Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 106
04/05/2018 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Safe, Strong, Supportive | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2018
3:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Chair
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Vice Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sam Kito
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative David Eastman
Representative Matt Claman (alternate)
Representative Dan Saddler (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: SAFE~ STRONG~ SUPPORTIVE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SUSAN ROBISON, Director
State Relations and Public Policy
Casey Family Programs
Seattle, WA
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, titled "Safe,
Strong, Supportive."
NIKKI LEPROHN, Director
Data Advocacy
Casey Family Programs
Seattle, WA
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the PowerPoint
presentation.
LYNN BIGGS
Strategic Consultant to Alaska
Casey Family Programs
Seattle, WA
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the PowerPoint
presentation.
ANITA FEINDAY, Managing Director
Indian Child Welfare Program
Casey Family Programs
Seattle, WA
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the PowerPoint
presentation.
THOMAS CODY, Director
Indian Child Welfare Program
Casey Family Programs
Denver, CO
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the PowerPoint
presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:09:21 PM
CHAIR IVY SPOHNHOLZ called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.
Representatives Spohnholz, Johnston, and Zulkosky were present
at the call to order. Representative Sullivan-Leonard arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: Safe, Strong, Supportive
Presentation: Safe, Strong, Supportive
3:10:03 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation by the Casey Family Programs.
3:10:29 PM
SUSAN ROBISON, Director, State Relations and Public Policy,
Casey Family Programs, introduced a PowerPoint, titled "Safe,
Strong, Supportive." She directed attention to slide 1, "Our
Mission" and paraphrased from the statement, which read:
Casey Family Programs is the nation's largest
operating foundation focused on safely reducing the
need for foster care and building Communities of Hope
for children and families across America. Our mission
is to provide and improve and ultimately prevent the
need for foster care.
MS. ROBISON moved on to slide 2, "2020 Goals," and stated that
the Casey Family Programs had very clear goals which included:
Safely reduce the number of children in foster care by 50
percent; Reinvest the savings from a reduced use and
unnecessary use of foster care into building stronger more
supportive communities and systems; Improve outcomes in
education, employment, mental health, in support of increasing
child, family, and community well-being focus. She added that
the Casey Family Programs had agreements with all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 16 tribes which were
focused at improving child safety, permanency and well-being.
She noted that there were also agreements with the Public Child
Welfare Agency in each jurisdiction, as well as with other
organizations in each state, including courts, advocacy
organizations, and community organizations.
3:14:08 PM
MS. ROBISON directed attention to a handout [Included in
members' packets] discussing state child welfare commissions and
task forces created by legislatures for convening stakeholders
and leaders from many groups and organizations who might not
otherwise have the opportunity to share perspectives, study
outcomes for children and families, and develop a plan. She
shared the background of the program, noting that it was created
by Jim Casey, the founder of UPS (United Parcel Service), in
1966. She reported that Mr. Casey was very committed to strong
families and recognized that employees with strong families did
better. He was also very focused on outcomes and, at company
meetings, he would ask "how are the children." She spoke about
slide 5, "How are the Children? What the data tells us," and
reported that the program provided information based on evidence
and data, with a goal to educate and be a resource for policy
makers in a non-partisan format.
3:18:44 PM
NIKKI LEPROHN, Director, Data Advocacy, Casey Family Programs,
said that her focus was to work with states and jurisdictions to
understand the data on child welfare and the children in the
programs. She directed attention to slides 6 - 8, "Safety
first...." and noted that safety was paramount in importance and
their greatest concern. She noted that in Alaska, the rates of
child abuse and neglect reports, investigations, and
substantiated reports were all above the national rate. In FY
16, 63.9 children per 1000 were subject to a child abuse
investigation (screened in report). This number had increased
57 percent since 2010. The rate of investigations for Alaska
Native and American Indian youth was 153 per 1000 compared to
White youth at 22.3 per 1000.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked about children of other
ethnic backgrounds.
MS. LEPROHN said that although there was also this data, this
comparison was for Alaska Native and white children, which had
the largest discrepancies. She said that the data was sometimes
grouped into broader categories and that more information was
available upon request.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD mused that these were the
highest rates in Alaska.
MS. LEPROHN offered her belief that the Alaska Native children
were the highest numbers.
3:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked for a definition to the screened
in report, and what qualified as a Native American Indian youth.
MS. LEPROHN explained that screened in reports were those that
were reviewed to determine the need for an investigation, and
she pointed out that this was different in every state. She
explained that the requirements for federal reporting was set
for certain categories, although the process could differ in
each state. She explained that this race ethnic category,
American Indian, Alaska Native, which the Casey Family programs
did not define, was in both the census and the data they
received.
3:24:20 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if this was self-identification.
MS. LEPROHN said that it could be self-identification,
identification by the parents, or it could also be
identification by the worker for the case management system.
3:25:18 PM
MS. LEPROHN returned to slide 6 and noted that the screened in
and investigation rates were higher for Alaska, with a large
disparity between Alaska Native, American Indian youth and white
youth.
3:25:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked about the reasons that contributed
to the disparities.
MS. LEPROHN replied that she did not want to speculate, as there
could be many reasons, ranging from true differences to
reporting differences as some populations were "more in the
public eye." She shared slide 7, "Safety first..." which
reported that the substantiation rate was high compared to the
national average. She reported that substantiation indicated
that there had been a finding of maltreatment, even though the
definition and substantiation for maltreatment could vary across
different states. She noted that the substantiation rate had
increased in Alaska.
3:27:52 PM
MS. LEPROHN directed attention to slide 8, "Safety first..." and
defined maltreatment recurrence as the percent of children
involved in a substantiated incident of maltreatment who
experience a second substantiated incident within 6 months. She
pointed to the graphic which indicated that the first occurrence
for many youth was not the last occurrence, and that 13 percent
of youth in Alaska who experience maltreatment were involved in
a second incident of maltreatment within six months of the
first, a rate almost double that of the national rate of 5
percent. She said that Alaska Native youth experienced repeat
maltreatment at about 17 percent, whereas white youth
experienced this at about 8 percent. She reported that, despite
this high level, in Alaska this rarely resulted in child
fatalities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON pointed out that the maltreatment
recurrence peaked in 2014 and was currently "dropping a little
bit."
MS. LEPROHN said that she did not know the details for why it
was decreasing, adding that the National Child Abuse and Neglect
data set was a yearly release that would be updated in the next
few months.
3:30:58 PM
MS. LEPROHN introduced slide 9, "At the front end..." and stated
that maltreatment often resulted in a child's removal from their
family and placement in foster care. Alaska has the 5th highest
foster care entry rate of all states, with about 7 in 1000
children entering care in FY17. She noted that the rate of
Alaska Native youth entry was 18.8 per thousand children, while
White youth entry was 3.8 per thousand children into foster
care.
3:31:51 PM
MS. LEPROHN addressed slide 10, "Entries into & Exits from
Foster Care," which depicted that until very recently, more
Alaska children entered care than exited, which led to a
constant increase in the overall number of children in care. In
the most recent period, 2017, more children exited care than
entered.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if this was dependent on age
demographics.
MS. LEPROHN replied that the exit graph had always included
children through age 24, as extended foster care could continue
that long in some states. She said that although it would be
necessary to review more data in detail, a change usually
indicated there was a change in practice.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON pointed out that there were times of
population growth to use for comparison.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reported that there had been significant changes
for practice into the commitment to permanency in the foster
care system in Alaska. She said that this growing understanding
was due in part to advocacy by foster youth that permanency was
a priority over reunification and that this was a cause of the
change.
3:35:00 PM
MS. LEPROHN moved on to slide 11, "...while in care..." and
pointed out that the number of children in care had begun to
decrease, which was part of the trend of entries versus the
exits. She noted that the (a) and (b) periods were points in
time at the end of March and the end of September of the fiscal
year. She pointed out that the rate in care, per one thousand
children, was still high in Alaska.
3:36:30 PM
MS. LEPROHN reported that the use of congregate care for
children in foster care was much lower in Alaska than in many
other states, slide 12, "...while in care," and that it included
group homes, institutions, and residential treatment facilities,
anything that was not a family setting. She reported that
nationally this was about 20 percent, while in Alaska it was
only about 5 percent, pointing out that it was more difficult
for children to move to permanency from congregate care because
they were not used to living in a family home. She pointed out
that the discrepancy for American Indian and Alaska Native youth
to all other youth was not as high.
3:37:55 PM
MS. LEPROHN shared slide 13, "...Exiting to Permanency," and she
noted that Alaska had a low, but improving rate of permanency
within 12 months of a child's entering care. She added that
permanency in Alaska for long stayers, children who had been in
care for two years or longer, has been above the national
average and was improving.
3:39:53 PM
MS. LEPROHN concluded her segment with slide 14, "...Child
safety with permanent family," and explained that re-entry into
care was measured by the total number of children who achieve
timely permanency within 12 months and re-enter care within the
subsequent 12 months. She reported that Alaska had the second
lowest re-entry rate, 3 percent, among all the states.
3:41:02 PM
LYNN BIGGS, Strategic Consultant to Alaska, Casey Family
Programs, shared slide 15, "Systems Improvement Work," and
stated that the program was joining with states to improve the
outcomes for children. She explained that there was a 50-state
strategy which looked at data and worked with the state partners
in efforts to improve the foster care system. She reported that
she worked with the Office of Children's Services and her
colleagues at Indian Child Welfare. She directed attention to
slide 16, "Long History of Collaboration," and spoke about the
work ongoing for the past 18 years: in 2000, Casey Family
Programs began work in Alaska; in 2005, Casey hosted a statewide
convening on Disproportionality; in 2008, Knowing Who You Are
curriculum on racial and cultural identity was introduced and
embedded throughout the state.
3:44:41 PM
MS. BIGGS moved on to slide 17, "Collaborative efforts
continue:" She explained some of these efforts, which included:
Facing Foster Care in Alaska (FFCA) supported until non-profit
status was attained; Permanency Values & Family Finding Summit,
Permanency Roundtables were held; Data advocacy helped refine
data indicators; and, Member of Court Improvement Project.
3:48:26 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how guardianship was different than
adoption for children.
MS. BIGGS explained that adoption resulted in the termination of
parental rights, whereas guardianship, generally, did not. She
said that a guardian could be a relative or a foster parent, and
that the guardian had the legal authority for the same consents
as parents.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked how functional guardianship was for
pragmatic, day to day decisions.
MS. BIGGS said that guardianship was closer to adoption than it
was to foster care for those rights, and that most of the
decisions could be made.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON offered that it varied from state to
state.
MS. BIGGS offered her belief that it was different among states.
She referenced a recent nationwide sturdy of subsidized
guardianship. She opined that Alaska was not as restrictive as
many states.
3:51:43 PM
MS. BIGGS shared slide 18, "Collaborative efforts continue:"
and reported on these: Sponsored development of Strategic Plan
to transform child welfare which was followed by signing of
Compact in 2017; Building Community of Hope Project; Support
Safe Baby Court project in Palmer; Sponsored Statewide convening
on Adverse Childhood Experiences hosted by First Lady Walker in
March of 2018.
3:56:06 PM
ANITA FEINDAY, Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare Program,
Casey Family Programs, spoke about the "Indian Child Welfare
Program," and referenced the U.S. Attorney General's advisory
committee on American Indian and Alaska Native children exposed
to violence in 2012 - 2013. She said that this report in
November 2014 focused on Alaska and made several recommendations
in Chapter 5, which included compacting for child welfare
services through the state, and self-governance compacts for
health services. She pointed out that compacts had been signed
in the past year.
3:59:35 PM
THOMAS CODY, Director, Indian Child Welfare Program, Casey
Family Programs, presented slide 20, "Indian Child Welfare
Program Goals" (ICWA), and reported that a lot of their work was
technical assistance to tribes on financing, capacity building,
and community engagement. He stated that these goals were
accomplished through: Providing technical assistance and
training regarding ICWA, child welfare financing, capacity
development, community engagement, and intergovernmental
relationships; Spreading best practices through peer to peer
sharing; Gathering tribal leaders for dialogue and trainings on
child welfare related topics; Working with partners to increase
tribal youth engagement; Facilitating tribal-state collaboration
and relationships; Influencing national efforts to focus on and
achieve improved well-being of American Indian and Alaska Native
children and families. He addressed slide 21, "CFP Indian Child
Welfare Program 2018 Projects," and spoke about the tribe
specific works, the tribal-state work, National Projects,
Capacity Development & Title IV-E Summits, National ICWA
Strategy, Collaboration Agreements, Philanthropic Engagement &
Partnerships, and IPA/Executive Fellows.
MR. CODY addressed slides 22 - 23, "Child Welfare Initiative
Agreements," a map of Alaska and a map of the western United
States, with the participating tribal groups.
4:05:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked if there was any presence
in Oregon, Idaho, and California.
MS. FINEDAY said that the logos were for tribes that Casey
Family Programs had five-year agreements. She said that a
substantial amount of work was in California, and there was some
work in Idaho. She clarified that the map reflected the 16
tribes with five -year agreements.
MR. CODY listed some just completed projects with tribes in
other states.
4:07:23 PM
MS. ROBISON paraphrased from slides 24 - 25, "Family First
Prevention Services Act," which read:
The Family First Prevention Services Act was passed
and signed into law (P.L. 115-123) as part of the
Bipartisan Budget Act on February 9, 2018.
Culmination of years of discussion among key
Congressional leaders who share a vision and are
passionate about keeping children safely with their
families. Over 500 organizations supported this Act.
New option for States and Tribes to claim Title IV-E
funds for prevention activities. New policy to ensure
appropriate placements for children in foster care.
Reauthorization of numerous child welfare funding
streams. And much more?.
4:09:04 PM
MS. ROBISON continued to discuss the Family First Prevention
Services Act and pointed out that Alaska was in a position for
new funding for prevention activities. She said that Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act now provided for primary funding for
states and tribes to claim federal reimbursement for certain
services to prevent the need for foster care. She discussed
slides 26 - 27, "New Funding for Prevention Activities," which
included: Allows states to receive open-ended entitlement
(Title IV-E) funding for evidence-based prevention services;
Children at imminent risk of placement in foster care and their
parents or kinship caregivers, and pregnant and parenting youth
in foster care are eligible; No income test for eligibility;
Eligible prevention services are mental health, substance abuse
treatment, and in-home parenting skills; Services are allowable
for up to 12 months, with no limit on how many times a child and
family can receive prevention services if the child continues to
be at risk of entry into foster care. Services must be evidence
based and trauma informed. She added that: Title IV-E
reimbursement for eligible prevention services begins on October
1, 2019; The new Title IV-E prevention services, as well as
training and administrative costs associated with developing
these services, has no income test; New federal funds for
prevention services are intended to augment, not supplant, state
funding for prevention services; MOE will be set at FY2014
spending for these same prevention services for candidates for
foster care.
MS. ROBISON directed attention to slide 28, "New Policy to
Ensure Appropriate Placements in Foster Care," and added:
Provides $8 million in FY2018 for grants to states and tribes to
support the recruitment and retention of high quality foster
families.
4:16:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked if the $8 million grant
required a State of Alaska match.
MS. ROBISON explained that this was $8 million for the entire
country, which would be targeted to those states and
jurisdictions with lower utilization of family foster care and
higher utilization of congregate care.
MS. ROBISON returned to slides 28 - 29, "New Policy to Ensure
Appropriate Placements in Foster Care," and explained: Makes
changes to what types of out-of-home placements would be
eligible for federal Title IV-E reimbursement beginning October
1, 2019; States have the option to delay this provision for 2
years. However, delays in implementation of these provisions
requires a delay in prevention provisions. She went on to
explain the requirements, which included: Beginning October 1,
2019, after 2 weeks in care, Title IV-E federal support will
support the following placements: Foster Family Home (defined)
no more than 6 children in foster care, with some exceptions;
Facility for pregnant and parenting youth; Supervised
independent living for youth 18 years and older; Specialized
placements for youth who are victims of or at-risk of becoming
victims of sex trafficking; Family-based residential treatment
facility for substance abuse; Qualified Residential Treatment
Program (QRTP) (defined) clinically recognized treatment
program; There are no time limits on how long a child or youth
can be placed in a QRTP as long as the placement continues to
meet his/her needs as determined in assessment. She explained
the Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP), slide 30,
as: Has a trauma informed treatment model and a registered or
licensed nursing or other licensed clinical staff onsite,
consistent with the QRTP's treatment model; Facilitates outreach
and engagement of the child's family in the child's treatment
plan; Provides discharge planning and family-based aftercare
supports for at least 6 months; and Licensed and accredited.
4:20:15 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked about the way the family based residential
treatment would pay for addiction treatment.
MS. ROBISON explained that Medicaid was often used to pay for
the parent's residential treatment, while the children were
often placed in foster care during the treatment period. She
noted that evidence indicated that this created further trauma
for the child. She stated that, going forward, it would be
possible to use the Title IV-E treatment for the child's stay
with the parent in the residential treatment facility. She
added that Medicaid could be used to pay for many of the
components.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ declared that, in addition to reducing trauma,
it would improve outcomes for the parent in treatment.
MS. ROBISON shared slide 31, "New Funding to Support Keeping
Families Together During Substance Use Treatment," which read:
Beginning October 1, 2018, Title IV-E foster care
maintenance payments can be made on behalf of a child
in foster care who is placed with their parent in a
licensed residential family-based treatment facility
for up to 12 months; No income test applies for these
services; This opportunity exists regardless of
whether a state chooses to operate a prevention
program through Title IV-E.
MS. ROBISON added that this was a federal match, and that as
Alaska's match rate was 50 percent, every dollar would be
matched. She noted that states could claim the administrative
costs and the training costs. She addressed slide 32,
"Promoting Timely Permanency for Children Across State Lines,"
and shared that this provides $5 million in new grants to states
to expand the development of the electronic system to expedite
the interstate placement across state lines of children in
foster care, guardianship or adoption; Requires that states use
an electronic interstate case processing system by October 2027.
MS. ROBISON discussed slide 33, "Additional select items to
promote safety, permanency, and well-being," which included:
Provides Title IV-E support for evidence-based kinship navigator
programs at 50 percent, beginning October 1, 2018; Requires HHS
to identify model foster parent licensing standards; states have
to then identify how they will implement; Requires the
development of a statewide plan to prevent child abuse and
neglect fatalities; Requires inclusion in the state plan of a
description of activities to address developmental needs of
young children; Eliminates the time limit for reunification
services provided during a child's placement in foster care;
and, Makes revisions to the Chafee program to emphasize more
successful transitions to adulthood.
4:27:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked whether a waiver would be
necessary.
MS. ROBISON explained that for approval of kinship families, the
state could have a case by case waiver of licensing standards
that were not related to safety for the licensing of kinship
care givers. She noted that there was not a uniform system
across the country.
4:28:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY asked about the family residential
treatment funding models. She acknowledged that there were not
enough beds in either rural or urban Alaska.
MS. ROBISON said that she would help with any information,
especially about programs in rural areas.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed an interest for integrating
models of care with family components.
MS. ROBISON said that the opioid epidemic had been a critical
factor in attempts to reduce the number of kids in foster care
over the last five years.
4:31:21 PM
MS. ROBISON directed attention to slide 34, "Reauthorizing
Adoption Assistance & Legal Guardianship Incentives," and spoke
about reauthorization of the Adoption and Legal Guardianship
Incentive Programs through FY2022. She said that the
legislation delays the phase in and the expansion of the
Adoption Assistance delink for children under age 2 (eligibility
tied to 1996 AFDC income test) through June 30, 2024.
MS. ROBISON moved on to slide 35, "Continuing Child Welfare
Funding," and explained: Reauthorizes Title IV-B programs and
services until FY2021; Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services Program, including funding for monthly caseworker
visits; Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program; Court
Improvement Program; Regional Partnership Grants to Increase the
Well-Being of, and to Improve the Permanency Outcomes for,
Children Affected by Heroin, Opioids, or Other Substance Abuse;
and Reauthorizes the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program until FY2021.
MS. ROBISON briefly mentioned an older piece of legislation,
slide 36 "Title IV-E Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP):
Authorized in 2008 by Federal Legislation," which allows federal
Title IV-E matching funds for financial supports for permanent
legal kinship guardians, plus associated administrative and
training costs. She spoke about guardianship in foster care:
Guardian is a relative as defined by the state; Guardian has
been child's licensed foster parent for at least 6 months;
Reunification and adoption have been ruled out; Child 14 and
older has been consulted; and, the Court has awarded permanent
legal guardianship and ruled it to be in the child's best
interest.
4:35:13 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if there was any impact on subsidies for
support of the child between guardianship and adoption.
MS. ROBISON said that it would not as the extension of the Title
IV-E for guardianship made federal subsidies available for
guardians who were relatives, dependent on the state definition.
She explained that the guardian must be the licensed foster
parent for at least six months to receive the federal
reimbursement.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared an anecdotal example for the biological
siblings of her daughter who were not adopted.
MS. ROBISON expressed her agreement that it was very important
to provide accurate and complete information for the options.
She pointed out that federal regulation required that states
make diligent efforts to find and engage kin and she opined that
this needed to be an on-going outreach.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ offered her belief that sometimes field
professionals forget that lay people don't understand the
details of the very complicated child welfare system.
MS. ROBISON added that the federal regulations also required
that older children be consulted about the decisions, and that
their wishes be considered. She pointed out that reunification
and adoption must be ruled out before guardianship. She
reminded that it was a possibility for the birth parent to
petition the court for custody during guardianship. She noted
that often guardianship petition was filed in probate court,
rather than dependency courts, which could be confusing for
potential guardians. She listed some of the reimbursements to
costs for kin care givers and guardians. She declared that, as
the licensing requirements were one of the biggest barriers for
foster care, the legislation allowed, on a case by case basis,
the states to waive non-safety licensing requirements. She
offered to help in any way possible.
4:44:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 4:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1446_CC Legacy Tree CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| Alaska Strategic Plan CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| Casey Booklet CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| Final Presentation to AK House HSS Comte -Casey Family Programs 4-5-18.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| Guardianship Assistance Program overview-final CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| State Child Welfare Commissions and Task Forces CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| River of Culture CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |
| FFPSA short summary 021518 CFP presentation 4.5.2018.pdf |
HHSS 4/5/2018 3:00:00 PM |
Casey Family Programs |