Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/2000 03:25 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 20, 2000
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Fred Dyson, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative John Coghill
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
DFYS REPORT AND AUDIT
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies & Offices
PO Box 113300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the DFYS Report and Audit.
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented and answered questions on the DFYS
Report and Audit.
DEIRDRE O'CONNOR, Children Services Manager,
Southeast Region
Family Services
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
3025 Clinton Drive, Suit 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the DFYS Report and
Audit.
TONY LOMBARDO, Director of Advocacy
Covenant House Alaska
609 F Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the DFYS Report and Audit.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-49, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN FRED DYSON called the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Dyson, Kemplen
and Coghill. Representative Green arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
CHAIRMAN DYSON announced that the only order of business was
hearing the Division of Family and Youth Services Report and Audit
to identify problems and solutions and solicit from DFYS what
progress has been made, what solutions are working or not, things
that remain to be done, things the legislature can help with and
entertain some of the questions raised in the audit. He has
forwarded to DFYS a letter which suggests that some children who
are aging out of the system are struggling in the transition when
reunification hasn't worked. Some of the children may have had
some unfortunate transitions and are still in the midst of that.
Some of the cases that DFYS has worked on have gone to criminal
proceedings, and one or more parents are suing the department.
Because of the ongoing criminal and civil actions, the legislators
need to not do anything that will prejudice those cases. The
committee will be careful about those specific cases where there is
a pending action.
Number 0236
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies & Offices, came forward to present the report.
She reported to the committee that over the last three years four
audits examining various aspects of the Division of Family and
Youth Services (DFYS) have been conducted. The first audit was
completed in March 1998 and contained eight recommendations. The
second audit was completed in August 1998 and contained six
recommendations. The third audit was a follow-up on the
recommendations contained in the first report and was completed in
January 1999. The last audit effort has been completed, however,
the Budget and Audit Committee has not yet approved the report for
release.
MS. DAVIDSON said rather than going over recommendation by
recommendation, she would focus on three operational areas which
need improvement. The first one is responding to reports of harm.
Although DFYS states it has a "zero tolerance" policy, by necessity
the agency must prioritize which reports of harm are investigated.
The past audit reports have reflected concerns that the agency did
not have in place a standard, widely accepted approach regarding
how to consistently assess what reports of harm should be
investigated and which ones, due to lack of resources, could be
passed over.
MS. DAVIDSON noted the legislature has authorized additional
positions to increase the DFYS's ability to respond to reports of
harm. It is a prudent time for the DFYS to establish and implement
various policies and procedures that clearly identify investigative
priorities across the state.
MS. DAVIDSON reported that the second area that needed improvement
was the training of social workers. This has been a long standing
area of concern. The emphasis that has been placed on training has
varied from administration to administration over the years, and
the current administration has placed a renewed emphasis in this
area. This has been a success area for DFYS. With the increasing
certification requirements for licensure of social workers, the
training and continuing professional education will in likelihood
take on more importance in future years.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that the third area of concern is the
relationship with parents. The DFYS often times has had an
adversarial relationship with one of its main constituent groups,
the parents of children the agency takes into state custody. It is
recognized that the primary focus of DFYS is on the welfare of
children. However, sometimes this focus is maintained to such an
extent that it is possible to be detrimental to effective
communication with the parents whose children have been taken into
state custody. To that end, it has been suggested that DFYS:
consider how the agency can provide more medical and psychological
counseling information about children in state custody to parents;
work with the court system to establish a less intimidating, more
mediation-like process to resolve custody situations rather than
utilizing the very legalistic, somewhat intimidating child in need
of aid process.
Number 0492
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked her to repeat that last sentence and then
asked if that was like recommendation number five in the 1998
audit.
MS. DAVIDSON answered yes.
MS. DAVIDSON continued saying it was suggested that DFYS better
publicize the procedures and process within DFYS that are open to
parents who believe that a social worker is not treating them
fairly which goes to the ombudsman-like process; and make more of
an effort to solicit and document cooperation of parents in
carrying out case plans so families can be unified in a more timely
manner.
Number 0550
MS. DAVIDSON mentioned other issues addressed in the report. One
is that the legislature should consider amending relevant child
protection statutes to provide better and more consistent casework.
This was accomplished by the prior legislature. Improvements to
the agency's management information system are necessary from both
an internal management perspective and to report timely on the
agency's caseload statistics.
Number 0582
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked Ms. Davidson if any credence was given
to the different regional setting of the different types of
training or different priorities in the policy of taking reports of
harm.
MS. DAVIDSON answered with regard to the differences in the offices
across the state, to the extent there were significant differences,
it was in how the agencies handled "workload adjust," which is that
determination of which cases get investigated and which ones don't
or are delayed. That is the biggest difference seen across the
regions.
Number 0673
RUSS WEBB, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health & Social
Services, came forward to comment and answer questions on the DFYS
Report and Audit. He believes there are certainly areas of
success. It is unfortunate that the most recent effort of the
Legislative Audit Division to look at the issues is not yet
available to everyone. Although he understands the reasons why
that is the case, it would have made this meeting more fruitful for
everyone. Given that information is not available, he will talk
about what he knows and try to not violate some of the things that
Ms. Davidson has asked him not to violate. Some of the past
recommendations, from the Legislative Audit Division and from other
forums like the Governor's Child Protection Review Task Force,
talked about the need for additional staff in DFYS to get to the
point where there would be an adequate response to the legislative
mandate. It is fairly clear now, as it was not clear a year ago,
that the impact of that additional staff is significant. The DFYS
[with additional staff] is indeed able to respond to more reports
of harm, and fewer children are left unprotected.
MR. WEBB referred to a chart describing the percentages of reports
of harm that the DFYS responded to from July 1996 to February 2000.
In fiscal year 1997 at the time of the initial audit, the DFYS was
responding to about 70 percent of all the reports of harm. The
legislative mandate was to respond to every report of harm. With
the addition of 28 new staff and a number of other improvements
made of utilizing existing resources, the DFYS is now responding to
about 90 percent of reports of harm. He believes that is a
significant fact worthy of note. He believes that the new law
passed two years ago is demonstrably having some of the desired
impact in terms of better protecting children, moving cases to
permanent resolution and moving children into permanent homes
quicker.
MR. WEBB noted that DFYS has done everything in its power to
effectively manage the budget that it has to support the efforts of
social workers and achieve the greatest response capacity possible.
Responding to a report of harm is not the entire job; it's just the
start. The resources need to be allocated between responding and
moving children to permanency and trying to work with parents in a
productive way to resolve the issues that place children at risk.
This, as well as other things, will demonstrate that this is the
case. The issue of focusing the resources on the highest risk
cases is important.
MR. WEBB said he believes that the DFYS has improved its
consistency in making sure the DFYS is prioritizing the response to
those cases that are highest risk. That has been focused on in
terms of the policies and procedures. He agrees with Ms. Davidson
that a replacement of the management information system is critical
in making additional improvements throughout.
CHAIRMAN DYSON apologized for his being late, the time constraints
of the meeting today and this report being heard at the end of
session. He asked if the department is now able to recruit the
quality of staff to fill the vacancies.
Number 0995
MR. WEBB replied the DFYS is a much better position, and the
problem three years ago does not exist now in filling vacancies.
The DFYS is able to fill as many positions with its current budget.
Staff is being trained, and higher quality staff is being hired.
The DFYS has engaged with the university to bring in more staff.
The answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked what is going on with turnover, what causes it
and what can be done to reduce it.
MR. WEBB indicated that turnover has been reduced from 32 percent
in FY98 to the 21 percent that is projected for this year. The
single most critical factor he has heard from staff in regard to
turnover is the caseload and workload--the staff burns out.
Training is another key issue. Training for new staff helps reduce
their stress if they know what they're doing and how to do it well.
It is important to get more specialized training for tenured staff.
Number 1085
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Webb why the MIS [management information
system] hasn't been overhauled or replaced.
MR. WEBB answered that the department doesn't have the money to
replace it. The department has asked for $5.4 million in the
capital budget to replace the MIS. If the department gets that
money, the MIS will be replaced. Several steps have been taken to
improve the use of the existing MIS. A new project coordinator
will be working on a contract to review the business processes and
try to get ready for assessing new applications and applying
technology most efficiently to assist the staff.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said the budget and audit report identified the need
for an ombudsman-type function. Several people have encourage the
House HES committee to become an oversight group. He believes that
the Foster Care Review Board was working pretty good and was a good
direction to go and that got dropped two years ago. He asked what
the department thinks about Legislative Budget and Audit's
recommendation for an alternative mediation and ombudsman-type
function for DFYS.
Number 1183
MR. WEBB informed the committee that the DFYS is working with the
court system to try to take advantage of every mediation
opportunity available in a variety of different forms. That is
part of good casework. If it can use the court system's mediation,
that will be done. There is an internal position to help resolve
complaints. The DFYS disagreed somewhat with Ms. Davidson's
recommendation that the DFYS find a special ombudsman; if the
legislature wanted that, it should do that. The DFYS doesn't
disagree with that; it works with the ombudsman's office all the
time. If the legislature wants to fund one, the DFYS would be
happy to have it.
MR. WEBB noted the DFYS did establish a position, held by Tim
Spengler, as an internal trouble shooter. Part of Mr. Spengler's
focus is to try to field complaints that people have, get to the
root of those complaints, resolve them in whatever way he can,
whenever possible and at least to get to the facts if he can't
resolve them. He believes Mr. Spengler has been successful in
trying to prevent some things from going to the grievance process
or into court. Mr. Spengler has tried to make certain that the
grievance process is available to people. The DFYS has tried to
fulfill the spirit of the recommendations that the legislative
auditors made. The DFYS disagreed in some instances on the
specifics, but the intent was generally followed.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Webb what the court does for DFYS in
mediation that isn't part of the formal court process.
MR. WEBB said essentially the court takes cases that might
otherwise be headed to court and tries to resolve them through
mediation, much like other civil litigation processes. The court
has hired and trained mediators for that purpose.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Webb what other child protection agencies
around the country do in terms of the ombudsman's function or
mediation or alternative complaint resolution.
Number 1324
MR. WEBB answered that many states take advantage of mediation
processes much like the court established here. Some agencies have
an internal ombudsman. Some other states, like Alaska, have its
own ombudsman office separated from other things. Mr. Spengler
doesn't precisely serve an ombudsman function, but he certainly
serves something akin to that in terms of fielding complaints and
trying to resolve them. In addition, Alaska has a grievance
process in regulation which most states don't have.
CHAIRMAN DYSON commented that many of the complaints his office
receives often have to do with either the investigator getting bad
information and/or believing the wrong people or being unfair, or
being a monster, or having attitude or being prejudiced and so
on--not the sort of things of classic mediation. There is a real
problem with actions and decisions, and in some cases there is
justification. It is an emotional issue. The perception of many
people who have encountered DFYS in an adversarial role is that all
of the resolution systems are in-house, and therefore very suspect.
He asked Mr. Webb to help the committee in the next few months to
find what other jurisdictions have done with that issue and see if
there is a way to increase the confidence of the public that there
is an objective review and certainly fund it.
Number 1477
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Webb if there were any statistics
on false accusations and how the department has responded to those.
MR. WEBB answered the department doesn't have a record of false
allegations; those are exceptionally rare. In his experience, he
doesn't know of a false allegation. He believes what sometimes
occurs is people make a good faith allegation that are not
particularly well-based. The examples of those that he is familiar
with are instances, particularly in custody battles, between
estranged parents. He has not found those to be false allegations;
in other words, he believes that the people believe that they are
making a legitimate complaint; they have a legitimate concern. The
concern may not be well founded, but they believe it with all their
heart.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Webb about the priorities that the
department responds to in terms of a situation. If someone says
this is priority one and the department says no, it is actually a
priority three, how does the department keep track of that. He
wondered how the department assesses which ones were indeed
legitimate priority one cases and which ones were in reality
priority three cases.
MR. WEBB answered the priorities are based on the information that
comes into the department. The priorities essentially are based on
the risk of harm alleged, the child's age, the danger presented in
that kind of information as well as prior reports of harm. The
department doesn't know until it gets there what it will look like.
The department is able to assess what is found in an investigation
after the data is recorded. To some degree those two things can be
compared. People don't call the department and say they have a
priority one; they call them with the information of the kind of
harm they believe is occurring to the child, and it is the
department's assessment of whether it is a priority one, two or
three.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if statistics are kept on how the
department responded based on its evaluation of either downgrading
or upgrading these calls.
Number 1667
DEIRDRE O'CONNOR, Children Services Manager, Southeast Region,
Family Services, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department
of Health & Social Services, came forward to answer questions. The
priority levels are what DFYS uses to determine when it first needs
to get out to see the family, and how long a time the DFYS believes
the victim will most likely be able to be safe and not receive
further harm. If it is identified initially as a priority three,
it is going to be a priority three until DFYS goes out and sees the
family. If at that point it is realized that lots of circumstances
exist that were not related to the DFYS, and it needs to act very
quickly to protect the child, the DFYS doesn't necessarily go back
and change the priority level because at that point it is actively
involved in the investigation. The DFYS is working on the family's
need as opposed to what the report of harm needs to be called.
MS. O'CONNOR noted if there is a case identified as priority three
and then two days later another report of harm is reported on the
same child or family, that will come up as that information is
entered in the current MIS. That would then be upgraded to a
priority two or one because two reports of harm were received in a
very short time which says it is a very significant situation.
Once the DFYS actually lays eyes on the child, whether or not it is
a priority one, two or three, is of less importance than doing an
assessment of risk of harm to the child.
MR. WEBB added the brief answer is the DFYS hasn't compared that
information. What does occurs though, in some instances, based on
the assessment of the information the DFYS got, it may be a
priority one, but when the DFYS goes out, it finds that the
situation is not as it appeared to be. The same things occurs on
the reverse side. There may be a priority three report and after
investigation, it turns out that the child is at great risk of
harm. He doesn't have the data that tells him how many of those
occur.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN concluded that Mr. Webb couldn't tell him
how many priority ones occurred within the past month.
MR. WEBB said he could tell him that, but he could not tell him how
many priority ones, upon investigation, were actually priority two
or three and vice versa.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked for the reasons why that information
is not available.
MR. WEBB answered that information is not recorded; all that really
matters is what action is needed to protect the child. The
priority system is designed for resource allocation, not for
ranking risk at the time of investigation. The value of it is gone
at the time the resource has been allocated.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Ms. Davidson if she thought this
priority ranking would fit into the category that she reported that
no consistent policies and procedures were in place for reports of
harm.
MS. DAVIDSON answered yes, there is a priority ranking system, but
what was seen in some regions was risk category three was not being
responded to but priority one and two were being responded to.
Other regions responded to priority one, some priority two cases
weren't being responded to and none of the priority three cases
were being responded to. While there was a ranking system, it fell
apart in consistent decision making.
Number 1855
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Webb for the department's response to the
children who have aged out or gotten out of the system and have had
real problems in transition. [This is referenced from a letter
from Tony Lombardo of Covenant House Alaska in Anchorage to
Representative Dyson.]
MR. WEBB replied there is no question that there are kids who have
difficulty in transition. He believes that the people at Covenant
House see kids who have had contact with DFYS at various times in
their lives, some of whom may have run away from a foster home or
other things. He asked some of the staff to take a look at a list
provided by Representative Dyson, and the staff was able to
identify five or six of the kids on the list even though last names
were not given. It seems fairly clear that Covenant House doesn't
have some of the information.
MR. WEBB indicated that some of the people on the list have been
dropped from DFYS care and are in residential care. It is not
clear to him how accurate the list is, but there clearly is a
problem helping kids transition out of DFYS custody, and there
clearly is a problem with some kids coming to Covenant House as
runaways from their parents. Those kids may allege abuse or
neglect; the DFYS may do an investigation and find out that there
are willing and able parents capable of caring for those kids, and
the kids simply don't want to return home. Those are not child
protection cases necessarily; those are kids with problems and some
of them are open cases. There is a runaway position in Anchorage
that tries to work with those kids.
CHAIRMAN DYSON summarized Mr. Webb's answer that some of those kids
were in state custody or runaway status. Some of those kids are
kids who have either never been or may not have gone through
reunification or alternative placement and the case was closed, but
they did at some point in their life have contact with DFYS. He
wondered if there is another category.
MR. WEBB said there potentially is another category, one where the
case is closed, the kid becomes an adult and receives a significant
amount of money. The department holds in trust the permanent fund
dividends, as it legally has to do, which is released to the person
when he/she becomes an adult. In one case, the young adult ended
back in Covenant House soon after his release without the money.
That is precisely the kind of issue that needs to be dealt with
through transition independent living training. Kids need to learn
how to manage their money and be prepared to be adults before they
get the money.
Number 2050
TONY LOMBARDO, Director of Advocacy, Covenant House Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He wanted to raise
this issue on behalf of the program staff. They are not trying to
cast any dispersions on DFYS, but there are information flow
issues. The Covenant House would like to ascertain as best it can
where these kids are coming from because for the staff, the kids
are real case histories. The staff are concerned that there are
youth who receive the trust funds and are released right to the
street without anywhere to go. There are possibly kids being
released before they are 18 for a variety of reasons, whether they
are runaways, they simply can't ascertain their custodial status
but the Covenant House is just seeking a solution to a better
interface with DFYS on behalf of the kids.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Lombardo if he or someone on the staff
would be willing to serve on a task force to work on this problem.
MR. LOMBARDO replied absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked Mr. Webb if there was someone in DFYS in
Anchorage that Mr. Lombardo could touch base with to facilitate the
communication breakdown.
MR. WEBB suggested that James Steele, the Children's Services
Manager in Anchorage, would be more than happy to talk with Mr.
Lombardo. In regard to the question about a task force, he
suggested contacting Ms. O'Connor. With the federal money that is
coming, there are some some requirements that DFYS will work with
collaborative partners in the community, like Covenant House, and
thus DFYS would be happy to include them in that planning process.
CHAIRMAN DYSON asked if the federal act and the funding allow for
some financial support to the community partners.
MR. WEBB noted he couldn't answer that question because he didn't
know all the "strings attached to the dollars."
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked what happens if there is a false
accusation called in to DFYS.
Number 2149
MR. WEBB said it would be difficult to determine if it was a false
accusation as opposed to the kind he described earlier. For
example, reports of harm may come in anonymously and the intent of
the reporter cannot be interpreted. The DFYS can try to assess and
get as much information about that as it can. The DFYS can go out
and determine whether the report had a foundation or not; but it is
not in the business of doing criminal investigations about the
intent of the reporter. If there is no foundation to the report,
then the DFYS will take no further action.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if there is a penalty for someone
saying something false.
CHAIRMAN DYSON interjected to Representative Kemplen that that
subject has come up a lot of times. A fair number of the reports
are spite motivated and have to do with custody hearings, jealousy
and all kinds of stuff. Quite a bit of time has been spent trying
to figure out how to deal with that but also not inhibit people
feeling the freedom to report when they are not sure, but it
appears to them there is harm.
CHAIRMAN DYSON told Mr. Webb that more than a year ago a group met
and wanted to get a brochure out to give to parents when a child is
taken from them. He would like the department's assurance when he
gets his part done, that the department will review and approve it
and will start using it. He asked if, at this point, parents who
have lost custody of their children temporarily or whatever have
adequate access to legal help.
MR. WEBB answered if parents are unable to afford counsel, the
court will appoint counsel for them. He believes that is working.
The public defender and OPA [Office of Public Advocacy] are
constrained in terms of their budget, but this is a priority area.
CHAIRMAN DYSON said another one he is eager to work on is the
independent ombudsman suggestion and the resurrection of the foster
care review board.
CHAIRMAN DYSON indicated this is not the end; the committee is all
going to stay involved in this issue. If people have their
questions faxed in, he will try to get some of those answers for
them.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting
was adjourned at 4:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|