Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
03/20/2017 01:30 PM Senate 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: Alaska Citizen Review Panel | |
| 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
SENATE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2017
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator David Wilson, Chair
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Vice Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Tom Begich
Senator Peter Micciche
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA CITIZEN REVIEW PANEL
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. DIWAKAR VADAPALLI, Chair
Alaska Citizen Review Panel (CRP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on Alaska Citizen
Review Panel.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:30:23 PM
CHAIR DAVID WILSON called the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Senators Giessel, Von Imhof, Begich, and
Chair Wilson. Senator Micciche arrived shortly thereafter.
^PRESENTATION: Alaska Citizen Review Panel
PRESENTATION: Alaska Citizen Review Panel
1:31:04 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the only order of business would be
a presentation on Alaska Citizen Review Panel.
1:31:38 PM
DR. DIWAKAR VADAPALLI, Chair, Alaska Citizen Review Panel (CRP),
presented information on Alaska Citizen Review Panel. He read
from a prepared document:
Thank you for the opportunity to present to this
committee. This is the first opportunity in the
panel's 15 years history to be presenting to this
Committee. Some of you may be familiar with the
history of the panel, and its purpose. In fact, Sen.
Coghill, then Rep. Coghill, sponsored HB 53 that
instituted Citizen Review Panel (CRP) back in 2005.
I am Diwakar Vadapalli, current Chair of the panel. It
is my honor to be speaking to you in my last year as
the Chair. I am stepping down at the end of June this
year.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge Rebecca
Vale, a member of the panel from Anchorage who is on
the phone. She will be taking over as Chair of the
panel on July 1; Margie Mc Williams, sitting in the
audience, a member from Juneau. Other members of the
panel are Dana Hallett from Haines. He has been the
Vice Chair of the Panel for the last four years. Sonya
Hull from Wasilla, and Bettyann Statiew from Anchor
Point.
1:33:18 PM
He provided the presentation outline:
As I go through this presentation, on several
occasions, I will mention several challenges the panel
faced over the last four years, and the vision going
forward.
1:33:33 PM
DR. VADAPALLI provided the history of CRPs:
Congress mandated CRPs through amendments to the
federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in
1996. Federal statute requires that all states have at
least three panels, with some exceptions that were
allowed to have one panel. Alaska and six other states
fall within that category. Please note that there is
only a minimum limit for the number of panels. In
fact, there are more than 340 panels across the
country.
Alaska CRP has been functional since May 2002, when
OCS was still DFYS. By 2005, when HB 53 was passed,
the panel had been producing its annual report, and
conducting town hall meetings across the state. These
town hall meetings later transformed into in-depth
site visit reviews. I do not have historical records
of its budget before 2005. A fiscal note accompanying
HB 53 identified $64,300 for CRP that included a half-
time position and money for member travel expenses. An
OCS staff person was assigned half-time to support the
panel's work between 2002 and 2005.
Beginning in 2005, a private consulting firm was
contracted by OCS to provide staff support for the
panel. The entire CRP budget, including the money for
its members travel, is routed through that contract.
The panel's current annual budget has increased to
$100,000.
All members are volunteers, and together we
contributed about 2000 hours each year towards the
panel's work. It has always been a small panel with no
more than 9 members at any time.
1:35:44 PM
DR. VADAPALLI provided the functions and mandates of the panel:
The panel is a statutory body, with a very broad
mandate. Language in the Alaska state statute is
almost a mirror image of the federal statute. Key
words are highlighted in red.
First - the CRP's focus is the policies, procedures,
and practices of state and local CPS agencies. In
Alaska that is the Office of Children Services (OCS).
Two functions are clear from these statutes -
Evaluate, and conduct public outreach. A third
function, advocacy, is not mentioned in the statutes,
but was discussed during the debates in Congress in
1996 when the amendments to CAPTA were being voted
upon.
Therefore, the central focus of Alaska CRP's
activities are the policies, procedures, and practices
of OCS.
The panel has three specific functions - review,
outreach, and advocacy.
Review/Evaluate: The statute identifies three
standards against which such an evaluation should be
conducted - States' CAPTA Plan, CPS Standards, and any
other criteria. While the first two are rather clearly
defined, the third one really opens up any component
of OCS operations for review by the panel.
Outreach: Collect public opinion to assess the impacts
of OCS policies, procedures, and practices on children
and families - such assessment should inform the CRP
review above.
Advocacy - make recommendations for relevant changes
in CPS policies, procedures, and practices. Beyond
that, advocacy is a slippery slope for CRPs.
1:36:58 PM
CHAIR WILSON noted the arrival of Senator Micciche.
SENATOR BEGICH questioned the third point - advocacy - and asked
what other criteria the panel has identified.
DR. VADAPALLI provided an example of other criteria - anything
the panel comes across in a site visit, such as security of
workers in the field or a report by someone, such as a
legislator, regarding an issue.
1:37:50 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked if they discuss some of those criteria when
making annual recommendations.
DR. VADAPALLI said yes.
1:38:16 PM
DR. VADAPALLI continued with CRP's central purpose.
1:38:55 PM
From the statutes, congressional record, available
published literature, and numerous discussions with
other panels across the country, it is clear that:
CRPs exist to help CPS agencies. Congress recognized
that CPS agencies across the country were growing more
insular from the populations they serve. Public
participation in these systems was seen as a necessary
reform.
To that effect, Congress created CRPs to be those
mechanisms for public participation, or community
engagement, in child protection. CRPs are the only
statutory mechanisms with that specific purpose. They
are expected to facilitate robust and meaningful
participation of citizens in diverse roles, to assist
the state's child protection system in being more
responsive to the needs of the families and
communities of the state. Congressional record is
clear that CRPs are to provide, and I quote, "regular
citizens, not just child protection bureaucrats", end
quote, an opportunity to set policy and suggest best
practice.
Again, the central idea is, with input from citizens
that are being served and the larger community, OCS's
policies, procedures, and practices will be more
responsive to the citizens' needs.
1:40:12 PM
He turned to OCS's mission:
OCS is a complex agency with a difficult job. Its
mission, as mentioned on the agency's website, is to
"work in partnership with families and communities to
support the well-being of Alaska's children and youth.
Services will enhance families' capacities to give
their children a healthy start, to provide them with
safe and permanent homes, to maintain cultural
connections, and to help them realize their
potential." The key words are highlighted in red.
The CRP's purpose is to bring forth voices and
opinions of those families and communities. There is
obvious synergy here between this mission statement,
and congressional intent behind CRPs.
From this mission statement, it is clear that OCS is a
service agency, trying to serve families in difficult
circumstances. Not a police agency watching over
parenting practices. CRP's role is to help OCS devise
services that meet the needs of the families and
communities it is mandated to serve. Specifically, by
channeling input from them to OCS.
1:41:23 PM
DR. VADAPALLI discussed the significance of OCS.
However, OCS faces a constant dilemma. As the
Ombudsman's report in 2012 states, and I quote, "With
the exception of the criminal justice system, which
may take one's money, one's freedom and, in some
states, one's life, it is difficult to imagine a more
fear-inspiring authority than the power to take away a
person's children." This power gives OCS an aura of a
police agency. How that power is exercised and
leveraged is key to its success.
OCS is entrusted with an awesome power and huge
responsibility. This power and responsibility are
exercised by frontline workers and their supervisors.
They face many difficult and traumatic choices that
can mean a lifetime of good or bad for a child and her
family. A lot of good is done, more than we get to
hear in the news. But, like all of us, OCS workers,
too, make mistakes. Except, their mistakes can be very
expensive.
This is why, as OCS mission statement says,
partnerships are important, and thus the CRP, which is
the only statutory agency set up for that specific
purpose, is an important forum for those partnerships
to flourish.
1:42:43 PM
He addressed what OCS does not do:
I hope the last few slides made the role of a CRP and
its functions clear to you. I often find it easier to
list the things the CRP does not do, than to explain
what it does.
As I said, although advocacy was mentioned in
congressional record, it was not part of the statute.
Therefore, Alaska CRP walks a fine line on advocacy,
and refrains from commenting on any proposed or
pending legislation.
It is important to note that CRP is set up as a
systems-level review mechanism. It has no role in
individual cases, contracts, or situations. This is
key because, there is a lot of room for confusion
here. Many times, CRP is approached with requests to
intervene in cases or contracts. CRP has the statutory
authority to review individual cases or contracts, but
it should do so with a systems-perspective, not to
revise decisions in any one individual situation.
Along the same lines, CRP does not micromanage OCS.
For example, CRP cannot handle complaints against case
workers or supervisors.
Another important thing - CRP is not set up to conduct
program evaluation. It evaluates the procedures and
practices of OCS as stated in its own policies, and
other legal statutes. It is a broad, systems-level
evaluative function.
The panel does not lobby either against, or on behalf
of OCS.
1:44:25 PM
He noted CRP is a statutory institution:
The CRP is an institution, with a statutory role and
responsibility.
It is an organization of the state.
It facilitates citizen participation.
It must cultivate a critical, but constructive lens.
It exists to help OCS by channeling critical but
constructive input from families and communities to
OCS.
Its success depends on its relationship with OCS, a
relationship that ensures meaningful recommendations
from CRP and carefully considered response from OCS.
This is a delicate relationship that needs clear
structure, and continued nurturing.
1:45:02 PM
DR. VADAPALLI showed a slide of the organization of OCS offices:
This is the lay of the land for CRP. These are the
five OCS regions, and its field offices. The field
office in Unalaska was closed in 2011, and Galena's
office was flooded in 2014 and since been closed.
1:45:47 PM
SENATOR BEGICH inquired if the rest of the data on the slide
accurate.
DR. VADAPALLI replied that the operating budget is more than
$150 million this year and turnover for the last 15 years has
been between 25 percent and 35 percent on the frontlines -
Protective Service Specialists.
1:46:36 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the turnover rate is over 35 percent
on an annual basis.
DR. VADAPALLI said it has been between 25 to 35 percent annually
for the last 15 years.
1:47:15 PM
DR. VADAPALLI showed a slide of CRP's annual calendar:
This is a typical CRP calendar, this one is from the
last fiscal year. Alaska CRP begins its year with a
fall retreat in August/September to identify its
annual work plan. Each year, the work plan identifies
a set of goals, and the annual calendar that includes
meetings and travel.
CRP is required to meet at least once a quarter. All
its quarterly meetings are open to public. These are
public working meetings, for citizens to witness the
work of CRP. Each quarterly meeting has a 20 minute
slot for an invited guest to speak to the panel.
The panel meets with OCS leadership (Director and the
Division Operations Manager) every month between
October and June. These meetings are not open to
public. These are meant to build relationships,
discuss various policies, specific initiatives, and
other details of CRP work.
The panel conducts site visits every year. A small
group (2-4) members of the panel visits a regional or
field office to collect input from OCS workers in the
field, various stakeholder partner agencies, and
individual foster parents. The panel does not have a
systematic way to reach birth parents or foster
children.
In addition to presenting to the legislature every
year, the panel presents to other interested and
relevant groups such as ICWA workers, CJA Task Force,
CIP, etc.
1:49:12 PM
He showed a slide of the 2015-2016 workload during the last
fiscal year. There were four goals and they did four site visits
and they talked to more than 100 individuals across the state.
They also conducted the OCS staff survey and attended the CRP
National Conference.
1:50:00 PM
DR. VADAPALLI listed the 2015 - 2016 goals:
Each goal listed here was picked due to the relevance
and importance of that goal at the time. The annual
work plan goes into considerable detail on reasons for
identifying each goal.
These goals were pursued through the year, through
policy review, data analysis, discussions with more
than a 100 individuals in key positions across the
state, and the OCS leadership. In the next few slides
I will present recommendations from these goals.
1:50:21 PM
He made five recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 1
OCS and the numerous tribes in Alaska have a very
complicated relationship. This has been evolving over
the years. In 1994, a group of leaders from various
Alaska Native tribes and OCS established the Tribal
State Collaborative Group (TSCG) as a forum to build
OCS-Tribal relationships, and to address many
differences. In recent times, OCS-Tribal relationships
have further evolved. Most recently, a strategic plan
for "Transforming Child Welfare Outcomes for Alaska
Native Children" was prepared and released in mid-
2016. This plan identified six priority areas. Most
notably for CRP, "Community Engagement" is one of the
six. Several objectives were identified under this
priority area.
It is important to note here that the CRP has been
focused on OCS-Tribal relationship for several years.
Specific recommendations in past years suggested that
OCS should better structure the relationship of OCS
workers and tribal ICWA workers. Every year the CRP
surveys ICWA workers about their relationship with OCS
workers.
It is also important to note here that CRP is not just
a review mechanism. It has a substantial outreach and
community engagement responsibility.
CRP was invited to participate in a visioning session
for this strategic plan in May 2015, during the early
stages of this plan preparation. The panel was not
invited to any subsequent discussions until the plan's
release. The plan simply does not mention CRP. While
the CRP applauds the effort, and the vision this plan
represents, the irony of ignoring an existing
statutory mechanism for community engagement cannot be
lost. Thus this recommendation.
In response, OCS invited CRP to participate as a
stakeholder in any of the six priority areas, and
committed to keeping the panel informed of the
proceedings on each of the areas. This is a welcome
development. However, this leads to another challenge.
CRP is not a stakeholder that can dial in when it is
interested. It is a mechanism with a statutory duty to
facilitate dialogue between a section of stakeholders
and OCS. CRP as a stakeholder is a
mischaracterization. A more meaningful approach would
be to identify an appropriate and specific role for
CRP to implement sections of this plan in partnership
with others leading this effort. That is the central
point of this recommendation. If the CRP does not have
the capacity to fulfill the identified role, its
capacity needs to be enhanced.
1:53:49 PM
RECOMMENDATION 2
I am sure we all can agree that, despite all the
negative press coverage about OCS, child protection
needs additional resources. In difficult budget times,
every leverage must be employed. This recommendation
simply acknowledges the assets tribal partners can
bring to the table, and for OCS to leverage their
partnerships to this end.
1:54:15 PM
RECOMMENDATION 3
Despite numerous hours by volunteers and good faith
effort by many involved over the years, the CRP has
been an afterthought for a long time. There is no
oversight over the CRP, or its relationship with OCS.
The panel existed without a set of policies or bylaws
for 13 years. The panel had been in violation of the
state's sunshine laws until January 2015. While the
2005 statute asks the DHSS Commissioner to institute
regulations, it was never done. With no regulations,
or operating procedures or policies guiding actions of
its members, staff, or OCS, there are continued
confusion, uncertainty, and unclear expectations.
1:55:08 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked about the regulations. He said he looked at
the statute and under the duties of the state panel, in AS
47.14.215, Section C, it says "the commissioner shall by
regulation establish policies and procedures necessary to carry
out the duties of the state panel under this section." The
provision was established in 2005 and there are still no
regulations after 12 years.
DR. VADAPPIL agreed.
SENATOR BEGICH asked why that was.
DR. VADAPALLI related that he has been on the panel for five
years and the chair for four of those years. He said he brought
this up to the notice of the commissioner of DHSS and the
director of OCS three times. He said, from his perspective, it
is due to a combination of a lack of capacity to put in
resources to develop regulations and lack of clarity in the
exact role of CRP and its relationship with OCS.
1:56:46 PM
SENATOR BEGICH found that disturbing.
CHAIR WILSON asked if Dr. Vadapalli has copies of CRP's
communications to the department asking for regulations.
DR. VADAPALLI said he did have those email communications.
CHAIR WILSON requested to share them with the committee.
DR. VADAPALLI agreed to provide them.
1:57:37 PM
DR. VADAPALLI continued:
There is no oversight over CRP, nor was there any
evaluation of its work. That is a double-edged sword -
the CRP may or may not be doing its job, or OCS may or
may not be responding adequately. This leads to
erosion of accountability of the entire mechanism, and
fails the congressional and legislative intent of
having a CRP, which is to help OCS to be more
responsive to community needs. Effective oversight
mechanisms over the CRP enterprise would be either the
legislature or the general public and stakeholders
impacted by OCS' policies, procedures, and practices.
While the panel continues to meet with individual
senators every year, as I mentioned earlier, this is
the first time in fifteen years that CRP had an
opportunity to present to the Senate HSS Committee.
The only statutory requirement that is monitored by
the federal government (since it is a congressional
mandate) is the production of its annual report, and a
response from OCS. The quality of either documents is
never assessed. The panel rarely receives any queries
or requests for clarifications of its work or its
recommendations. While its recommendations are not
legally binding on OCS, they can result in meaningful
action only through legislative oversight of the
process.
Since the CRP could not generate greater interest from
OCS, DHSS, or the legislature, it set out to conduct
an evaluation of its own structure and its
relationship with OCS. There are many areas for
improvement. The ones shows are the most significant
ones.
The state is required to provide adequate staff
support for the panel, and it does so by allocating
$100,000 of its general funds each year. This funding
is routed through OCS budget, with OCS/DHSS having the
authority to expand or contract the budget as the
agency sees fit. In essence, the panel reviews the
policies, procedures, and practices of an agency that
controls its budget. This arrangement, by definition,
is not wrong or impossible to work with, as long as
the purpose and role of CRP is clear. However, due to
continuing lack of clarity in expectations and in the
absence of any regulations, this arrangement leads to
avoidable conflicts of interest. Moreover, routing the
entire CRP budget through a private consulting
contract creates difficult ethical dilemmas for the
contractor. A series of such dilemmas led to an
unpleasant transition in staff support during the
summer of 2016, causing considerable delay in panel's
work for 2017.
This is not to dispute OCS' claim that it worked
collaboratively and respectfully with CRP over the
years. This recommendation is pointing to the need to
assess effectiveness of such collaboration and
respect. Neither can replace effectiveness.
2:00:52 PM
RECOMMENDATION 4
CRP and OCS had been discussing the staff survey since
2012. In 2015, OCS asked the CRP to conduct it. The
CRP leveraged a graduate class I teach at UAA, and
conducted the survey and compiled the results. Unlike
the past years, results were reported separately for
frontline workers and other staff at OCS. With around
30% turnover among frontline workers consistently for
over 15 years, it is important to understand the
perspective of the frontline workers.
Since this was the first time an external entity was
conducting its staff survey, OCS requested we do not
ask any additional questions than already being asked
in the old survey.
The survey results document was released in July 2016.
Main findings of the survey include:
Workers hold their immediate supervisors in very high
regard.
Workers felt that the community at large do not
understand the purpose and work of OCS.
The recommendations on the slide were made based on
several other findings, to improve the survey efforts.
This survey asked several questions about training
provided to OCS workers. But, all training-related
questions are focused on a 2-3 week training they
receive from the Child Welfare Academy shortly after
signing up for their job. Scientific evidence is clear
that it takes about two years for a new frontline
worker in child protection to learn their job well.
This implies, structured training opportunities should
be available throughout the first two years of a new
hire, and beyond. Many such opportunities may be
available. However, the current survey does not allow
collecting information about those. As a result, the
survey paints a very limited perspective of workers'
training needs and the actual training they obtain.
In response to the first bullet, OCS says there are
many training opportunities for OCS workers after they
complete their initial training, and "it knows" that
workers struggle with "transfer of learning" from
training to field. This is contradictory because, one
of central purposes of on-the-job training is to help
with improve transfer of learning. This recommendation
is asking OCS to verify if available on-the-job
training opportunities are helping to the extent they
should.
The current survey is already long, and many aspects
of a workers life at OCS are not covered by it. It is
not clear if there are other surveys or other
mechanisms through which OCS leadership collects this
feedback. One of the findings from this year showed
that feedback channels from frontlines to the
leadership need to be improved. Thus, the second
bullet point.
OCS conducts stakeholder surveys with foster parents,
Alaska Native tribes, and other service providers.
Results from all these surveys are similarly
documented - basic question-by-question summary of
results. It is not evident that any in-depth analysis
is conducted to inform policy or practice. Since
resources are scarce, the third bullet suggests
leveraging entities such as CRP to conduct such
surveys.
OCS resumed conducting its own staff survey this year.
The CRP will request data from the survey to conduct
analysis.
2:05:13 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented, with a 30 percent turnover rate over
two years for a new frontline worker to become fully competent,
OCS is only getting one year of active service.
2:05:57 PM
DR. VADAPALLI agreed that there is a high turnover rate and a
high investment in training only to see workers move on. He said
it is a challenge for the agency. He suggested that the
leadership at OCS can better address the loss of training
resources. The panel did not address loss of resources and
impacts from loss of workers.
SENATOR MICCICHE did the math noting, as a whole, OCS is only
getting one year of performance out of employees.
DR. VADAPALLI agreed.
2:07:37 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL countered that statistics can be interpreted in
various ways. She said OCS work is highly stressful and every
case is different. She requested more information on the data.
DR. VADAPALLI said the panel has been collecting data from OCS
on turnover rate of the frontline positions, by region, over the
last four years. The panel hopes to determine where the turnover
is happening and the reasons for it. So far, the data shows that
the majority who leave resign and leave the agency. However,
they don't know what that means yet.
2:09:31 PM
SENATOR BEGICH requested the average length of OCS service and
service by region.
DR. VADAPALLI agreed to ask for that information. He continued
with recommendation 5.
2:10:15 PM
RECOMMENTATION 5
Over the last four years, as the Chair, I focused on
clarifying the purpose of CRP. The panel had lengthy
deliberations over the last four years, reflecting on
its role and purpose. After extensive conversations
with many across the nation, and review of
congressional record, past documents of CRPs across
the nation, scholarly literature, and other documents
published over the years since the early 90s, it
became clear that the panel is a mechanism for public
participation. It is not just a watch dog group that
raises alarm at every perceived mistake that OCS may
make. It has a more complex mandate.
It is the responsibility of the panel to provide a
forum for informed, thoughtful, and constructive
dialogue among stakeholders, primarily the families
and communities served by OCS. It should do so through
its review, outreach, and advocacy functions. This can
be done. However, it requires a structured
relationship with OCS. It needs enhanced capacity that
this structure would bring. While additional funds can
help, funding will not resolve all challenges. The
current budget of $100,000 can be stretched much
further with a more structured relationship.
That is the central point of this recommendation. In
response, OCS cites CRP's current lack of capacity for
not relying on CRP, but ignores the idea of enhancing
CRP's capacity for OCS to be able to rely on it.
2:11:53 PM
DR. VADAPALLI discussed the goals for 2016-2017, several of
which have been retained from last year:
As you may have noticed, the CRP often ends up not
being able to complete its work on some of the goals.
Most often, it is because the panel did not have all
the information and data it needs to adequately assess
the practice or policy on a particular goal. These
goals the panel adopted for this year may not be
accomplished as planned. The panel is behind on its
planned site visits. Much of this delay is for two
reasons - the panel had a considerable delay due to
change in staff. The second reason is - the panel is
hosting the next National CRP Conference in Anchorage
this May.
2:12:52 PM
DR. VADAPALLI described the Grand Jury investigation of OCS:
As you may be aware, Rep. Wilson called for a Grand
Jury investigation of OCS. The Grand Jury concluded
that it is the CRP's statutory responsibility to be
conducting such a review. The panel received all
materials from the grand jury. In addition, we are
compiling information from all public hearings
recently held by Rep. Wilson.
This review will be a major challenge for the panel's
current capacity. As you can see, the panel plans to
th
release an action plan by June 30 with regard to this
review.
2:13:45 PM
He discussed anticipated changes to CRP:
I mentioned the lack of capacity. Again, capacity not
in dollars. The panel needs more volunteers that can
perform various tasks. It needs a better recruitment
and retention strategy. It needs more instrumental
partnerships with similar review bodies. There are
about 10 different review mechanisms that oversee one
or the other aspect of OCS. The panel needs to gain
visibility and trust among the general population.
Everyone needs to understand the role and
responsibility of CRP. And in turn, hold CRP
accountable for its work.
More importantly, the misperception that CRP is a
watch dog agency must be corrected. It needs a
reorientation as a mechanism for public participation
and community engagement in child protection. The
panel has been discussing this with OCS, and we set
ourselves a three-year timeline to achieve this. We
wish to adopt a participatory evaluation framework
with those elements on the slide.
In addition to all that, the panel needs support from
the legislature. I hope that the panel will be invited
back every year to present its findings. This is
important to not only provide a public forum for
constructive dialogue, but also to hold the CRP
accountable.
There are very few restrictions on who can volunteer
for CRP. Being a legislator is not one of them. If you
do not have the time, you may know others that might
be a good fit.
2:15:44 PM
DR. VADAPALLI turned to the last slide:
To help with visibility in Alaska, and to improve our
collective understanding of CRP, the Alaska CRP is
hosting this years' National CRP Conference. It goes
without saying that you all are invited. Registration
is open now. We hope to see you all there. Thank you
for your time.
2:16:15 PM
CHAIR WILSON thanked Dr. Vadapalli. He said the issue of
evaluation and oversight of all departments is important to him.
Today's presentation on OCS oversight is the beginning of an
overview of the Department of Health and Social Services.
2:16:51 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked how many recommendations OCS actually
completes. Recommendation 1 is to continue to implement
recommendations from 2013 to 2014. He asked how many
recommendations are continuations and how many are complete.
DR. VADAPALLI said the recommendations from the panel are not
binding and may be accepted or rejected, however, OCS must
respond. Most of the time they accept them. The panel does not
have the capability to track the implementation of
recommendations. He used the intake policy recommendation as an
example. OCS was moving from a regional intake to a central
intake and they planned to implement all the recommendations
when the move was complete.
2:19:23 PM
SENATOR BEGICH pointed out that cooperation with the state panel
is under state statute in Section 225. It says, "The department
shall provide the panel access to information on child abuse and
neglect cases that is necessary for the panel to carry out its
duties and the department shall serve as staff to the state
panel as requested by the panel members." He emphasized that
they are "shall" and not "may" clauses. He asked if the
department is responsive to CRP's request for data.
2:20:24 PM
DR. VADAPALLI replied that the responsiveness of the agency has
changed over the years. He began working with the panel in 2012
and remembers very little sharing of data. At the time, the
request for data was probably not clear and there is still no
protocol for data sharing. The panel has the statutory authority
to request any information it sees as necessary. The agency does
not refuse to share data, but there are many barriers to data
sharing. One is confidentiality. There may be the perception
that a panel of volunteers does not know how to handle
confidential data. No protocol exists to share data.
2:21:21 PM
SENATOR BEGICH stated that it would be illegal for a member of
the panel to disclose confidential information. He assumed there
is no protocol because there are no regulations. The department
has had 15 years to develop regulations to determine the
protocol for data sharing and how the CRP should be used.
2:22:06 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said that is correct.
2:22:26 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that the retention rate of OCS is
similar to the retention rate of the panel. He asked why 30
percent of panel members dropped off this year.
DR. VADAPALLI said retention and recruitment for the panel has
been a challenge for a long time. In the past, site reviews were
conducted by all panel members traveling to a particular site
and they couldn't afford to do more than three sites a year.
Now, only three members go to review a site. As things change,
it is hard to convey to new members what their role will be and
how they can contribute. A lack of structure in the agency/panel
relationship often leads to contentious discussions in which
some panel members are uncomfortable. A panel volunteer must
feel that their time is valuable and valued.
SENATOR MICCICHE thought the recommendations by the panel did
not point fingers at OCS, but were positive. He asked whether
that was a CRP improvement objective. He also asked how the
legislature can support CRP.
2:25:38 PM
DR. VADAPALLI explained that the panel works very hard to keep a
constructive, but critical, tone, but that can only happen when
there is structure to the relationship and that structure is
monitored. There are two bodies that can monitor the CRP/OCS
relationship the general public and the legislature. He asked
the legislature to help by monitoring the relationship.
2:27:02 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL noted CRP's budget is $100,000 and they make
site visits. She asked if the panel has staff and how many hours
they work.
DR. VADAPALLI pointed out that their contract can't exceed more
than $30,000 in travel, so $70,000 is set up for staff support.
CRP is a statutory state body, not a nonprofit. Out of $70,000,
the panel is expected to coordinate the panel's activities,
clinical support, including writing reports, evaluation work,
and general training. He said $70,000 is not enough for any
contractor to meet all those demands, so the panel must find
innovative ways to recruit volunteers to do some of that work.
He said, as a researcher, he can bring data analysis skills to
the panel.
2:29:05 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL spoke of the panel's organization and could see
where there are challenges, especially with volunteers and
without regulations. The process has been constrained by the
lack of an executive director. She asked if the funding was
raised from $35,000 to $100,000.
DR. VADAPALLI explained that HB 53 in 2005 contained $65,000 in
funding.
SENATOR GIESSEL commented that CRP has not been fully funded by
the legislature and it is hard work for volunteers.
2:30:52 PM
SENATOR BEGICH agreed with Senator Giessel. He wished that CRP
could forward the regulations they wanted to see adopted and the
legislature could review and support them. He looked forward to
a response from OCS. He commended Dr. Vadapalli for his work.
2:31:42 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said last year they met with the commissioner of
DHSS. The department agreed that CRP needs regulations, but
questioned why CRP wanted DHSS to write the regulations as that
could be a constricting factor.
DR. VADPALLI agreed it could be a problem, but pointed out that
the panel's relationship with OCS is not just as a watchdog; it
needs to be a collaborative and cooperative relationship. He
concluded that it would be fine if the department wrote the
regulations for CRP. The commissioner and he decided that
because he teaches at UAA he was going to teach a policy
analysis course and have students work on regulations. The class
reviewed how eight different states operate and looked at
suggestions for regulations for Alaska. He said the class was
successful, but he has not finished the report yet.
CHAIR WILSON agreed that the relationship is intertwined,
however, part of the issue is the funding allocation. OCS is
also funded through DHSS and their budget has been flat for
several years, while CRP's budget has fluctuated.
2:34:05 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said the panel's budget has been $100,000 since
several years prior to 2012, except for a decrease in FY2016. In
FY2016 the new contract was for $82,000 and the panel's budget
was $100,000. In January, CRP submitted a letter stating how the
money would be used and OCS said that the money was no longer
available for the panel. That equaled a $70,000 budget cut for
the panel in the middle of the year and they were not ready for
it. Most of the work they wanted to accomplish was done because
most of the panel is made up of volunteers. They could have done
more with full funding.
2:35:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said OCS is the most emotional issue he deals
with. He described three types of parents his office deals with.
He wondered if the legislature has been clear enough with the
oversight panel. He questioned how the legislature can be
supportive with statutory direction and legislative intent and
wished to understand their history with OCS and CRP.
2:37:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON said he has been involved with hundreds of families
and every program in OCS. He stated he would like to address
this issue and help OCS with family reunification and custody
retention. He is looking at this issue as an interim project. He
said he is open to looking at the legislature's past involvement
with the issue.
2:38:38 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL highlighted the Beacon Hill program that tries
to intercede before it reaches the point of separating a child
from a family. Sometimes government is not the answer to the
issue. She commended such programs.
2:39:21 PM
SENATOR BEGICH asked how people get appointed to the panel.
2:39:36 PM
DR. VADAPALLI said there is no limit to the number of members on
the panel or on how long they can serve. A person would apply to
the panel and the panel would decide whether to interview the
potential member. Most applicants are accepted. The panel makes
it clear to new members that OCS has a mandate and personal
opinions do not come into play. New members must state their
personal biases and they must work together as a team.
2:43:22 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if there has been a panel member that was
a parent from a successfully reunified family.
DR. VADAPALLI didn't know, but said there have been foster
parents and past OCS employees on the panel. He said he was the
first academic faculty.
2:45:04 PM
CHAIR WILSON thanked Dr. Vadapalli for his work.
2:45:53 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wilson adjourned the Senate Health and Social Services
Standing Committee at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACRP 2016 Annual Report.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| OCS Response ACRP 2016 Annual Report.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| ACRP 2016 Results Staff Survey.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| ACRP Panel Bios.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| ACRP Operating Guidelines.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| Senate HSS Presentation_03202017.ppt |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| Grand Jury Recommendations.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| 2017 National CRP Conference Agenda_For public release_03092017.pdf |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |
| Comments to the Senate HSS Committee Diwakar.docx |
SHSS 3/20/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ACRP |