HB 189-CHILD IN NEED OF AID; NOTICE OF PLACEMENT  3:07:33 PM CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 189, "An Act relating to the identification, location, and notification of specified family members of a child who is in state custody." 3:08:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from a prepared statement [Included in members' packets], which read: Ensuring Extended Family Members Are Contacted as Potential Foster Parents Under Alaska law a youth who faces the unfortunate circumstance of being placed in foster care is entitled to a placement that is in his or her "best interests". Federal law and rules internal to the Office of Children's Services (OCS) note that a search of family members and friends who are akin to family members should be completed in a timely manner, within 30 days. The main provision of HB 189 makes sure a supervisor signs off that the requirement of a diligent search for family members has occurred. If it has not, the social worker is directed to complete that search to the supervisor's satisfaction in as timely a manner as possible. HB 189 puts into statute this additional protection, which is not currently addressed by OCS statutes or policy but is warranted due to the continuous high social worker turnover rate. Some social workers are very new, and many don't make it as social workers beyond one year or two years. Having a supervisor sign off that a family search has been thoroughly conducted will ensure children are protected, and in the best foster home possible. This provision is expected to be cost- neutral. It is recognized in the area of foster care that, where a good family placement is available, keeping a child in their family is often the placement that is the child's best interests. 3:10:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained Proposed Amendment 1, which he read: Page 1, lines 9 - 11 Delete "If circumstances prevent the department from completing this due diligence search in 30 days, the department shall complete the search as soon as possible." Insert "in this subsection, an adult family member means a person who is 18 years of age or older and who is related to the child as the child's grandparent, aunt, uncle, or sibling." REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered to deliver this to the committee. CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked about the existing Office of Children's Services (OCS) relative search process. 3:11:46 PM CHRISSY VOGELEY, Manager, Community Relations, Office of Children's Services, Department of Health and Social Services, pointed out that, as there was already a federal statutory requirement that all adult family members need to be notified regarding the removal of a child within 30 days, the proposed bill without the amendment would just codify in state statute what was already a federal requirement. She added that OCS already had the policies and procedures in place to ensure that this happened. She noted that there was an ongoing relative search, with social media as an excellent source for finding relatives. Any findings were then put into the data base under the case file and all those relatives were automatically notified. As this was ongoing, there was a question for when a supervisor would sign off on this. She reminded the committee that a requirement to sign off would become another administrative task for the supervisor. 3:13:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether there was the capacity for this to be done in practice on a regular basis. MS. VOGELEY acknowledged that, while OCS did have struggles, the division had a 52 percent relative placement rate versus the national average of 32 percent. She declared that, even though this placement rate was one of the highest placement rates in the United States, there was still room for improvement. She offered her belief that OCS did have the capacity. She pointed out that there was a difference for children who were defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), as OCS had compacted with the tribal co-signers for a much more extensive relative search. She added that the tribal partners could find "an incredible number of relatives." She noted that, for children not defined under ICWA, OCS did "as much as we can with what we have because it is a federal mandate, but it is unfunded." REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked if the children placed with family members were more stable and there was less turnover. MS. VOGELEY replied, "yes." REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked if it was already in the best interest of OCS to be doing this work. MS. VOGELEY replied, "yes." REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ expressed her agreement and shared an anecdote about her adoption of a foster child who had initially been placed with biological relatives who did not have the capacity to care for her. REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if this was the same or similar to an earlier bill by former Representative Les Gara. MS. VOGELEY asked if this was a reference to House Bill 151. REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her belief that it was another bill. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that House Bill 151 required that a supervisor sign off that a comprehensive relative and family friend search had taken place within 30 days each time there was a placement change, and then House Bill 27, in 2017, required the court to confirm this at the status hearings. CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked about the costs anticipated in the attached fiscal note, noting that a portion of the proposed bill appeared to codify what was already federally required. 3:18:28 PM MS. VOGELEY reiterated that the federal mandate to contact all adult family members within 30 days was an unfunded requirement and that OCS did this to its best ability. She reported that, in compacting with the tribes, OCS knew how long a relative search would take and how much it would cost. She relayed that, if the intent of the proposed bill were to contact all adult family members, this would be an extensive relative search like the tribal searches. She reported that this took about 10 hours at a cost of $56.11 per hour. The fiscal note considered the total cost considering the number of children removed, minus the costs passed along to the tribes to conduct these relative searches, and the remainder was the cost to do extensive relative searches for children not defined by ICWA. She offered her belief that the proposed amendment which specified a much smaller search would eliminate the fiscal note. CHAIR ZULKOSKY opined that the [Alaska] Tribal Child Welfare Compact was beneficial to the State of Alaska in understanding costs for OCS to do these extensive family searches. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the OCS responsibility if family members were not in Alaska. MS. VOGELEY replied that this could be an entire presentation. She explained that OCS was still required to notify out-of-state relatives and should a relative request placement of the child with them, the Interstate Compact Replacement of Children would dictate that Alaska work with that state. She emphasized that it was a long process with many documents. There was the possibility that a case worker would escort the child to their relative in another state or OCS would pay for the relative to come to Alaska to escort the child. She added that this was not uncommon. CHAIR ZULKOSKY referred to the fiscal note and asked about the percentage of children covered by ICWA. MS. VOGELEY said that she would research that information. REPRESENTATIVE TARR reported that the proposed bill had "a little bit of an overlap in terms of the language" to the earlier bill referenced, and she read from that bill regarding the department transfers of a child from one out-of-home placement to another. She shared an anecdote of her work with OCS and a constituent and asked whether being prescriptive was more important than the child's safety. 3:24:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for the OCS definition of "adult family members of the child." MS. VOGELEY replied that there was not a federal definition for the notification of adult family members; however, there was a definition in Alaska statute. She stated that she would follow up. CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked about any overlap with earlier legislation and requirements by the federal government. She asked which component of the proposed bill was necessary for statutory language versus the need for funding and a standardized internal OCS policy and process. She asked if OCS promulgated its own rules and regulations to guide this work and could be used for a budget request. She opined that it appeared there was a lot of policy overlap and asked if a gap existed in the policy. MS. VOGELEY offered her belief that OCS currently had enough in policy so there was not any gap. She reported that the concern raised by family members who were not notified was mainly due to the parents not sharing that information with OCS. She acknowledged that, although it was not a perfect system, OCS did try their best. She added that in these situations there were clearly family dynamics that prevented timely notifications. CHAIR ZULKOSKY opined that currently there was "enough policy cover," although there was a large unfunded mandate. 3:28:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered his belief that it was important to put in Alaska statute what was already in federal statute. He offered to provide the proposed amendment which added the definition for adult family members, and would include a child's grandparent, aunt, uncle, or sibling. He shared an anecdote for constituents who did not have that contact, and another anecdote about a friend who was successfully raised by his sibling. In response to Representative Spohnholz, he said that the definition for "adult family member" was included in the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referenced the issue regarding a relative not being notified and asked if there was a gap between the law and practice. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO shared that the relative was ultimately contacted, was approved by OCS, and the children were moved. He expressed his concern that due process was "skipped over in favor of an accusation." REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked about the timing for this episode in question, as there had been legislation passed in 2017 and 2018 which addressed this topic. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO replied that most of this occurred in August and September 2019. 3:33:12 PM HB 189 was held over.