grounds for
taking emergency custody; [there have] ... to be very
serious reasons for taking the child before actually
going to court. For nonemergency petitions, obviously
we go to court first, ask for custody, ... and then
it's up the court.
And so it gives us [the] ... power to protect the
child when that needs to happen, but it also requires
us to get into court very quickly - within 48 hours
... - so that the evidence can be tested. And that's
done at the temporary custody hearing, the initial
hearing, and ... there's two things that the state has
to prove ... at that hearing. One is that there's
probable cause ... that the child is a child in need
of aid. It's a low standard. It's not [a]
preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard
at trial.
3:12:52 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE, in response to a request, explained that
emergency custody would be warranted if the child has been
subjected to physical abuse - or is at substantial risk of being
physically abused - and his/her injuries are such that they're
life threatening or require immediate medical attention; if the
child has been abandoned; if the child or a sibling has suffered
sexual abuse; or if the child has been neglected - which
involves a failure to provide shelter, clothing, food, medical
attention, or necessary supervision - or physically damaged and
requires immediate medical attention or the situation is life
threatening. She relayed that AS 47.10.011 outlines the basis
for going to court. During the investigation process, the
surrounding circumstances have to be evaluated by a social
worker to determine whether court action or emergency action is
really warranted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there are situations in
which the state would move to take custody of a child without
removing him/her from the home.
MS. RUTHERDALE said yes. She mentioned that at that first
hearing, the State must show probable cause that it should
remain involved in the child's life pending the next court
hearing, or must show probable cause that the child should be
removed from his/her home. In the latter situation, there would
have to be real evidence that allowing the child to remain at
home would be contrary to the welfare of the child. She noted
that in Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) cases, it must be shown
by clear and convincing evidence, which is a higher standard
than probable cause, that allowing the child to remain at home
would put him/her at risk of substantial physical or emotional
damage.
MS. RUTHERDALE offered her belief that at least in Juneau, the
ICWA has raised the bar for all cases, in that the court has
become so accustomed to using the standard of clear and
convincing evidence that it now uses it in all [CINA] cases;
this, however, may be due to the fact that in most cases in
Juneau, the Native heritage of one or both parents makes the
child eligible for the ICWA standard.
3:21:14 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE, in response to a another question, said that the
ICWA standard provides good guidance for situations in rural
Alaska because it requires the court to look at the community
norms in determining whether a child should remain at home. She
noted that once probable cause is found and either temporary
custody or temporary supervision is granted, the court has to
set an adjudication hearing within 120 days; that adjudication
hearing is the trial, the CINA trial that determines whether
that child is in need of aid.
MS. KENNAI explained that during that 120 days, while the case
is in temporary custody status, the OCS works with the family to
try to find solutions to the issues that caused the problem and
to develop a "permanency plan" for the child - and this might
include placing the child with another family member or in a
foster home, and providing services and guidelines to the
parents. Then at the adjudication, the OCS can provide the
court with a progress report and recommendations based on the
work that the OCS does with the family. This work,
incidentally, can go on beyond the time of the adjudication
hearing.
MS. RUTHERDALE added that the hope is that the family will be
able to leave the system as a result of the home situation
improving.
3:28:21 PM
MS. KENNAI said that the OCS generally begins working with a
family with the long-term goal of reuniting the child with
his/her parents - reunification; this goal is achieved in almost
60 percent of OCS cases, though it can often take time and
resources. She noted, however, that if a child is in OCS
custody for the last 15 out of 22 months, federal law requires
the OCS to consider plans for adoption if the parents have not
been successful in changing their behavior in a given amount of
time. That federal requirement can be overridden if the OCS has
reasonable cause to believe that the parents just need a few
more months but are succeeding in treatment; in such situations,
the OCS can go to court and request that it grant an exemption
to that federal requirement.
MS. KENNAI relayed that children often come to the OCS's
attention because of a parent's addiction or mental illness, but
it can take seven or nine attempts at [substance abuse]
treatment before recovery is actually successful, and the OCS
cannot wait long periods of time before taking action. Instead
the OCS and the court must make difficult decisions about moving
toward termination of parental rights at the 15-month timeline.
At the 12-month timeline, the OCS will go back to court, and the
court reviews the permanency plan. Additionally the OCS is
required by federal law to perform an internal administrative
review of the permanency plan every six months.
MS. KENNAI mentioned that in addition to large caseloads, the
inherent conflict in attempting to meet both a child's needs and
a parent's needs can lead to high burnout rates and high
turnover rates for OCS employees. "Just the difficult nature of
removing children from their families or making the decision to
terminate parental rights is ... a tremendous, heart-wrenching
decision for us," she added.
3:33:10 PM
MS. KENNAI, in response to a question, said the OCS would like
to see parents be clean from their addictions for at least six
months, that the OCS gives parents a lot of opportunities to
succeed in treatment, but sometimes the necessary resources are
not available for those parents, particularly in remote areas of
Alaska. There are many factors that can make it difficult for
parents to recover so as to possibly get their children back,
and the OCS considers those factors when working with parents
and then presents that information to the court as evidence that
termination of parental rights at that point in time might
possibly be premature.
CHAIR WILSON asked what happens if the parents leave the state
with their children.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that if the State has custody, such an
action would be considered custodial interference in the first
degree, which is a felony if it involves taking the children out
of state, and could subject the parents to criminal prosecution;
the State can also have law enforcement retrieve the children.
She noted that even when the State has only been granted
supervision of a child rather than custody, there is a
presumption by the court that the parent is cooperatively
working with the State. She said that if she has any
inclination that a parent might leave the state with the child,
she would ask for a court order specifically prohibiting such
action. As a practical matter, she remarked, there are several
types of parents: there are parents who are really trying and
are working at changing their lives so as to get their children
back; and there are parents who are trying but, for any number
of reasons, just aren't succeeding - such parents generally
don't opt to just run away out of state with the children.
MS. RUTHERDALE noted that at one point in time, the attitude of
the State was one of seeking reunification at all costs, and
this resulted in many children simply drifting from foster home
to foster home because the State wasn't willing to terminate
parental rights and find permanent homes for the children. A
lot of the parents that the OCS is dealing with now were those
children, who never had a chance to experience permanency. The
federal government, via the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1977, has said that parents do have rights, but there is a time
limit - they don't have rights forever. As a result, Alaska law
now requires the OCS to make sure that the children are getting
a permanent home.
3:40:20 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE said that when the 12-month review is conducted,
the OCS doesn't have to terminate parental rights, and often
doesn't, as long as the OCS can document a compelling reason,
which are outlined in a list, for not doing so. She offered the
following examples:
The kid's 16 years old ... and really the permanent
plan is emancipation or getting [him/her] enough
services so that when [he/she] turns 18 [he/she] can
go forth in the world. Or ... maybe the child has
such significant issues [himself/herself] that
[he/she] just [isn't] adoptable, and nobody wants to
make [an orphan] out of [him/her]. ... The whole point
of terminating parental rights is to free [children]
for adoption, and so we don't want to terminate
parental rights just for the sake of it. But another
really main one is, we don't terminate because the
parents are showing progress and maybe [it'll] take
them a little longer, but that's okay - they're moving
in the right direction.
And I've had cases where ... we've gone in at 12
months and said, "You know, they're making progress
but we're just not sure it's going to work," or,
"They're not making progress," and we go and file a
termination petition within the next few months, and
set the trial for, say, three months. So now six
months have gone by, and during those six months, the
whole process of saying, "It's not working; we're
going to terminate," has galvanized the parent and
they suddenly turn around, and we go into court [and]
say, "We're dismissing the termination petition; we're
placing the children back." So I think it's good
because it's a wakeup call to the parents to say, "We
can't wait forever for these kids - you do it now or
not ever."
3:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, noting that she has been a contract
guardian ad litem for some years, raised the issue of
visitation. She said that according to her experience, when
parents are not making progress, they often are only allowed
supervised visits with their children and so don't have the
opportunity to snatch their children away. However, what she
has found and what raises a concern for her is that these
supervised visits are being conducted in surroundings that are
not necessarily the most conducive to family bonding.
3:45:04 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE relayed that at least in Southeast Alaska, there
are alternative settings for visitations that can offer a more
homelike setting, but agreed that there is a lack of resources,
a lack of people to actually supervise the visits, most likely
due to cutbacks in funding. She acknowledged that without
visitation, the bonding between parents and children can be
lost, and that visitation can encourage parents to stay in
treatment by reminding them of why they are there in the first
place.
3:46:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how often, on average, during the
first month of out of home placement, do children get to see
their parents.
MS. KENNAI first replied, "Not often enough," but then added:
We know this is an issue, and ... certainly when the
feds came here and reviewed Alaska's system,
visitation was a big issue for us. It was an issue
that we were not doing well with. So we are trying a
lot harder now; I think we are getting better, but
[there is] certainly not enough [visitation]. What I
would like to tell you is that there is some very
exciting work going on in Anchorage - and we will
begin to spread this around the rest of the state as
soon as we can; ... we are beginning to work with
foster parents differently, we will begin to recruit
them differently, and we will begin to redefine their
role. And one of their roles will be to supervise
visits between parents and children.
And at this particular time, the way we currently work
with foster parents, we really don't have those
expectations. And so we are moving forward. We have
a demonstration project in Anchorage called "Family-
to-Family [Initiative]"; it is funded by the Rasmuson
Foundation and we receive a lot of technical
assistance from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but it
is changing the way we work, and we're beginning to
see some wonderful results in Anchorage. And so we're
going to kind of redefine our recruitment message as
we begin to go out and look for foster parents; we
will say this is an expectation, because we do believe
that that is part of their responsibility. In
addition to that, we do ... have some supervised
visitation contracts around the state. ...
But supervised visitation is only necessary when we
really think the parent is a danger. We should have
opportunities to ... allow the biological parent to
visit in the foster home or take [his/her child out]
to lunch. We are required ourselves to visit every
child every month; we are required by federal law to
make sure that the parents and the child are visiting
every month. And so we need to meet our own
requirements and our own policy. Some of this is due
to caseload and our own lack of resources and the
ability of workers to have the time to do that. ... I
thank all of you who were here last session for giving
us 26 new positions, because that has made a big
difference in our ability to move forward and to make
these things happen, and they are in the child's best
interest.
3:49:28 PM
CHAIR WILSON, referring to Representative Gardner's previous
question, asked how many visits would be enough.
MS. KENNAI, noting that the requirement is one visit per month,
suggested that at least two visits during the first month would
be good, as would weekly visits. "It keeps a parent motivated,
... especially in the beginning," she added.
MS. RUTHERDALE, in response to comments, said her experience is
that social workers try to arrange for frequent visits of
lengthy duration, and sometimes even daily contact. The one-
month requirement is simply a federal minimum. She pointed out
that parents can get the court to review whether more visits,
even supervised visits, are in order; when such happens, there
are different entities around the state that can provide the
supervision.
3:53:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, noting that she has been a foster parent,
mentioned that there seems to always be a need for more foster
parents and that there is a tremendous amount of turnover. She
asked [Ms. Kennai] to comment.
MS. KENNAI said:
A major part of our system reform ... [involves]
working with foster parents - it's that whole foster
parent piece. ... We're changing the way we license
foster parents so that we put intense home studies up
front. ... Right now we do kind of a cursory home
study on foster parents; people who come to apply to
us to be a foster parent meet certain standards that
are set forth in statute and policy, and then they are
licensed if they meet those standards. Most of our
adoptions ... that take place [involve] ... foster
parents who are adopting the children in their homes.
At the point they request to adopt, we do a thorough
home study, a thorough family assessment.
We are moving that process to the front end so that
starting in February, where we will begin in Anchorage
- and we can only begin in Anchorage, again, because
of staff resources - to do intense home studies; in
addition to looking at whether a home meets standards,
we will begin to really do a family assessment. We've
had all our licensing workers trained about two weeks
ago. We had some expert consultants come in to train
all of our licensing workers on how you do a family
assessment, because right now they're not doing them.
And so this will change - moving forward.
3:58:50 PM
MS. KENNAI continued:
The other thing we are changing is that we will have
two types of workers: we'll have the worker who
actually does the home study and the licensing, and
then we will have [foster] family support workers -
... or what we're calling resource family support
workers. And so that is part of the budget package;
in the positions that I have requested, I have
requested 10 new, what I call, foster parent staff, or
resource family staff, so that we will be able to have
workers who do nothing but have the time to chat
[with, to visit, at least monthly, every foster
parent. That is, it doesn't matter if you have a
child in the home, you may be between children, but
you still have some things you need to talk about or
improve upon - some training needs - whatever it is.
So we will be creating that staff.
MS. KENNAI, in response to a comment, offered her understanding
that the aforementioned proposed home studies, the proposed
family assessments, will be more intensive than what prospective
foster parents are currently undergoing. And again, those
family assessments will be done up front rather than waiting for
foster parents to make an adoption request. She suggested that
the proposed studies will allow the OCS to screen foster
families better and get to know them better and, thus, support
them better. She mentioned that most other states already have
this piece, and it has simply been missing from Alaska's system.
4:03:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, noting that she is also a former foster
parent, said she applauds the movement in that direction because
one of the most important things she was able to do for the
children in her care was to mentor their birth parents and
support them. She noted that most parents who've had their
children removed from the home are not bad parents; rather they
are simply struggling with a lot of issues and need assistance.
She asked whether the proposed family assessments will create a
delay in licensing new foster parents.
MS. KENNAI said the OCS does currently place children in
unlicensed "friendly" homes - though there may no longer be
federal funds available for such homes - and would like to be
able to expedite the proposed family assessments as much as
possible.
4:05:53 PM
MS. RUTHERDALE mentioned that there are provisions for the
emergency licensing of homes, and that the OCS is not allowed to
place a child with non-relatives unless their home gets an
emergency license. She suggested that perhaps the issue of
emergency licensing can be addressed while the prospective
foster parents are undergoing the proposed family assessment.
MS. RUTHERDALE, returning to the issue of the legal process,
explained that in addition to the initial hearing and the
adjudication hearing, there can also be a disposition hearing to
determine what will happen with the child after he/she is
adjudicated a child in need of aid. She mentioned that the vast
majority of OCS cases are settled out of court, and that the
adjudication hearing and disposition hearing are essentially
part of a bifurcated hearing, the parts of which occur about two
months apart; this allows OCS staff time to prepare a pre-
disposition report, which provides the court with information
regarding the family's problems and OCS proposed solutions. She
noted that at the [adjudication] hearing, a guardian ad litem
will be appointed to the child and is charged with looking out
for the child's best interest, the parents can have their
attorneys present, and, in cases involving Alaska Natives, there
could also be a tribal representative present; having all of
these representatives at the initial hearing is part of a system
of checks and balances that allows the court to see the whole
picture.
MS. RUTHERDALE mentioned that permanency hearings occur yearly
after the child is initially removed from the home, and that any
move toward terminating parental rights must occur within six
months of filing the [custody] petition - though as a practical
matter, the latter generally happens within three to four months
of filing the [custody] petition.
4:12:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER raised the issue of establishing
paternity.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that the OCS is usually able to establish
paternity at the outset of the hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what services are available for
children who reach the age of majority before being able to go
home and, thus, don't have permanent homes.
MS. KENNAI said that every child in State care who reaches the
age of 16 is assessed so that when he/she comes of age, he/she
can receive support and training so as to facilitate his/her
transition into adulthood and independence. She mentioned that
there are now four new positions filled with people, one in each
of the OCS's regions, who do nothing but make sure that every
child has a permanency plan and is receiving - prior to "aging
out" - the life skills he/she will need when he/she reaches the
age of majority. She noted that the OCS can now provide
services, some transitional housing funds, and educational
training vouchers - courtesy of the federal government - to any
child when he/she is 18-21 years old if he/she has been in
foster care on or after his/her 16th birthday. Additionally,
the University of Alaska has some scholarships available for
foster children who are aging out of the system.
MS. RUTHERDALE added that the OCS can now keep a child in State
custody until he/she is 19 without his/her consent if the court
determines that doing so would be in his/her best interest, and
can keep a child until the age of 20 if he/she consents to it.
MS. KENNAI, in response to a question, acknowledged that there
are children who age out of the system who are ending up
homeless, but added that she does not have any specific
statistics regarding this issue. She mentioned that the OCS now
has a youth advisory board - made up of OCS system alumni - that
provides the OCS with feedback about the services it provides.
4:21:14 PM
MS. KENNAI mentioned that in situations involving a relative who
lives out of state but who is willing to take custody of the
child, the OCS is required to work within the bounds of the
interstate compact regarding the placement of children; this
requirement can sometimes delay placement but never prevents it.
Returning to the issue of permanency plans, she mentioned that
adoption is certainly an option, especially if the parents are
not complying with the OCS's reunification efforts, since long-
term foster care is not the OCS's preferred option for a
permanency plan, though there are cases where the child becomes
bonded to the foster parent or relative but that adult, for one
reason or another, does not wish to move forward with formal
adoption or guardianship procedures. She mentioned that healthy
reunification, even if it occurs after the child reaches the age
of 18, is something that the OCS is beginning to focus on by way
of the set of services being offered to all children age 16 and
older. She also mentioned that guardianship can be part of a
permanency plan, particularly in instances where parental rights
are not or can not be terminated - for example, in "tribal"
cases, termination of parental rights is not culturally
relevant.
MS. KENNAI, with regard to cases involving a "tribal child,"
said there is an "order of placement" preference in such cases:
the first preference is to place the child with a relative in
the tribe, the second preference is to place the child with a
non-relative member of the tribe, and the third preference is to
place the child with a member of an unrelated tribe.
MS. RUTHERDALE noted, however, that statute precludes the OCS
from placing a child with a non-relative unless there is a good
reason for such placement; this means that in all cases, if
there is a relative that is fully capable of caring for a child,
the OCS is required to [consider the placement of the child with
that relative as a first preference].
4:26:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that
guardianships can be subsidized, whereas adoptions are generally
not; thus guardianship might be a preferred option if, for
example, the child has special needs.
MS. KENNAI clarified that the OCS can subsidize both
guardianships and adoptions, though the subsidies for
guardianships are state funded and the subsidies for adoption
can be either federally funded or state funded. Another
distinction is that in cases involving adoption, the parental
rights must be first be terminated, whereas in cases involving
guardianship, parental rights do not have to be terminated. For
example, if grandparents are raising the child, they may not
wish to have their adult child's parental rights terminated, and
so guardianship provides a sense of permanency and gives the
grandparents certain rights.
MS. RUTHERDALE added that the only thing a guardian can't do is
give consent with regard to marriage, the armed services, and
adoption.
4:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether tribal guardianships are
recognized and, if so, whether they differ from any other type
of guardianship.
MS. KENNAI said both tribal guardianships and tribal adoptions
are recognized, but noted that tribal adoptions, under the ICWA,
do not require termination of parental rights but do require
sanction by the tribal court.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether all tribes have tribal
courts.
MS. RUTHERDALE said that a lot of tribes do not have tribal
councils set up, and so don't have the capability of sanctioning
an adoption.
4:31:00 PM
MS. KENNAI mentioned that members' packets include some charts
that provide statistics regarding reports of harm. She noted
that the OCS is beginning to see a preponderance of very young
children coming into care, characterized this as a disturbing
trend, and relayed that the OCS would be focusing on prevention
efforts and developing some "caseloads" just for young children.
She mentioned that perhaps methamphetamine laboratories ("labs")
might be contributing to the aforementioned trend. She also
mentioned the OCS's new program, Online Resources for the
Children of Alaska (ORCA), which is an automated case management
child welfare information system that has just become
operational.
MS. RUTHERDALE added that when a child is born in a hospital and
it is determined that the child has been exposed to a controlled
substance or alcohol, a report of harm is filed, and more often
than not that child will come into OCS custody.
MS. KENNAI, in response to a question, said that the OCS is just
beginning to look at data - provided by the ORCA system - and
predict trends. Additionally, the OCS is starting to develop
what it calls "self evaluation teams," which will look at
regional data with an eye towards trying to determine what that
data means.
4:35:50 PM
MS. KENNAI referred to a chart providing statistics about
children released from OCS custody, and noted that almost 60
percent of those children are released to their biological
parents. In conclusion, she explained that the OCS has federal
requirements it must meet; that the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) has recently published regulations
pertaining to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1977, which
established "child and family service" reviews that lasted at
least six months and provided agencies with comprehensive self
assessments; that the OCS, as result of that assessment,
established and began implementing a program improvement plan;
that as part of that improvement plan, the OCS has created a
quality assurance unit that will objectively review regional
data. She added:
We have some ... aggregated outcomes that we need to
meet. ... We really ... hold ourselves responsible for
those cases that we know about. And so once we know
about them - and we work with the family and we work
[with the] children - we are responsible for whether
... those children are maltreated again. And so one
of the measures is "repeat maltreatment." The
national standard is 6.1 percent; at the time of the
federal review, Alaska was at [23.4] percent - ... way
below the national standard. We are right now at 15.5
percent, and so we have met our goal; in our program
improvement plan, ... we committed to ... 22 percent,
but we are down at 15.5 percent and hopefully will
continue to move in the right direction.
For those children who come into our care and custody,
we are measured on ... [whether they are] abused while
they are in our care. The national standard for that
was .57 [percent]; at the time of the review, we were
at 1.91 [percent]. We committed to achieving 1.7
[percent], and we are [now] at 1.2 [percent] - again,
moving in the right direction. ... Placement
stability: [a measurement pertaining to] ... the
number of times a child moves within 12 months of
[him/her] coming into care. States, Alaska as well,
are seeing children moving far too often. So the
national standard for that was 86.7 [percent]; at the
time of the review, we were at 70.6 [percent]. We are
moving in the right direction - we are [currently at]
72.2 [percent].
[With regard to the] length of time [it is taking] to
achieve reunification, we are not doing quite as well
we'd like to do. ... The federal government expects us
to achieve reunification within 12 months, [and] the
national standard [is] 76.2 [percent]; at the time of
the review, we were at 58.3 [percent], and we are now
at 54.1 - we are not going in the right direction and
so that is something we are trying to focus on. [With
regard to the] length of time to adoption, the federal
government asks us to try to achieve adoption - for
those children whose plan is adoption - within 24
months. [The] national standard [is] 32 percent; at
the time of the review, we were at 21.8 [percent] and
we've dropped to 18.7 [percent] - again, not going in
the right direction.
MS. KENNAI offered her belief that the last two sets of
statistics are a reflection of the OCS caseload size and ability
to keep those families visiting, the number of cases on the
court's dockets, the number of assistant attorney generals
available to help with such cases, and the availability of
reunification services. She noted that the OCS is into the
second year of its program improvement plan and that it is ahead
of itself in terms of achieving the plan's goals.
4:42:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the OCS measures user
satisfaction.
MS. KENNAI said that the OCS does look into complaints received
and keeps data on them, but doesn't generate a customer
satisfaction survey; as part of its quality assurance process,
the OCS interviews stakeholders, and there is also now a citizen
review panel, which will provide both the OCS and the
legislature with feedback regarding Alaska's child protection
services.
CHAIR WILSON thanked Ms. Kennai and Ms. Rutherdale for the
overview.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:46:23 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|