CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 318(FIN) "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Social Work Examiners; relating to the composition of the Board of Social Work Examiners; and providing for an effective date." 4:52:52 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon read the title of the bill. She noted that the sponsor, Representative Ivy Spohnholz, was on the House floor. TED MADSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, discussed the bill. He noted that the bill was an eight-year sunset extension for the Board of Social Work Examiners. He noted that Section 2 of the bill contained a "tweak" to the board's composition. The subject was discussed on page 10 of the report by the Division of Legislative Audit. Under current law, the board could not be entirely composed of government agency employees, or non-profit social workers. He explained that the requirement had made it onerous to fill the seats of the board. The proposed change would allow for the four licensed social workers on the board to be non-profit employees. He noted that it was difficult to find a for-profit social worker to fill the position on the board. The agency responses indicated that the change had been supported. 4:55:03 PM Ms. Curtis discussed the document "A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Board of Social Work Examiners (board)," (copy on file). She read from the report conclusions on the first page: The audit concluded that the board operated in the public's interest by effectively licensing and regulating social workers. Board meetings were conducted in compliance with law, investigations were generally processed timely, and the board issued or changed regulations to improve the profession. Ms. Curtis informed that the division was recommending an eight-year extension of the board. She directed attention to page 6, which showed a schedule of licensing activity. As of March 2017, there were 783 total active licenses, which was a 41 percent increase when compared to the 2009 sunset audit. Page 7 of the report was a schedule of revenues and expenditures. At the end of FY 17 there was a surplus of $95,000. The fees were listed on page 8 of the audit. Ms. Curtis directed attention to page 9, where the report began listing two recommendations for improvements: Recommendation No. 1: DCBPL's director should improve procedures to ensure board-required documentation is obtained prior to licensure. Ms. Curtis detailed that of the 25 licenses tested, there was one error. The board had appropriately approved the license, but it was conditional upon receiving key documentation. Subsequently DCBPL staff had issued the license without obtaining the documentation. Ms. Curtis continued discussing the recommendations: Recommendation No. 2: The Office of the Governor, Boards and Commissions director should work with the board to identify potential applicants for the board's vacant clinical social worker position. Ms. Curtis detailed that the position became vacant in March 2017, and was still vacant in October of the same year. She referenced earlier testimony regarding the statutory requirements for board members and the difficulty in finding applicants. Ms. Curtis noted that the response to the audit began on page 19. The Office of the Governor responded to recommendation 2 and agreed that the stringent requirements should be changed and encouraged the board to seek a legislative fix. The response from DCCED was on page 21, and agreed with both recommendations. With regard to the recommendation for improving licensure documentation, the department agreed that additional checks and balances were needed to ensure the administrative record was complete. The department also stated it needed additional supervisory resources to ensure the standards were met. Ms. Curtis continued discussing the audit and noted that the board's response was on page 23 of the audit. The board agreed with both recommendations. 4:57:58 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Curtis had done historical research in order to determine why the legislature had adopted such stringent guidelines. Ms. Curtis answered in the negative. Mr. Madsen indicated he had contacted Legislative Research Services regarding the original enactment of the board. The board member guidelines had been a part of the original legislation crafted to create the board in 1988. The intent was to find a private, for-profit social worker to serve on the board; however, the vast majority of individuals working in social work were not working for a for-profit entity. 4:59:25 PM AT EASE 5:00:22 PM RECONVENED Mr. Madsen read an excerpt of an email from Legislative Research Services (copy not on file): We reviewed the bill files and House committee minutes for HB 526, and note that a major concern in 1988 was the issue of social workers in private practice and a lack of regulation or any means to discipline those individuals when or if a client complained of unprofessional behavior. During the committee process, the bill was amended to include regulation of a clinical social worker in private practice and language was added to ensure that at least one licensed member of the board was in private practice. DANIELLE LAFON, CHAIR, BOARD OF SOCIAL WORKER EXAMINERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of HB 318. She stated that the board supported HB 318, and thought the board was necessary to continue providing public protection by overseeing social work licensure in Alaska. 5:01:45 PM Senator Stevens asked if there were social workers that were not government employees. Ms. Lafon stated that there were social workers in the state that were not governmental employees, however it was hard to quantify the number as the board did not track employment location. Senator Stevens asked if Ms. Lafon could estimate a number of non-governmental employee social workers in the state. Ms. Lafon answered in the negative. Senator Stevens asked is Ms. Lafon saw an advantage in having a non-governmental social worker on the board. Ms. Lafon was not sure why the regulation was written as such. She noted that the board had a vacancy for a year due to the challenging regulation and lack of applicants. The board had discussed the matter extensively and did not see a conflict with changing the requirement as proposed. 5:03:14 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced a recommendation that additional supervision was needed. She asked if the board had made the request of the administration. Ms. Lafon was not sure what Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced. Ms. Curtis clarified that the agency's response to the audit was to state that it was important to ensure checks and balances were in place in order to ensure its administrative record was complete. The department believed additional supervisory resources were needed to ensure departmental standards were met. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the administration had come to the board to ask for additional receipt authority or support for using board funds from licenses. Ms. Lafon discussed the audit findings. She stated that the board sent its division employees to training sessions through the Association of Social Work Boards. The board members also received training. The board had received notification from the division that it was educating its staff to license social workers appropriately. 5:05:50 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the administration had requested additional DGF to support from the board for additional supervision of the board's licensees. Ms. Lafon answered in the negative. Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would direct the department to have communication with the board on the matter. Ms. Curtis stated that the comment from the department could be seen in multiple sunset audits. Legislative Audit had found multiple instances (for multiple boards) in which DCPBL staff did not follow up to obtain documentation or other details. There was standard language inserted regarding the need for additional resources. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the department was making such statements when there was excess DGF available from the board. She wondered if the problem was a training issue or a personnel issue. Ms. Curtis stated that the department had made the statement multiple times, and she thought all the boards in question were in a state of surplus. 5:07:43 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon referenced a repeated theme in the audits related to a recommendation for additional staff. She wondered if there was a connection between surplus revenue and the request. Ms. McCullough stated that the division had identified the need to have more occupational licensers to be able to issue more licenses. 5:09:15 PM AT EASE 5:09:28 PM RECONVENED Ms. McCullough stated that the division had determined (through audit findings) that occupational licensing examiners needed more oversight on the quality of work. She detailed that supervisors typically had 7 to 8 employees under direct supervision, which could include 6 or 7 boards under a supervisor's purview. The division was finding that more training, oversight and mentoring would solve the resource problem. Ms. McCullough continued that the division would need spending authority to provide more of the resources needed. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the division would ask all boards for additional funds for extra supervisory capacity. Ms. McCullough stated that the division would spread out the work of an additional supervisor, and all programs would benefit from additional supervision over daily occupational licensing work. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how the funds would be collected, and if it would adequately be shared with all licensures, or only with those boards that had a surplus. Ms. McCullough reiterated that all programs would benefit from additional staff. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if all programs would pay for additional staff. Ms. McCullough answered in the affirmative and clarified that additional supervisory staff would be supported by all licensing fees. 5:12:56 PM Vice-Chair Bishop commented that he hoped that the DCCED commissioner was listening, so he could assist with the issues being discussed. Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the commissioner had been present earlier in the meeting. 5:13:35 PM Vice-Chair Bishop discussed a new fiscal impact note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, OMB Component 2360. He detailed that the cost would be $21,400 annually. He read from the Analysis on page 2 of the fiscal note: If the bill passes the following expenses will be incurred: Travel: $19.9(board members to attend four board meetings per year) Services: $0.4 (advertising of public notice of board meetings) $1.0 (training and conference fees) $0.1 (stipends for board members attending board meeting in community of residence Professional licensing programs within the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing are funded by Receipt Supported Services, fund source 1156 Rcpt Svcs (DGF). Licensing fees for each occupation are set per AS 08.01.065 so the total amount of revenue collected approximately equals the occupation's actual regulatory costs. Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that from FY 16 to FY 17, the board's total revenue $333,783; and had expenditures totaling $215,924. The information had been provided by LFD. The carry-forward in the FY 12 to FY 13 time period was $36,860. From FY 14 to FY 15 there had been a deficit carry-forward of $21,989. The surplus carry-forward from FY 16 to FY 17 was $95,870. 5:15:16 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to report CSHB 318(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. CSHB 318(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. 5:16:23 PM AT EASE 5:19:01 PM RECONVENED