02/24/2015 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Ocs Response to Crp Annual Report | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 2015
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative David Talerico
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: OCS RESPONSE TO CRP ANNUAL REPORT
- 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
02/12/15 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/15 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
02/24/15 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director
Central Office
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
OCS response to the annual Citizens Review Panel report (via
teleconference).
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 27 as the sponsor of the
bill.
TREVOR STORRS, Executive Director
Alaska Children's Trust
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SSHB27.
NAOMI HARRIS, Community Relations Manager and Legislative
Contact
Central Office
Office of Children's Services
Department of Health and Social Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of HB 27.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:06:38 PM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
Representatives Seaton, Tarr, Wool, Talerico, Stutes, Vazquez,
and Tarr were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION: OCS Response to CRP Annual Report
PRESENTATION: OCS Response to CRP Annual Report
3:07:15 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
a response by the Office of Children's Services to the annual
Citizens Review Panel report.
3:08:20 PM
CHRISTY LAWTON, Director, Central Office, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services,
directed attention to the 2014 OCS Response to the CRP Annual
Report [Included in members' packets]. She spoke about
Recommendation 1, suggestions for changes to the OCS intake
policy, and noted that OCS had elected to adopt all of those
suggestions. She noted that OCS had a long term plan for
movement from the five regional intake units to a more
streamlined, more efficient, and more effective centralized
intake function. She stated that this would make the suggested
CRP changes more easily adopted.
3:09:48 PM
MS. LAWTON directed attention to the second recommendation,
which focused on the development of a model for serving families
when the children were in their own home, in-home cases. She
reported that, with availability of the right services and the
right safety network, OCS could prevent a child from being
removed from their home. She stated that this took a much
higher level of oversight, monitoring, and support services, and
noted that OCS had struggled with this implementation,
especially in rural areas. She reported that this was also a
part of the OCS five-year plan with the federal government and
that the division was seeking assistance from national resource
centers for development of a model that would fit Alaska's
unique needs. She reiterated her agreement with this
recommendation.
3:11:48 PM
CHAIR SEATON read from the OCS response:
The reading of the cases revealed extensive
involvement of village safety officers, school
officials, tribal partners, and community leaders.
This support will be an integral piece of building an
in-home program with can effectively serve rural
areas.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any engagement with tribal
entities for something similar to circle justice, or whether OCS
was focusing specifically on state enforcement services.
MS. LAWTON replied that OCS had worked closely with its tribal
partners on this issue and had just finished a five year
collaborative project with thirteen tribal organizations as well
as the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA). This
project was for the development of increased tribal
infrastructure with a unique model of practice to serve families
in their own home. She declared that the project had been
successful as many of the tribal organizations did develop their
own model, which supported better communication during family
referrals. She noted that there was still a challenge, as many
of the organizations were stemming out of hub locations. She
offered an example of the Bethel region as a hub for more than
52 individual tribes and communities. She noted that OCS only
had offices in three of those communities in that region. She
expressed agreement that OCS was working with the tribes for
what each could bring to the table for traditional services, not
necessarily Western types of services, as well as looking to
services from other state partners. She admitted that, even
with the combined services, it was difficult to attain the
necessary oversight for leaving a child in the home.
3:15:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, suggesting that there were difficulties
with the intake process, asked if the process offered any
immediate accommodation for those walking in with a concern.
MS. LAWTON replied that any walk in would immediately be
connected with an intake worker. She declared that, as the OCS
policy assumed there was child maltreatment, even if it was not
clear, the report was documented electronically in the data
management system.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification that she would be
documented as reporting on an issue.
MS. LAWTON replied that was exactly what would happen.
3:17:18 PM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the schools in the community were involved
in the case.
MS. LAWTON replied that the schools were an integral part of the
communication and partnership, especially in the communities
where the school was a center of the community. She shared that
often it was the school filing the report. She acknowledged
that, as the school could be in a difficult role, OCS tried to
be sensitive to that position during the process.
CHAIR SEATON observed that, as the committee was not intimately
familiar with this entire process, it was good for Ms. Lawton to
share all the information for a better understanding.
3:18:56 PM
MS. LAWTON addressed Recommendation 3, that OCS address the root
of the initial assessment backlog problem. She explained that
the initial assessment, also known as the investigation, was
when the case worker would make the initial contacts, collect
information, and make a decision for the child's safety and the
direction of the case, usually within the first 30 days after
the report. If there was not any safety threat, or reason to
believe the child was in impending danger, then the worker would
set aside the paperwork for officially closing the record while
out working on other open investigations. It was this lag for
the investigation closure paperwork within 45 days that had
created a backlog. She said that OCS was continually addressing
and monitoring this, as it was important for these cases to be
closed; however, it was difficult when the resources were
constantly stretched as thin as they were currently.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification that a case needed
to be closed within 45 days.
MS. LAWTON explained that most contacts and interviews for new
cases of alleged maltreatment were conducted in the first one -
two weeks. She said that the decision for whether to keep a
case open or whether it was appropriate to close was made within
30 days, and then the supervisor had up to 45 days to make the
final decision.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if this included the disposition for
whether or not the child remained in the home.
MS. LAWTON said that an evaluation and assessment was made, but
this was not a disposition in the legal sense in most cases.
OCS did determine whether it was safe for the child to remain in
their own home, with or without services, or if an out-of-home
removal was required.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if this was the determination
necessary to be made within the 45 day period.
MS. LAWTON said that the decision for removal was often made in
the first few days.
3:23:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned whether, as the number of initial
assessments was increasing, were the situations now more complex
or more difficult to assess. She reported that the number of
child sexual abuse allegations had increased and opined that
this was true for all forms of child abuse. She asked whether a
rise in awareness had resulted in more reporting of incidences.
MS. LAWTON expressed agreement that there had been a gradual
increase in the total number of reports received. She said that
the rate for incoming reports; however, was not as striking as
the rate for assigning new reports for investigation. She
explained that OCS had made changes over the last several years
to try to get ahead of the repeat maltreatment issues and causes
by getting to those families sooner for an intervention. She
offered that, although OCS had not studied the issue for
severity and complexity, based on anecdotal reports, things were
far more complex and severe in recent years. There were more
challenging situations with domestic violence and substance
abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered an example for a higher percentage
of cases that needed more investigation.
MS. LAWTON expressed her agreement.
3:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the number of calls had been
increasing over the last several years.
MS. LAWTON replied, "yes."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL reviewed the three phases: contact,
assessment, and intervention if necessary. He asked whether all
of these phases had increased proportionately.
MS. LAWTON replied that the number of children being served on
an on-going basis was proportionately "spiking up," though it
was not proportional to the number of calls being received. She
clarified that while there has been some growth in the total
number of reports received, OCS had made changes to its practice
which resulted in more reports being screened in for
investigation sooner than previously.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the same number of staff were
addressing these increasing numbers.
MS. LAWTON advised there had not been an increase in responding
case workers.
3:28:16 PM
MS. LAWTON directed attention to Recommendation 4 that OCS make
improved relationships with its community partners a priority.
She opined that this focused on many of the rural communities,
although, as the partnerships were essential to serve the
families, OCS could not do the work alone. She concurred with
and promoted the recommendation. She relayed that the extensive
turnover in OCS did not allow the relationships to blossom. She
explained that the workload in many of the rural communities did
not allow the time necessary to be in the community to promote
these relationships. She shared that in some communities, as
the staff had been there for a long time, there were wonderful
relationships; however, it was very striking and very
problematic when it was not there. She stated that OCS
continually worked with staff and managers to find more ways to
promote these relationships.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked about the prevention efforts, noting
that the CRP believed that this was beyond the scope of the OCS
mission. She asked how prevention efforts fit into the overall
workload and whether more work should be done on prevention and
should include the community partners.
3:30:48 PM
MS. LAWTON said that it was within the OCS purview and
responsibility to have these relationships with key community
partners and service providers. She pointed out that prevention
was a mandate for OCS, and that there were prevention programs;
however, the average caseworker did not have the time to focus
in this area.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the higher percentage of Alaska
Natives in foster care related to the in-home model, or was the
inability to have sufficient contact within the rural
communities a part of the driver for more Alaska Natives to be
placed in out-of-home care.
MS. LAWTON replied that there was a relationship, and if there
were more efficient, effective models and ways to deliver
services around in-home, more children would be able to remain
safely in their own home, which she deemed to be a good thing
for those families and communities. She stated that, when those
services were not available, especially in the most rural and
economically challenged communities, children did not fare as
well when they were moved from their home to another location.
3:33:25 PM
MS. LAWTON reported that OCS had an array of new initiatives and
work efforts currently under way, many of which were spelled out
in its five-year Child and Family Services plan. This plan had
been tailored to address the most challenging areas for outcomes
families were experiencing. She pointed to the centralized
intake plan as one goal, as well as a review for innovations to
a birth parent mentoring program, which would help to engage
parents and lead to more success within the system. She
expressed a desire to arrive at some strategies for team
decision making to use in the urban areas, which she described
as a mechanism for bringing together all the key participants to
support a family around critical issues and placement decisions.
She said that OCS had struggled in its efforts to expand this
statewide because of the striking differences among the regions,
though the agency was working to find a model that worked
everywhere and included cultural norms. She noted that much of
the success was from an increase to the transparency of agency
decisions.
HB 27-DHSS DUTIES;CINA; FOSTER CARE; ADOPTION
3:37:06 PM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next 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."
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, noting that
the proposed bill had a zero fiscal note, explained that this
was an evidence based and cost effective bill. He acknowledged
there were many problems with the foster care system, although
many of these would require a lot of money to fix. Instead, as
there was limited funding, it was necessary to "live with
overworked social workers" with caseloads that were 50 percent
higher than they should be. He stated that the proposed bill
would address evidence based aspects. He declared that studies
revealed that foster youth who were removed from their homes,
and often bounced among many homes, suffered emotional damage.
He referenced the Adverse Childhood Experiences studies (ACE),
and pointed out that foster youth tended to have very high
adverse experiences scores, which got worse when youth were
bounced from home to home. He stated that Alaska now allowed
youth to stay in a foster care home until 21 years of age, and
that OCS should have to show it is in the best interest of the
child to release them prior to this age. He declared that this
was the standard for children, "is it in the best interest of
the child." He shared that the proposed bill required that the
court ask about this standard for evidence based practice for
foster youth. He referenced a study by the Casey Foundation
which stated that kids released from foster care before the age
of 21 will be "less likely to complete high school, more likely
to have physical, developmental and mental health challenges,
most lose their existing support system when they reach 18 and
are discharged into state custody." He stated that, in Alaska,
this manifested itself by the person living on the street, and
he shared that 40 percent of foster youth in Alaska end up
homeless or couch surfing, while 24 percent end up in jail. He
emphasized the importance for giving a child stability, and
reducing the number of placements and disruptions in a child's
life. He reported that in 12 states the average child was
staying with their parents at home until 25 years of age. He
stressed that a key part of the proposed bill was that a judge
needed to be shown that it was in the child's best interest to
be released from foster care before they were 21 years of age.
He declared that this was a cost savings program and a measure
of our humanity as a society.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA emphasized that permanency was a key in
foster care, that foster children needed a stable home. He
reported that the national standard for foster youth placement
in a permanent home was between 12 and 24 months, depending on
whether the youth was being re-united with their family. He
said that OCS did well with reunification for some youth,
although with others this could take longer than 10 years. He
explained that the proposed bill ensured that the court would
ask if all reasonable efforts had been taken to find a permanent
home for a youth. He shared that "all reasonable efforts" was
the same standard as used in other sections of the statutes. He
explained that this was important as the social workers were
young, and often only lasted in the job for 18 months before
they burned out. He opined that it could take more experience
to get a foster child placed into a permanent home, so this
would act as a check in the system to ensure that OCS was doing
everything possible for finding a permanent home. He stated
that children being bounced around homes created institutional
child abuse and neglect, even if it was not intentional.
3:44:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA referenced the Permanente Journal, a nursing
publication, which stated that the more foster homes a foster
child lived in, the higher their adverse childhood experiences
(ACEs) score, the more damage to them, and the higher likelihood
for the need of public assistance in the criminal system or in
social services.
3:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to the third part of the
proposed bill, which also reflected a nationally recognized
standard. He stated that moving a child from school to school
during the school term caused them to fall up to three months
behind in the curriculum. He stressed that this would make any
academic achievement worse than if they were allowed to finish
the term in their original school. He reported that there was a
national standard for homeless children which required they stay
in their school of origin for the remainder of the term, if it
was reasonable and in the child's best interests. He
acknowledged that, although there should not be a high burden
placed on the understaffed foster care system at OCS, there was
a national duty that when a child was taken from their parents,
within the first 30 days they were placed in an emergency
placement home, which tended to be a larger home and often not
the best homes for youth. He explained that these emergency
homes were often limited to a 30 day stay and youth could
sometimes "bounce from one 30 day home to another 30 day home."
He surmised that sometimes the best placement for a child was
with a member of the extended family, and that, in some cultures
in Alaska, these family members could be as important as the
immediate parents. He noted that current law required that a 30
day search for friends and family members start when a child was
taken from a home. He stated that the proposed bill would
extend this by adding that it was necessary for a constant look
out for family members even beyond the first 30-day period, for
as long as the child was in foster care. He declared his desire
to include the standard for a continual search for family
members both before and after the emergency placement, as OCS
was able. He emphasized that, as there was a shortage of foster
care parents, a loving relative who was willing to take care of
the child was best, as this would save a lot of money and be
more humane.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that a portion of the proposed bill
was really a message to the governor and to OCS. He noted that,
although money had been placed in the capital budget over the
last few years to advertise for more foster and adoptive
parents, there were still 849 youth waiting for adoptive homes
in Alaska, which he deemed to be "way out of proportion of many
other states." He asked that the governor and OCS staff pitch
the need for foster care and adoptive parents, noting that this
had been placed in the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that there was a provision in the
proposed bill important to Alaska Natives which allowed OCS to
negotiate a confidentiality agreement and share information with
the local tribal organization.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to two other small
provisions in the proposed bill. He pointed out that, under
statute, foster youth were only entitled to a "basic education,"
whereas everyone else was entitled to an "adequate education."
The proposed bill changed this in statute to allow for an
education that involved a traditional school or vocational
education, and deleted the word "basic." He addressed the
independent living program, part of the OCS system which
affected youth ages 16 - 23, and reported that there were only
six staff responsible for helping older youth with this
transition into the community. He reported that there were 300
- 400 of these youth. He said that the proposed bill required a
simple annual report from OCS for whether the funds for
employment and training vouchers for youth were adequate for the
need. He explained that these vouchers were used by youth for
vocational education, college, or general education degrees and
helped keep youth off the street, supporting their success. He
stated that the proposed bill did not include any costs, as the
legislature would only review "low and no cost bills right now."
3:53:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES directed attention to page 4, line 23, of
the proposed bill, "another suitable person" and asked if there
was a definition somewhere in statute. She noted that the word
"reasonable" was also frequently used in the proposed bill, and
asked if that also had a definition in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response, explained that "another
suitable person" was not a change from existing law and that OCS
would interpret this, as they always did, as a person who was in
the child's best interest. He pointed to page 5, line 11, and
said that "making reasonable efforts" was a standard which OCS
had worked with throughout the statutory system, and was defined
as the kind of efforts that a reasonable person would engage in.
He said that this was the statutory standard by which OCS
currently operated, and this would keep the language consistent
with existing law.
3:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked where she could find the OCS
definition of reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that reasonable efforts was defined
in the statute.
3:56:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if foster kids over 18, but under 21
years of age, were allowed to be released from the system upon
request.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that current law made it mandatory for
OCS to allow a foster youth to leave after 19 years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Wool, said
that existing law was confusing, but that the proposed bill was
not changing any existing law. He stated that a youth could
request to leave once they were 19 years of age. He opined that
there might be an exception for a youth with a mental challenge
who had a conservator.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if OCS had commented on the
proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he had worked closely with OCS on
the proposed bill to make it workable and had changed the
language where possible to meet their needs, but he did not know
their position.
CHAIR SEATON relayed that a person from OCS was available. He
referenced page 7, line 27, and asked for a definition to the
"disclosure of appropriate information" and whether this
referred to confidential information.
3:59:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to line 30, and noted
that, as this would all be subject to a confidentiality
agreement, it would be confidential information. He
acknowledged that some federal laws, such as the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) could not
be violated, but that the intent was to give OCS and the tribal
entities flexibility to agree on a confidentiality agreement to
allow for information that could be used by the tribal entity to
help the child that lived in their community.
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 8, [line 28] which
changed from "a child" to "or person," and asked if there was
any limitation that ended at 21 years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that foster care had only been
extended to 21 years of age in Alaska, and he was not aware of
any other state which had extended it past this age. He
explained that the words "or person" referenced a person over 18
years and one day of age.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the requirement for searching
beyond 30 days for family members to provide foster care was an
added burden on OCS that it may not be able to fulfill.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that this additional time period was
proposed as a much more relaxed standard than the current
federal standard which required a comprehensive family search
and was a very strict standard. He reported that the proposed
bill suggested that OCS should always be looking for a family,
but it was not the same comprehensive search standard as for the
first 30 days.
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the zero fiscal note from HB 27 to
SSHB 27. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
4:04:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ offered her support for the conceptual
direction of the proposed bill, but she expressed concern to the
possibility of a zero fiscal note.
CHAIR SEATON replied that the fiscal note had been written by
the department, and he suggested to next query the department.
[Public testimony was opened]
4:05:23 PM
TREVOR STORRS, Executive Director, Alaska Children's Trust,
declared that kids were the number one resource in Alaska, and
that they defined us for who we would be tomorrow. He stressed
that the treatment for kids today would determine the future.
He stated that the proposed bill reduced trauma in kids' lives,
ensured resiliency, and leveled the playing field. He said
that, although most children did not experience this level of
trauma, it was sometimes necessary for OCS to step in and remove
children from their families. He shared that even though these
traumas would have lifelong impact if not addressed, removal
from the family could add to the trauma. He stated that society
recognized that it was important to remove children from an
unsafe environment, but that it was done in such a way as to
reduce the trauma and provide a resiliency and strength to
overcome this experience. He referenced the ACE study which
showed the relationship of impact that toxic stress such as
child abuse and neglect had on the development of a child's
brain, which would then lead to a higher increase of risk for
experiencing the many physical, social, and behavioral ills with
which communities had to deal. He listed diabetes, obesity,
child abuse, failure to graduate from high school, substance
abuse, and suicide as costs to the state. He observed that the
proposed bill was an opportunity to change policy and strengthen
these children. As soon as a child had permanent residency, the
sooner they would be able to deal with their trauma and the
issue of separation from their family. Placement closer to
their family made it much easier. He stated that the proposed
bill ensured that the State of Alaska, OCS, and individuals
would take the responsibility to work hard and make sure these
children were as close to family as possible. He said that the
connection to an adult loved one offered the resiliency to
adversity. He pointed out that the family connection offered
even more resilience. He declared his support for the proposed
bill, even if there was a new fiscal note. He declared that
"this is priority, because either we pay today or we will be
paying tomorrow." He pointed out that there were many
individuals without a high school diploma, in the correctional
facilities, or receiving treatment for substance abuse who were
kids that had experienced life in the foster care system. He
emphasized that "it does take a village to raise a child" and
that passage of the proposed bill would ensure that children
would have the resiliency to overcome trauma and become true,
productive members of the community.
4:11:44 PM
NAOMI HARRIS, Community Relations Manager and Legislative
Contact, Central Office, Office of Children's Services (OCS),
Department of Health and Social Services, in response to
Representative Vazquez, said that the department had worked with
the bill sponsor and that the administration was neutral on the
proposed bill. In response to Representative Wool, she
explained that efforts to continue to search for relatives
throughout the life of the case was already in policy.
CHAIR SEATON asked if the actions of the department would change
with passage of the proposed bill.
MS. HARRIS offered her belief that it would not change existing
practice.
4:13:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if OCS projected any additional
cost to implement the proposed bill.
MS. HARRIS replied that the fiscal note was in response to this
version of the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for an explanation to the neutral
stand by the department.
MS. HARRIS explained that many of the activities were already
federally mandated or observed in policy or practice.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if passage of the proposed bill would
change the current day to day procedures and practices.
MS. HARRIS offered her belief that this would not change any of
the practices that the agency already observed in response to
federal mandates, state statutes, or OCS internal practices,
although it did provide some alignment or clarification.
4:15:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked for clarification that children
were currently in custody up to 18 years of age.
MS. HARRIS stated that children could remain in care until 21
years of age.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ asked if the proposed bill would make
that mandatory and result in more children in foster care.
MS. HARRIS explained that there would not be any increase, and,
in response to Representative Vazquez, said that this was
existing practice, whereas the proposed bill outlined when a
child could be released with their consent or in their best
interest.
4:16:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if education and vocational training
was currently provided. She expressed her concern for the lack
of a fiscal note.
MS. HARRIS explained that the proposed bill had been thoroughly
reviewed and that the fiscal note was accurate for the proposed
bill. She stated that education and vocational training were
currently provided, and that the expansion was in the language
from "basic education."
CHAIR SEATON asked if this would change the practice for current
educational opportunities.
MS. HARRIS replied that this was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her assumption that, with the
absence of a fiscal note and the department's neutral stance,
the proposed bill did not make any difference for [Due to
technical difficulties, part of the testimony was unclear.] or
the relationship with any individuals at this time.
MS. HARRIS replied that many pieces of the proposed bill already
existed in federal mandate or state statute, or were existing
best practice policies, and that an overall alignment existed.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification that the proposed
bill did not offer any significant changes to current practice.
MS. HARRIS replied "not at this point."
4:19:25 PM
CHAIR SEATON said that HB 27 would be held over.
4:19:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 4:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB027_ SS_ Fiscal Note-DHSS-02-23-15.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Deborah Bock Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Pat Cunningham Letter of Support.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM HHSS 4/2/2015 3:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Tamara Dietrich Letter of Support.pdf |
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 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 |
| 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 Letters of Support 2 11 2015.pdf |
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_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 |
| Citizen Review Panel_2014 report.PDF |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM |
Reports presented to HHSS |
| CRP_OCS-Response_2014.pdf |
HHSS 2/24/2015 3:00:00 PM |