HOUSE BILL NO. 126 "An Act relating to continuing the secondary public education of a homeless student; relating to the purpose of certain laws as they relate to children; relating to tuition waivers, loans, and medical assistance for a child placed in out-of-home care by the state; relating to foster care; relating to children in need of aid; relating to foster care transition to independent living; and relating to juvenile programs and institutions." 4:24:57 PM Co-Chair Hawker moved to adopt CSHB 126 26-LS0309\Q, Mishel, 4/9/10. Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. Representative Gara informed that HB 126 increases the chance for the approximately 2000 foster youth in the state to succeed in greater numbers. Similar efforts have occurred in many states. President Bush signed a law called the Fostering Connections Act in 2008. Fostering connections recognized that the former foster care model was ineffective. Some foster youth are not prepared to leave the home environment as early as those from stable families. The effort in HB 126 is to extend foster care to age 21 where it is in the child's best interest. Educational achievement in states providing foster care until a child is 21 are twice as high as those states that provide foster care until 18 years of age. He shared a story about foster youth leaving home at age 19 with unsavory results. The cost for extending foster care to age 21 will equal $470 thousand per year. Matching federal funds are available under the Fostering Connections Act. 4:28:26 PM AT EASE 4:53:41 PM RECONVENE Representative Gara discussed other provision in the bill, which came out of the HESS committee. The co-chair of the HESS committee worked on language under Section 2. If a foster child has opted out of state custody after age 16, but then desires reentry the standards in Section 2 are used. He pointed out that a young person must prove that they are in need of foster care to avoid personal harm or homelessness or to enhance the ability to continue in education or successful transition. The department may request conditions prior to reentry. Reasonable terms might include an education plan, a job training plan or other reasonable terms deemed so by the court. He stated that he endeavored to expedite the process by eliminating the requirement of annual court status reports. The Department of Law opined that it was best to retain the annual court status reports. He mentioned a separate bill section that is since unnecessary as is passed as a separate bill on the House floor recently. 4:57:56 PM AMANDA METIVIER, FACING FOSTER CARE IN ALASKA (via teleconference), stated that for youth who exceed the age requirement for care in Alaska, forty percent end up homeless, thirty percent end up incarcerated, and a high rate of early pregnancy exists. He explained that foster care extensions beyond age 18 create better overall outcomes and those children are more likely to graduate high school and receive postsecondary education and training. The program helps youth reenter foster care successfully. Co-Chair Stoltze acknowledged the substantial support for the program. 5:01:43 PM Representative Fairclough asked about the differences between the CS and the original bill. Representative Gara discussed an additional provision in which the Covenant House faced a problem with federal funding because they housed greater than 20 people and under federal law a state law must certify that more than 20 people can be housed. A separate piece of legislation was filed by the Senate Health and Social Services (HSS) committee, which led to deletion of the issue from the CS. Co-Chair Stoltze asked which section of the bill (Z version) passed the HSS committee. Representative Gara responded Page 3, Lines 14-18. Representative Fairclough asked about Page 2 of the HSS version beginning on Lines 3-23, which appears as new language. Representative Gara responded that the language is included in the CS currently before the committee. In the Z version of the bill, the court's one year renewal period was inadvertently removed but the Q version inserts them. Beginning on Line 9, Page 2 the provision to reenter foster care is found. Specific language listing standards was requested. He stated that the language on Page 3, Line 2 of the current bill clearly states "you're in need of out of home care to avoid personal harm or homelessness or to enhance the person's ability to continue the person's education or training or otherwise improve the person's successful transition to independent living and if requested by the department agrees to reasonable terms for resuming state custody that may include matters relating to the person's education, attainment of a job, or life skills or other terms found by the court to be reasonable and in the person's best interest." He noted that DOL requested the use of the word resume to make clear that the section referred to reentry into foster care. 5:06:39 PM Representative Fairclough pointed out that Page three of the Z version shows bolded type different from the version presented to the committee. She noticed words that were removed, but she did not know the consequence of the removal as compared to the recommendations from the HSS committee. Representative Gara informed that on Page 2, Line 9 of the Z version, the language, except for the words "resume care" is the same as the new version beginning on Page 2, Line 14-24. One change is some language from Page 2, Lines 4-6 which addressed the old procedure of the yearly hearing. He stated that the annual review for younger children was removed. Representative Fairclough requested an explanation of the difference on Page 2, Line 11. Representative Gara replied that the language between the two sections includes the definition of youth who left care and wish to reenter. He noted that DOL recommended new language to define the group as people who resume care. Before the youth were described as "persons released for a reason other than court ordered reunification with person's parent." The new language asks if the children were released to their own custody as stated on Page 2, Line 31. Representative Fairclough noted that the HSS committee recommended that the new language provides an exception if the foster child were removed due to a court order. 5:11:25 PM Representative Gara explained that there was no substantive reason for the change. The DOL intended to define the youth that leave care and then seek reentry. The DOL advised that a youth released to a youth's own custody was more informative language. 5:12:33 PM Representative Kelly recalled the late Representative Richard Foster's great support of state involvement in foster care. Vice-Chair Thomas requested that the Attorney General's office speak to the questions. JAN RUTHERDALE, ATTORNEY, CHILD PROTECTION SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that she was not involved in the earlier versions of the bill, but was familiar with the current version. Substantively, the difference between the two bills is that the new section is lumped into the old sections. The action of removing the section and creating a new subsection preserves the old section. She stated that the requirement is no longer an annual return to court. She noted that the change provides a protection for the child. Vice-Chair Thomas asked if the different versions of the bill are the same. Ms. Rutherdale informed that the difference addresses the annual court review. In version Z, no court review exists until the end of the youth's foster care. This allows for a yearly review. If the child changes their mind about the reentry, they can always petition. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if she followed the debate in the HSS committee. Ms. Rutherdale responded in the affirmative. 5:17:55 PM Representative Fairclough asked if there were any exceptions for release to their own custody in the way of a court order. Ms. Rutherdale answered that the Version Q explains that when a child is released, it is typically to their parents, commonly known as reunification. Representative Fairclough stated that she is supportive of the concept, but was respectful of changes made by the HSS committee. She asked about potential conceptual amendments made to the bill during the HSS committee hearings. She expressed trepidation about the new CS that does not have a HSS committee recommendation. 5:20:05 PM Representative Gara responded that the language in HSS committee was an express written amendment. The substance of the standard of required proof for reentry is the same now as it was in the HSS committee. He noted that the original version stated that reentry was possible if economic hardship was faced by the youth. He stated that the words "economic hardship" were removed from the version. The issue in the HSS committee was that standards for reentry were set. 5:21:45 PM ALISON ELGEE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, spoke to the three fiscal notes. She stated that the fiscal notes for the first year comprise a six month time period. The greatest of the fiscal notes is the foster care base rate note which represents the additional cost for extending foster care to these elder youth. Another fiscal note covers the foster care special needs provisions for extraordinary costs that foster care families incur. The third fiscal note addresses the changes necessary to the case management system as a result of the legislation. Representative Gara pointed out that he was economically prudent by delaying the effective date on fiscal note number six to January 1st, which was the time period necessary for the department to implement the program. Co-Chair Hawker asked if the maximum advantage of federal funds available were utilized. Ms. Elgee responded yes. She noted the difficulty in estimating the amount of federal reimbursement for foster children. Co-Chair Hawker asked Representative Gara if federal reimbursement was availed. Representative Gara answered yes, the bill is called Fostering Connections and was signed in by George Bush in 2008. Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report HB 126 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 126(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with attached previously published fiscal notes: FN4 (DHS), FN5 (DHS), FN6 (DHS). 5:26:08 PM