02/12/2015 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Office of Children's Services | |
| Presentation: Alaska Citizen Review Panel | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2015
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative David Talerico
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: ALASKA CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL
- HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to the duties of the Department of Health and
Social Services; relating to hearings on and plans for permanent
placement of a child in need of aid; relating to school
placement and transportation for children in foster care;
relating to foster care transition programs; relating to
emergency and temporary placement of a child in need of aid;
relating to the confidentiality of information regarding child
protection; and amending Rule 17.2, Alaska Child in Need of Aid
Rules of Procedure."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 27
SHORT TITLE: DHSS DUTIES;CINA; FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARA
01/21/15 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/15
01/21/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/15 (H) HSS, JUD
02/11/15 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
02/11/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/15 (H) HSS, JUD
02/12/15 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director
Central Office
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint overview of the
Office of Children's Services.
TRAVIS ERICKSON, Social Services Program Administrator
Central Office
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the overview by the Office
of Children's Services.
DIWAKAR VADAPALLI Chair
Alaska Citizen Review Panel
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the annual report from the Alaska
Citizen Review Panel.
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 27 as the sponsor of the
bill.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:13 PM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Seaton, Wool, Talerico, and Stutes were present
at the call to order. Representative Tarr arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Office of Children's Services
OVERVIEW: Office of Children's Services
3:03:50 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
an overview from the Office of Children's Services (OCS).
3:05:16 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's
Services, Department of Health and Social Services, directed
attention to the PowerPoint, entitled "OCS Division Overview."
She stated that the mission of the Office of Children's Services
(OCS) is to work in partnership with families and communities to
support the well-being of Alaska's children and youth, slide 2.
She reported that the services were designed to enhance
families' capacities to give their children a healthy start, to
provide them with safe and permanent homes, to maintain cultural
connections, and help them realize their potential. She shared
that the vision is "Safe Children, Strong Families." She
reported that there were 508 full-time positions, with 1 part-
time position within the division, and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015
budget was $143,709,600, which was 5.34 percent of the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) overall budget.
She relayed that, in any given month, OCS works with about
11,469 individuals. She moved on to slide 3, "Families We
Serve," and clarified that this is directed more at the parents.
She stated that, although these parents love their children,
they often have their own traumatic history including addiction,
exposure to violence, and economic struggles. She pointed out
that many paired with partners from similar backgrounds. She
stated that once the addiction and violence was taken away while
treated for mental illness, these were by and large caring,
loving parents.
MS. LAWTON moved on to slide 4, "Continuum of Care," and listed
the six primary program areas. The first is prevention/early
intervention services, which include the infant learning program
for up to age three. This program assesses children with
developmental delays or possible risk factors, and all children
with substantiated maltreatment. If these children qualified,
they receive on-going services for preparation prior to entering
the school system. The next service on the continuum of care is
intake, which is the process for reporting concerns. She
reported that there are five regional intake units, which
receive and screen more than 15,000 protective services reports
annually. These intake units collect information for
assessments of actions by the division. She explained that the
next service on the continuum of care, initial assessment (IA),
is also known as an investigation, and occurs after a report was
screened-in and met the criteria for investigation. These
investigations had been determined to warrant a worker going to
the home to check on the child's safety. She acknowledged that
this was a "pretty intrusive, pretty scary process," but it was
necessary to review the history and any criminal records, and
interview the children and the parents. It could then be
decided whether family services were necessary to keep the
children safe. She moved on to family services, which comprises
the bulk of the staff, and includes foster care cases that are
ongoing and need longer-term intervention. She explained that
the case workers develop case plans to remediate the challenges
that brought the children into care. She described resource
families as a generic term to describe licensed foster parents,
as well as relative providers. This program is responsible for
recruitment of foster and adoptive parents and subsidy to the
children. She explained that this is when OCS matched children
with services and families that could best meet their needs.
She mentioned that service array are grant based programs, or
contracts, and are used to supplemental the work of the case
workers and provide more services to the families.
3:12:04 PM
MS. LAWTON addressed slide 5, "Service Population," and reported
that more than 15,000 reports had been received by OCS for
children with alleged maltreatment in FY 2014, with almost
10,500 children and their families subject to an assessment for
child safety. She pointed out that almost 7,000 of these
resulted in investigations where an OCS staff went and knocked
on the door. She shared that there were an average of 600
investigations to initiate which required that case workers be
in the field and in the homes of families across the state.
Each of these investigations were handled in a timeframe based
on the report which determined the necessity for the rapidity of
response.
MS. LAWTON explained slide 6, "Service Population (continued),"
and noted that almost 2,400 children are being served in home
placement or foster care. She pointed out that the case workers
drove, flew, used snow machines, or boats to make monthly
contacts, as required for a monthly face to face contact with
every child, and contact every other month with a parent. This
required a lot of travel, with more than 18,000 visits to
children and 4,100 visits to their parents by workers in 2014.
She declared that this is an even bigger logistical challenge
given the remoteness of Alaska and the turnover of case worker
staff.
3:14:30 PM
MS. LAWTON moved on to slide 7, "Children in Placement,"
depicting the 5 regional offices, Anchorage, Northern,
Southcentral, Southeast, and Western, and the 25 field offices.
She relayed that the Anchorage region typically has the largest
number of children in out-of-home care, followed by
Southcentral, and the Northern regions. She reported that some
of the offices were only staffed by one or two persons, and many
were key points for serving the surrounding villages.
MS. LAWTON discussed slide 8, "Children Out-of-Home Care," and
stated that there was significant growth in the past five years.
She said some of that increase had been a result of the
evaluation process for risk and safety, in an attempt to reduce
maltreatment. She stated that OCS was also seeing a lot of
increased severity in the reports. She shared that any child in
hourly custody had to be in a licensed facility. She stated
that 43 percent of the children were with a non-relative foster
family, while about 35 percent were with foster homes
specifically licensed for a relative child. She expressed a
desire for more child placement in relative homes, although this
continues to be a challenge. She reported that OCS is
attempting to streamline and simplify some of its licensing
process.
3:17:17 PM
MS. LAWTON shared slide 9, "Service Population Demographics,"
which depicted the overrepresentation of Alaska Native children;
although Native children comprise 20 percent of the child
population, they comprise about 62 percent of the children in
foster care. She stated there are some clear racial
disparities, as OCS recognizes that Alaska Natives did not abuse
their children at a higher rate than other families. She
pointed out that this phenomena happened throughout minority
cultures in the U.S. She said that OCS is working closely with
its tribal partners for ways to respond and deal with issues of
institutional racism and cultural issues that were a norm for a
community, and not neglect.
3:18:31 PM
MS. LAWTON addressed slide 10, "Where do kids go when they
leave?" She noted that OCS has a responsibility to ensure that
kids do not linger in foster care, with a primary goal of
reunification with their home. She allowed that about 50
percent of the kids were successfully reunited with their
parents, although the national average was around 60 percent.
She declared that OCS had a low rate of reentry for kids, after
returning to their home.
3:19:47 PM
MS. LAWTON directed attention to slide 11, "Pressing Concerns,"
stated there were a lot of pressing concerns. She addressed the
disproportionality and disparate outcomes of the Alaska Native
population in the child welfare system, pointing out that these
children were reported to OCS at a higher rate than other
children and the outcomes were poorer than those of other
children, as they often had more placements and didn't see the
educational success. She said there were insufficient resources
to enhance the tribal infrastructure, and she spoke about the
creation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978, which
had provided funding to tribes to serve Native children,
although this federal funding had remained stagnant. She stated
that there were insufficient resources to enhance much of the
tribal infrastructure, and expressed her desire to share OCS
resources, training, and expertise. She moved on to discuss
child abuse prevention funding, noting that once OCS came into
contact with families, it was often too little, too late. She
relayed there could be a lot of savings if more was invested in
prevention. Workload and retention continues to be one of the
biggest challenges to OCS, which she describes as a "turn and
burn" with frontline case workers. She reported that it takes
about two years to train a caseworker and they usually leave in
about one and one-half years, before they had even fully
mastered skills. She shared that this is a national crisis.
She addressed the growing foster care population and, based on
the economic challenges, stated that there would be an increase.
3:23:52 PM
MS. LAWTON shared that OCS is working with the Division of
Public Health in looking at the data on infant/child fatalities.
She opined there appears to be an uptake in fatalities for
infants under 12 months, possibly attributed to unsafe sleeping
arrangements, although there were often substance abuse factors.
She noted that the medical examiner was often not able to make a
definitive finding, and no one was there to report what
happened. She referenced the new Public Service Announcement
(PSA) for safe sleep, and recognizes its challenges. She
concluded by touching on the budget cuts, which lead to
insufficient localized services and resources, especially in the
villages and hub communities. She offered her belief that there
would never be a complete service array, or the amount of
licensed foster homes, and often there would not be the
necessary tribal resources. She declared a significant need for
the department and the state to work with the tribal partners in
a way that had not been done in the past because they were the
solution for working with the families to keep the communities
whole and the families together.
3:26:54 PM
TRAVIS ERICKSON, Social Services Program Administrator, Central
Office, Office of Children's Services, Department of Health and
Social Services, directed attention to slide 12, "Did our
intervention prevent additional maltreatment?" He pointed to
the line graph on the left side of the slide, "Repeat
Maltreatment," and reported that this was a federally
established measure that meant that a child had been maltreated
once, OCS had intervened, and then, within six months, the child
had been maltreated a second time. He stated that we "want this
rate to be very low," noting that the federal standard was 6.1
percent, while Alaska had consistently ranged between 11 and 12
percent, about twice the national standard. He directed
attention to the bar chart on the right of the slide, "Repeat
Reports," which he explained to be all the times OCS had worked
with the families, as well as a snapshot for all the
investigations open to OCS on Jan 26 2015. He reported that
there were 2,409 open investigations at that time, split into
three categories. About a third, 839 of the families, were
reported for the first time; 722 of the families had been
reported for a second or third time to OCS; and 848 of the
families had been reported many times before. He relayed that
this revealed that OCS was operating with the same families
quite frequently, resulting in a much higher rate of repeat
maltreatment "than we want it to be." He expressed concern for
child safety, noting that established addiction was a
significant factor in more than 70 percent of these cases.
3:30:35 PM
MS. LAWTON directed attention to slide 13, "2014 - 2019
Priorities for Improvement," and reported that OCS was in the
first year of a federal five-year plan of primary goals and
strategies to address the aforementioned pressing needs. She
acknowledged the necessity to better assess and address risk and
need, which includes the initial review and determination
through the ongoing responsibility to assess for safety and
risk, while evaluating the needs. She directed attention to the
strategies for timely and quality case plans as well as
improvement for decision making at intake and initial
assessment. She stated that investigations were often handled
by the least seasoned staff, although it was "one of the
toughest jobs that we have." She shared that this was a
paradigm that OCS was working on. She declared that another OCS
goal was to examine timely and safe permanent homes for all
children, as OCS was not meeting the standards for placement of
children in foster care from zero to twelve months. She stated
a goal for getting children home as quickly as possible, so they
did not linger in foster care. She noted that the longer a
child was gone from their parents, the less likelihood for
successful reunification. She shared that the early and ongoing
identification of relatives was a key element to placement. She
said that this was a growth area for OCS, and that the process
entailed continued development of the relationship with family
members. She shared that continuous quality improvement was a
growing area of emphasis in all areas of government, and that
OCS was developing a clear plan based on its case reviews to
better outline its policies and practices. She reported that
the last federal audit review for the child welfare system in
Alaska had been in 2008, which the state had failed, and that
Alaska had been on a performance improvement plan for three
years. She stated that Alaska was scheduled for round three of
the Child and Family Services plan in May, 2017, and although
OCS had expectations for a better review, they did not expect to
pass, which would result in another performance improvement
plan. She noted that there was an ongoing dialogue with the
federal partners regarding penalties.
MS. LAWTON moved on to slide 14, "Moving Forward," and
emphasized that OCS needed to be more pro-active in its efforts
to collaborate with partners in and outside of state government.
She offered her belief that OCS did more than most other
branches, although it was not enough. She declared her support
for the new Department of Health and Social Services
commissioner [Valerie Davidson] and her priorities, stating that
this would "help us give more boost and energy and ideas of how
we can do that and where we can break outside the mold." She
stressed that kids and families must be served as close to home
as possible, pointing out the problems for many Alaska Native
families when children were separated from villages and placed
in foster care in cities. She called for all Alaskans to report
child maltreatment and to support any struggling families.
3:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES directed attention to slide 2, and asked
of the 508 employees how many were case workers.
MS. LAWTON replied that 286 of those employees were front line
case workers. In response, she explained that the remainder
were supervisors, managers, licensing staff, adoption staff, and
support and clerical staff.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved attention to slide 6, which stated
that the approximate 2,400 kids being served had to be seen once
a month. She calculated that this was almost 29,000 visits in a
year. She opined that OCS, with only 286 case workers, was not
fulfilling that portion of its requirement.
MS. LAWTON acknowledged that it was a challenge, and that OCS
had made big improvements on case worker monthly visits with
children. She pointed out that many of the children were
siblings placed together in one home. She agreed that the case
workers were not always able to get there each month.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her concern that the numbers
were not very factual, and consequently she was suspect of the
other numbers. She asked for more specific numbers.
CHAIR SEATON suggested that the numbers for siblings in the same
home be forwarded, and for determination of how far off OCS was
from meeting the goal.
3:40:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked about the criteria when someone
called and requested help for a two-year old that was being
abused. She said that she had a constituent who made that call
four times before the young person died.
MS. LAWTON replied that policy dictated that all calls reporting
child abuse or neglect had to be recorded as a report. She
explained that there was then policy which guided staff through
a review of the information from the recorder, the OCS system,
and other sources, in order to "put together a picture of what
we know and what level of abuse it is." She stated that
violence and active substance abuse were examples of criteria
being reviewed, and this was put together with a combination of
experience and information to make the best possible evaluation.
She stated that collateral reporters, such as teachers and
public health nurses, were also contacted for information. If a
child was determined to be at risk or unsafe, then there was a
screening for investigation.
3:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether OCS made an at-risk
determination prior to a visit to the home.
MS. LAWTON explained that, although OCS received more than
15,000 annual reports, they did not investigate all of them.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her concern. She asked about
the OCS priority, whether it was to keep a child in their own
home or to keep them safe.
MS. LAWTON replied that the priority and the duty was to keep
children safe, and if that was not possible in the home, the
child would be placed outside the home.
3:43:31 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the increase of children in placement
from less than 1,000 to 2,400 was all distributed across state.
MS. LAWTON said that the increase was broadly across the state.
She shared that OCS was working to better serve families, to
reduce repeat maltreatment, and to improve its intact practices
and screening process.
CHAIR SEATON asked about the time and the licensing procedure
for a relative to become a placement provider for a child.
MS. LAWTON explained that if a relative could be identified and
contacted immediately, a criminal background check and a child
protection history check could be run, a worker could visit the
home to ensure it was a safe and suitable residence, and the
child could be placed immediately. She acknowledged that this
process could take longer if the placement was in a different
location, taking place after hours, or if multiple relatives
came forward with conflicting information.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the procedure and timeline for
licensing for foster care had recently been streamlined, as
there had been a long delay in the process during past years.
MS. LAWTON explained that a family had to complete an
application packet, and that delays could result if any
household members had any prior criminal information as those
court records would need to be reviewed. She said that letters
of reference were also needed. She noted that it would take
longer if a variance for licensure was necessary, as this would
require more information and research. She reported that once
an application was completed, it should take 45 - 60 days.
3:47:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether there was ever a situation
where the child may be placed back in the home prematurely,
possibly resulting in a subsequent removal.
MS. LAWTON replied that this did occasionally happen; however,
in Alaska it was more often the case that OCS monitored far
longer than necessary. She declared that, although there was a
good rate of re-entry, there were challenges with substance
abuse and other issues in the family that brought "additional
bumps in the road."
3:49:40 PM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to slide 9, and asked for
clarification that 20 percent of the population is Alaska
Native, but 60 percent of all the children in foster care are
Alaska Native.
MS. LAWTON replied that 62 percent of the children are Alaska
Native.
3:50:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL lauded the work of OCS, and recognized the
inherent stresses.
MS. LAWTON, in response to a question from Representative Wool,
said that there had been growth in the out-of-home care
population, and that ten years earlier there were some policy
changes, followed by additional significant changes five years
later, which resulted in proportionately more cases proceeding
to custody. She noted there was a pendulum swing, which had
been growing in the past five years from 1,800 to the current
2,400.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the number of incoming reports
is in parallel to the number of children in foster care.
MS. LAWTON replied that this had been the case; however, in the
past three years, even though the number of reports remained
somewhat static, OCS is responding in a different way and
consequently, there is now more intervention.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL, in response to Ms. Lawton, offered his
belief that the standards had changed. He asked whether the
percentage of Alaska Natives in foster care had remained
constant.
MS. LAWTON replied that it had grown as the foster care
population had grown, so there were proportionately more Alaska
Native children.
MS. LAWTON, in response to Representative Wool, said that there
was racism in Alaska, as well as the rest of the country, and
that there were some biases for perceptions of people of other
ethnicities. She offered her belief that perhaps families were
reported as needing intervention more often than was necessary.
She acknowledged that the OCS lens also came into effect, and
the outcomes were different. She stated that race was a factor
and a significant part of the problem, "and it's hard to sort of
unpack all of that to figure out how you fix it, 'cause it's
very complex."
3:54:41 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether there had been any success for an
increase in front line workers who represent the largest
population demographic for foster children.
MS. LAWTON explained that OCS could not ask about race when
hiring, so there was not any specific data. However,
anecdotally, OCS did not do a very good job recruiting Alaska
Natives and did not have very many Alaska Natives working in the
offices in rural Alaska. She offered her belief that
institutional culture and historical trauma were large
contributing factors. She stated that it would be helpful to
have more people representative of the families being served.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether there were skill sets or requirements
for front line case workers that did not correspond with those
of people from rural Alaska.
MS. LAWTON replied that OCS did include discussion for the
Indian Child Welfare Act and culture in all its trainings and
policies. She shared that there were also stand-alone
curriculums designed to teach an understanding for cultural
differences, the interfaces between different cultures, and the
meaning of prejudice and bias. She declared that you cannot
change a person's entire viewpoint. She said that OCS worked
with its tribal partners for staff education of the culture,
history, and people in specific regions.
CHAIR SEATON rephrased his question, and asked whether there
were Alaska Natives working as qualified front line case workers
in rural Alaska, or whether there was an educational component
creating this hiring differential.
MS. LAWTON explained that, although it was not possible to track
data on this race issue when it came to hiring, her experience
showed that there were not a lot of Alaska Native applicants
from rural regions. She relayed that working for OCS, with its
reach and family connectedness in the community, as well as "the
institution itself is a bit scary to work in," was a deterrent.
She pointed out that the salaries and benefits offered by OCS
did not always compete well with those offered by the tribal
organizations.
3:58:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked about the review failures by OCS and
the subsequent reviews.
MS. LAWTON replied that OCS was reviewed in 2002, again in 2008,
and would be reviewed again in 2017. She offered her belief
that every state had failed these federal audits.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether OCS had made enough changes
that there would be a possibility for passing in 2017.
MS. LAWTON offered her belief that OCS would pass in more areas
of rating than in 2008, and she pointed out that OCS made
continuous quality case reviews in the same manner and with the
same instrument as the federal review. She explained that OCS
had monitored the data for all 27 elements of evaluation, and
that, although progress had been made toward the federal
benchmark, OCS would not achieve the marker to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked in which areas OCS expected to have
difficulty with passing.
MS. LAWTON replied that there were three categories with a
variety of specific elements in each: safety, permanency, and
wellbeing. Under safety, there was review for the timeliness of
intervention, for whether the risk and safety for the needs of
the family was assessed accurately, and what services were
provided. She opined that, although OCS would do better in
safety with better outcomes for wellbeing, it would not pass
either component.
CHAIR SEATON asked for Ms. Lawton to provide the committee with
a check list to allow for a better understanding to the
evaluation process.
MS. LAWTON, in response to Representative Stutes, reiterated her
understanding that every state had failed both review audits.
4:01:51 PM
MS. LAWTON, in response to Chair Seaton, reported that currently
there were over 1,400 licensed foster homes, and that 451 were
licensed for specific, or relative, children. She said that the
need depended on the community, that Fairbanks continually had a
need for more foster homes, and that OCS was continually trying
to recruit.
4:03:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the aforementioned review
failure was partly due to overwork, underfunding, and not enough
foster parents.
MS. LAWTON replied that he was "absolutely correct," and that
the standards, all the cases and all the elements, had to be
achieved at 95 percent. She expressed agreement that this was,
and should be, a high standard; however, given the complex
nature of child welfare, it was a standard that child welfare
agencies were struggling to meet. She stated that this failure
was a reality that was representative of the systematic
challenges of underfunding and worker turnover, and that any
child welfare director in the country would echo these comments.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska Citizen Review Panel
PRESENTATION: Alaska Citizen Review Panel
4:04:56 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
a presentation by the Alaska Citizen Review Panel.
4:05:33 PM
DIWAKAR VADAPALLI Chair, Alaska Citizen Review Panel, presented
a PowerPoint titled "Alaska Citizen Review Panel," and listed
the presentation outline which included a description of the
Citizen Review Panel (CRP), its goals and recommendations for
2013 - 2014, its goals for 2014 - 2015, and some recent changes
in the panel's work. He directed attention to slide 3, "What
Does CRP Do?" explaining that the CRP had been set up in 1996 in
response to a federal mandate, 42 U.S.C. 5106a(c), an amendment
to the Child Abuse, Prevention, and Treatment Act (CAPTA). Each
state was required to set up at least one CRP, and its mandate
was to evaluate the agencies from a citizens' perspective and
connect the public needs and perception with the agencies roles
and responsibilities. He moved on to slide 4, "Brief History."
He reported that the panel originally had a $50,000 budget in
2002, which had increased to over $100,000 per year. There was
now increased autonomy and independence from the Office of
Children's Services (OCS). He stated that CRP had worked to
improve its methods of evaluation, and to better understand an
agency with more than 500 staff. He shared that, as the CRP had
between 6 - 8 volunteer members with one staff, it was necessary
to be efficient and effective and use meaningful methods to
produce a tangible and actionable report for the agency. He
shared that relationships had improved as CRP worked to figure
out its role and the agency tried to figure out where CRP fit.
He stated that currently there was a good, constructive working
relationship with OCS. He pointed to the next slide, "What CRP
does not do," and stated that the panel had to evaluate and use
its public outreach function. He reported that CRP was non-
partisan and did not comment on proposed or pending legislation,
and did not get involved in individual cases, as they were not
hired to be social workers or micromanagers of any OCS
operations. He stated that the panel would review systems, and
individual components of an OCS function, but it would not
evaluate the programs and it would not lobby. He declared that
CRP advocated for kids, but that was where the advocacy ended.
He stated that CRP could evaluate any OCS systems, slide 7, and
that it produced an annual report every June which addressed
specific policy documents and policy-practice gaps, slide 8. He
pointed out that the panel tried to offer recommendations that
were meaningful and tangible, based on real information.
MR. VADAPALLI addressed the next slide, "Panel Membership," and
acknowledged the difficulty for recruiting panel volunteers with
a broad, statewide representation. He addressed the next slide,
"OCS Offices," which depicted the locations for the 5 regional
offices and the 21 field offices. He stated that the turnover
rate for the front line positions, the protective service
specialists (PSS), was 32 percent, and had remained over 30
percent for the last 10 years. He reported an average of 2,000
kids in out-of-home (OOH) care during the past 8 years.
4:15:53 PM
MR. VADAPALLI moved on to the next slides, "This Is How It
Works." He explained that CRP looked at the differences for
what was proposed to be done by OCS in response to its
challenges, and what has actually been done by OCS to address
these challenges to child protection. He reported that CRP
started with an annual work plan which included several goals
from a running list of concerns. He noted that, although the
group was federally mandated to meet quarterly, given the amount
of work, the group now held a public meeting each month. He
reported that CRP had site visits every year to two or three
different OCS regional or field offices. He expressed a desire
for the group to visit each region annually to allow consistent
comparisons. He shared that work was based on real data
collected from surveys and constituents statewide, as well as
data from OCS. He pointed out that the group also reviewed
policies and documents, conducted further research, and
presented an annual report after June 30.
MR. VADAPALLI shared slide 13, "During the 2013-2014 Year," and
stated that CRP had four goals during the last year. The first
goal, "what are the policy guidelines for screening PSRs?" was
reviewed as there had been previous concerns for too many people
being screened out. He pointed to the second goal, "What is the
practice model for in-home service delivery (urban and rural),"
as there was concern for a lack of a proper service model in the
rural areas. He explained that the third goal, "IA backlog -
without an increase in the workforce, what is the current plan
for avoiding another backlog?" and asked how the 4000 case IA
backlog had been caught up so quickly over the last few months.
He shared the final goal, "Assess the need for OCS service in
Unalaska," and questioned whether there might still be a need
for this office and if so, "how do we deal with it." He
reported that CRP visited three sites during the past year,
Barrow, Bethel, and Kodiak. He explained that the current
decision for site visits would include a priority focus on the
offices that appeared to have more challenges than others,
although he acknowledged that all the offices and all the staff
were overloaded and challenged.
MR. VADAPALLI addressed slide 14, "Goal 1: Screening PSRs,"
which depicted the monthly percentage of cases screened in and
screened out since November, 2005. He pointed out that about 60
percent were screened in at the end of November, 2005, whereas
only 40 percent were screened in at the end of May, 2011,
although the percentage was again on the increase. He stated
that CRP had investigated reasons for being screened-out and
found that most applicants did not meet the screened-in
criteria. Moving on to the next slide, "Goal 1: Screened-Out
Cases," he described the bar graph for these regional PSRs which
did not meet IA criteria in the past five years. He shared that
in the upcoming year the CRP would delve more deeply to
ascertain what was happening with the screened out cases. He
concluded that the review of the screened-in and screened-out
policy had revealed other smaller concerns, including mentions
of the need for access to multiple media for submitting
applications and supporting documentation. He added that
persons who reported a concern should be notified that this was
being attended to without requesting this action.
4:24:31 PM
MR. VADAPALLI shared slide 17, "Recommendations from 2013-2014,"
and opined that the in-home model may not be working in the
rural areas, reporting that one in-home case worker in Bethel
had 170 caseloads across 56 villages, a physical impossibility
for maintaining the monthly visit requirements. He stated that
it had proven difficult for CRP to receive more meaningful data
in order to do its job, slide 18. He referenced slide 19, "Past
Recommendations," and stated that, in 2008 and 2009, CRP had
recommended that OCS continue working toward a Bethel service
region. He acknowledged that this region had been created in
2010. He emphasized that a recommendation for local OCS
relationships had been on its annual report every year since
2009, as there had been a concern from most site visits that OCS
had consistent challenges in local relationships with working
partners. He expressed a hope for a consistent structural
approach to maintain the relationships, whether mandated or not.
He addressed slide 20, "Past Recommendations," offering
recognition of the difficult situation in Wasilla, and the work
implemented since 2011 to improve the culture within that
agency. In 2012, CRP had established deadlines that required
that all non-emergency petitions be filed allowing for
supervision of families by the continuum of the legal parties,
as social workers were overburdened and "sometimes things can
fall through the cracks." He expressed hope that court
supervision would help prevent this.
4:28:05 PM
MR. VADAPALLI explained slide 21, "Goals for 2014-2015,"
declaring that CRP had retained all four goals from the last
year and added two more goals: learn more about the data
system, ORCA, and its challenges and capabilities; and
understand and assess OCS' foster care recruitment efforts.
MR. VADAPALLI addressed the next slide, "We Just Need To Find
Common Language," which shared the issues plaguing all the CRP
agencies nationwide. He stated that most OCS agencies would say
there was not enough money, not enough people, lots of
regulations, a process to work, one thing at a time, let's move
slowly, and that these are sensitive issues; whereas, the
citizens were concerned with a need for action and change now,
and why can't this be done now. He declared that "sometimes it
just doesn't connect and we need to find a common language.
That's what CRP's are set up, really, to do." He emphasized
that this was the challenge. Moving on to slide 23, "Who
advises/reviews OCS?" he stated that the revised organizational
flow in Department of Health and Social Services seemed to be in
better alignment. He noted that every division with DHSS,
except Public Assistance and Children's Services, had an
advisory committee listed. He shared that it was necessary for
the state to look at the support systems for OCS, and what could
help with resolution to its bigger challenges. He pointed to
the many review systems for OCS, which required a lot of time
spent reviewing what they were already doing, which took away
from time for servicing families and children in need. He
suggested that all of this should be streamlined for efficiency.
4:31:59 PM
MR. VADAPALLI summarized the next slide "Changes in CRP
Operation," listing the changes suggested for 2014 - 2015:
adopted operational guidelines, resulting in open meetings; all
CRP documents are now public, except confidential information
specific to particular cases; and the panel website would now
accept public comments to help identify and address systemic
issues. He clarified that the panel work was necessarily slow,
as it did not jump on any crisis situation, but instead
prioritized and addressed the systemic issues. He shared future
CRP plans which included a systematic public outreach plan, a
data sharing agreement with OCS, and a 3-way partnership between
the University of Alaska School of Social Work, CRP, and OCS for
case reviews.
4:33:45 PM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the CRP annual report which
included these recommendations.
4:34:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification that, although the
CRP relationship with OCS had begun in 2002, this relationship
was still vague.
MR. VADAPALLI replied that, although it was still somewhat
unclear and it was still being determined what the relationship
should be and what the mutual roles were, it was now much better
than it had been five years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the CRP relationship with OCS was
described as adversarial or cooperative.
MR. VADAPALLI replied that adversarial relationships were not
productive and did not work, and although the panel was critical
of the system with its evaluations, it tried to maintain a
positive outlook.
4:36:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if CRP offered constructive solutions
to problems which had existed for many years.
MR. VADAPALLI directed attention to the turnover rate at OCS,
about 32 percent of the front line worker positions over the
past 8-9 years. He explained that CRP had been digging through
details for information to the rates per region, and had
discovered that a large percentage, which did vary by region, of
those who leave resign from the agency. He declared the need to
find out what that means, in order to address this. He offered
a suggestion to perform exit reviews for a way to address the
problems. One recommendation from CRP to OCS was to address
housing in the rural areas. He pointed out that other
professions, including Public Safety and Teachers, had a housing
allowance, whereas social workers did not have this allowance
and they received lower pay, which contributed heavily to
retention problems. He noted that, although OCS did not have
the tools to deal with this, the Alaska State Legislature could.
He reported that the OCS employee surveys were the only source
of information for CRP to review regarding retention, but that
these surveys were limited as they only listed why people would
like to stay, and not why they were leaving.
4:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if this retention rate in Alaska was
consistent with OCSs in other states.
MR. VADAPALLI replied that, although the retention rate was
consistent with other states, "everybody having the same problem
does not justify our problem." He surmised that Alaska had
tools that may not be available elsewhere, so CRP wanted to
ensure it could address what it could. He directed attention to
the issue for case workers not being able to make all the
visitations, and pointed out that OCS workers were not always
able to coordinate with Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) workers
regarding home visits. He suggested that the State of Alaska
initiate a program for certification of ICWA workers to legally
offer support to OCS.
4:43:11 PM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the Alaska Citizen's Review
Panel Report which contained its recommendations. He explained
that, in the past, the CRP panel would offer its recommendations
and then OCS would respond. He pointed out that he would prefer
that the committee offer suggestions for ways that OCS and CRP
could better work together. He declared his support for this
model of accountability for the recommendations by the advisory
committee.
4:45:28 PM
MS. LAWTON reiterated the four suggestions by the CRP: the
practice elements and policies surrounding intake; the feedback
to reporters; the procedures to the follow up; and the
recommendation for sending information on protective service
reports to case offices throughout the region. She declared
appreciation for these recommendations, noting that these
recommendations were generally not a surprise as OCS did meet
with CRP monthly. She expressed her agreement that intake had
been an area under review for quite some time, and that OCS was
adopting most of the provided recommendations with the hope for
movement to a centralized intake system in order to increase its
accuracy, skill level, response times, and ability for better
knowledge about resources with uniformity among the five
regional intake offices.
4:48:17 PM
MS. LAWTON moved on to the second recommendation for a model by
OCS to serve in-home cases in rural Alaska and improve its data
collection on those cases. She shared that this would allow
work with the family to address the issues while the child
stayed in the home, and that OCS was adopting that
recommendation, as it was one of the primary goals in its five-
year plan. She directed attention to the third recommendation
for OCS to address the root of the initial assessment backlog
problems. She explained that there was a backlog of
investigations completed but not yet closed out, so they sat
pending on case worker desktop. She declared that the root of
the problem was work load and worker retention, as the
completion of paperwork could sit and wait while a worker was
out in the field. She stated that this was a continual problem
rooted in the earlier referenced systemic issues. She allowed
that even if OCS stayed on top of this problem, it would
continue to be a problem as the work load grows with kids in
out-of-home care. She addressed the fourth recommendation for a
priority of improved relationships between OCS and its community
partners. She expressed her agreement with this recommendation,
and shared that it had been a struggle for OCS, as it was done
well in some areas, and not done well in other areas. She
explained that there was an interesting dynamic in small
communities, particularly with relationships between
individuals. She clarified that OCS workers were required to
work with tribal workers under ICWA, however the relationship,
the level of work, and the effectiveness could look different.
She shared that OCS case workers would love to spend more time
in the communities to get to know the grass roots people who
were supporting families. She said that one of the challenges
to that goal was the flight schedule. She expressed that this
area had an expectation for improvement from her entire
management team.
CHAIR SEATON asked that Ms. Lawton return to expand on ways to
attain the recommendation for a certification of ICWA workers to
utilize their ability as partners in the community. He
expressed his satisfaction that OCS was now working toward
implementation of recommendations, as opposed to an earlier
adversarial system, and he lauded both OCS and CRP.
HB 27-DHSS DUTIES;CINA; FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION
4:52:25 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to
the duties of the Department of Health and Social Services;
relating to hearings on and plans for permanent placement of a
child in need of aid; relating to school placement and
transportation for children in foster care; relating to foster
care transition programs; relating to emergency and temporary
placement of a child in need of aid; relating to the
confidentiality of information regarding child protection; and
amending Rule 17.2, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of
Procedure."
4:53:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, declared that
his underlying guideline for foster care was the responsibility
that, as we take children out of their homes, we become their
legal guardians, essentially their parents. He asked, as
parents, would these numbers and statistics for foster youth be
tolerated. He stated that the proposed bill attempts to address
solutions in a cost effective way. He relayed that 24 percent
of foster youth end up incarcerated and 40 percent of foster
youth end up either homeless or couch surfing. He directed
attention to a recent study which indicated that foster youth
have high ACE (adverse childhood experiences) scores because
they are separated from their families and, in the foster care
system, they bounce between homes. He shared that most states
have allowed foster care until age 21, noting that in 12 states
non-foster youth, on average, stayed at home until age 25. He
explained that a child was emotionally harmed when taken from
their parents and then placed in multiple foster homes, and that
they were not ready to leave home and succeed at age 18. He
reported that one provision of the proposed bill ensured that
children were allowed to stay in foster care until age 21 if it
was in their best interest. He pointed out that OCS would have
to show to the court, at a status hearing, that it was in the
child's best interest to release them prior to age 21. He
explained that the goal of foster care was to find a permanent
home within 12 - 24 months. He declared that Alaska did not do
this in many cases, resulting in even more harm to a child from
the lack of a stable, nurturing home. He pointed out that one
provision of the proposed bill stated that OCS, at the regular
status hearings, must show that it had taken reasonable efforts
to find a permanent home for a child. He explained that both of
these provisions would help reduce the incarceration rates, the
homelessness rates, and the ACEs scores. He stated that, under
federal law, if a family moved within a reasonable distance,
homeless youth were allowed to stay in the same school. He
reported on studies which showed that each time youth were taken
out of school in the middle of a term they would fall three
months behind. He declared that the goal was for graduation
from high school. He directed attention to another provision in
the proposed bill, which stated that OCS should follow the
nationally recognized standard to allow youth to stay in the
same school through the end of the term. He addressed a problem
as aired by Alaska Native organizations and OCS for the sharing
of information when a child needed help even though the
situation did not necessitate placement in foster care. This
provision would allow OCS to work with the tribes and share its
information so that the community could help with the challenges
faced by the child. He referenced another provision in state
law that declared that foster children were only entitled to a
"basic education." As no other children in Alaska were only
entitled to this "basic education," the proposed bill would
delete this provision from state law. He offered his belief
that the term was offensive, and he proposed to insert language
recommended by OCS which entitled foster children to education
or vocational education. He stated that another goal for foster
children was to help them succeed. He noted that other
provisions of the proposed bill requested that OCS work toward
placing children with a relative, when this was the best
placement possible. He pointed out that in many communities and
cultures in Alaska the extended family was "almost like the
immediate family and treated and revered as such." He explained
that OCS was currently federally required to do a diligent
search for placement with family or friends within 30 days of
taking a child from their home. He said that, as there was not
any legal requirement for continued search for family placement
after that 30 day period, or any requirement for family
placement in lieu of any emergency placement, that this was now
a provision in the proposed bill. He offered to explain the
reasoning in much more detail, as there was a lot of evidence in
support. He declared that none of these provisions would cost a
lot of money. He directed attention to an issue that OCS was
also researching, "what do you do with a child who actually is
succeeding, who comes out of foster care, so no longer is
entitled to this daily reimbursement rate..." He offered an
example of a child successfully living in a school dorm, but who
could no longer afford the cost. He allowed that the daily
reimbursement rate could not be paid as they were no longer in
custody, and yet we wanted them to succeed. He shared that a
provision, since removed, in the proposed bill would have
allowed payment up to the daily reimbursement rate to support
youth to stay in dorms for job training or higher education. As
this provision had a fiscal note of more than $2 million, the
provision had been removed, although OCS was continuing to seek
a solution. He reminded the committee that there were 2400
foster youth not living with their families, and they were among
the most vulnerable children in the state.
[HB 27 was held over.]
5:05:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Office of Children's Services_ Overview Presentation February 12 2015.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Presentations by DHSS |
| Citizen Review Panel_2014 report.PDF |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Office of Children Services |
| CRP_OCS-Response_2014.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Office of Children Services |
| CRP_2015 Presentation House HSS Committee.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Presentation- CRP |
| HB 27 HSS Hearing Request Memo.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB027 Version P.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Sponser Statement Version P.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Sectional Analysis Version P.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Research Documents.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Cunningham Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB027-DHSS-FP-02-07-15.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB027-DOA-OPA-02-06-15.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Letters of Support 2 11 2015.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB027_letter of support_McCarthy.pdf |
HHSS 2/12/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |