HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE April 23, 1998 3:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Con Bunde, Chairman Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman Representative Brian Porter Representative Fred Dyson Representative J. Allen Kemplen Representative Tom Brice MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Al Vezey COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE BILL NO. 434 "An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD * SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 340 "An Act relating to child abuse and neglect, child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, delinquency hearings, and review of cases involving certain children who are in the custody of the state; relating to the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor; relating to disclosure of information about children and their families; amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17 - 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules; amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 25, Alaska Delinquency Rules; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 302 "An Act relating to the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 302(HES) FROM COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 434 SHORT TITLE: DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/18/98 2354 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/18/98 2354 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 340 SHORT TITLE: TESTIMONY AT CINA HEARINGS; CHILD ABUSE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HODGINS, Dyson Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/21/98 2100 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/21/98 2100 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 3/12/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 3/12/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/03/98 2869 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS 4/03/98 2869 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/03/98 2869 (H) HES, JUDICIARY 4/21/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 4/21/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 BILL: HB 302 SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA OPERATING BUDGET SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BUNDE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/12/98 2023 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98 1/12/98 2023 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/12/98 2023 (H) HES, FINANCE 2/12/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/12/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 2/27/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 2/27/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/07/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 4/07/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/09/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 4/09/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/16/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 4/16/98 (H) MINUTE(HES) 4/23/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106 WITNESS REGISTER RANDY LORENZ, Staff Intern to Representative Norm Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4968 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented proposed CSHB 434. VALERIE THERRIEN, Legislative Chair Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Abuse 779 8th Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 456-8113 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed committee substitute for HB 434. RON KREHER, Special Assistant Division of Public Assistance Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110640 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0640 Telephone: (907) 465-3349 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of proposed committee substitute for HB 434. PATRICIA ARNOLD, Social Worker 3600 Crittendon, Number A3 Homer, Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907) 235-3746 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute for HB 434. MARTHA HODSON, Representative Guardians for Family Rights P.O. Box 3687 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 260-9156 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on proposed committee substitute for HB 434 and in support of SSHB 340. REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 110 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3779 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SSHB 340. GARY CADD, Researcher to Representative Mark Hodgins Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 110 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-3779 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340. DIANA BUFFINGTON, President and State Coordinator, Childrens' Rights Council of Alaska; Chairman Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform 317 Maple Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Telephone: (907) 486-2290 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340. WALTER GAUTHIER, Representative Guardians of Family Rights Box 2246 Homer, Alaska 99603 Telephone: (907) 235-2809 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 340. EDGAR PAUL BOYKO 711 H Street, Suite 510 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 279-1000 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340. THERESA TANOURY, Administrator Child Protective Services Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340. DEBORAH DOWNS Child Protection Services Division of Family and Youth Services Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110630 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630 Telephone: (907) 465-3191 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 340. WENDY REDMAN, Vice President Statewide University of Alaska System P.O. Box 755000 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 474-7582 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 302. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-48, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE called the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Bunde, Green, Dyson and Brice. Representatives Kemplen and Porter arrived at 3:50 p.m. and 3:55 p.m., respectively. Representative Vezey was absent. HB 434 - DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS Number 0005 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the first item on the agenda was HB 434, "An Act requiring drug testing for applicants for and recipients of assistance under the Alaska temporary assistance program; and providing for an effective date" sponsored by Representative Norm Rokeberg. He asked Randy Lorenz, staff intern to Representative Rokeberg to come before the committee to present HB 434. Number 0010 RANDY LORENZ, Staff Intern to Representative Norm Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, directed the committee's attention to the proposed committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE made a motion to adopt proposed committee substitute, 0-LS0495\K, Lauterbach, 3/30/98, as the working draft. There being no objection, that version was before the committee. Number 0095 MR. LORENZ said the proposed committee substitute brings HB 434 into alignment with the Division of Public Assistance which has already started working in the area of dealing with substance abuse in welfare recipients by doing an assessment of each person that comes in, and individuals showing a possibility of being substance abusers are required further evaluation at a treatment center. It makes it a part of the family self-sufficiency plan which is already in place. Basically, this legislation places the division's policy in statute. Number 0160 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if a recipient has any recourse to testing positive. MR. LORENZ responded the committee substitute does not require drug testing on any recipient; it is only an assessment which is primarily a questionnaire that's completed at the time of application for public assistance. He said there are a number of available screenings that are nonintrusive to the individual and give an indication whether a person could have a substance abuse problem or not at that time. Then as part of the family plan, the person is requested to get a more in-depth screening at a drug treatment center. The committee substitute does not require a urine analysis; it's only a questionnaire-type assessment. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired about the other sanctions if the family fails to comply with the family plan being in existing statute. MR. LORENZ confirmed it is in statute; the only thing that's been added is that benefits may be eliminated, which is at the discretion of the Division of Public Assistance. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern about the discretionary authority to withhold benefits. MR. LORENZ said it's not a problem. Basically, it's up to the drug treatment center to decide if the person does have a problem and what the treatment should be. Number 0320 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said based on a comparison of the original bill and the committee substitute, he suspected the sponsor started out to do something simple and ended up getting a lot of argument that just doing testing on all the perspective recipients was problematic and couldn't be done. MR. LORENZ said, "No sir, that wasn't the case. Representative Rokeberg had originally written the first bill and I looked at it and I made some suggestions because I've already gone through the training for drug certification - I only lack actually applying through the state to be a certified drug counselor myself - and national statistics have shown that if you take the total population across the United States, only 20 percent of those people in the United States have a substance abuse problem. It doesn't mean that it affects their normal life, but of all those people, only about 5 percent of them actually have it to the severity that it prevents - their unable to function in society. We find that's the exact same breakout in those people that are receiving public assistance, so it's a misnomer that everybody on public assistance has a problem; we're only taking about a small majority of those people. So, drug testing - in fact, even in the literature that's - I just handed out an item here - it just came out from the National Conference on State Legislation - this particular item here also comes out with the fact that drug testing doesn't meet what you planned for it. If you test everybody, you're not going to pick up alcohol; there's a lot of drugs you're not going to pick up. But if you do a screening, it will pick up that possibility and then you can go into it deeper and you're only aiming at those people that really have the problem with alcohol or substance abuse and you're looking at it as a barrier to them having self-sufficiency. And we're also looking at it as a disease model rather than a behavioral problem." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the Administration was sympathetic to this? MR. LORENZ replied that representatives from the Division of Public Assistance were available to testify. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON questioned the lack of a fiscal note. MR. LORENZ said a fiscal note was not available, but it was Representative Rokeberg's understanding this was already being implemented as part of the division's normal operation, so it should be included in the appropriation for division operations. Number 0500 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced he would take public testimony at this time. He asked Valerie Therrien to come before the committee. Number 0555 VALERIE THERRIEN, Legislative Chair, Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, testified in support of the proposed committee substitute for HB 434. She said the Advisory Board on Alcohol and Drug Abuse opposed the original bill which required testing for all recipients. The board does however, believe that screening is very important and supports the committee substitute because the screening would be done by the department and the participant is then referred for further evaluation by a professional. Number 0615 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was any conflict with either state or federal law regarding the right to refuse a screening test. MS. THERRIEN said, "I don't think that this bill requires a screening test; it just requires screening to a rehabilitation program where you can get a professional to talk to them - whether or not, as a result of that recommendation, they go into a program and then they have to have maybe some UAs (urine analysis) or some drug tests as a result of that plan, is beyond what this bill deals with and I'm not really prepared to address that. We were not in favor of random UAs for everybody that applied for this assistance. Plus, I think it would be very discriminatory, myself." Number 0672 REPRESENTATIVE J. ALLEN KEMPLEN asked Ms. Therrien to explain how the department would screen a person, particularly if a person looks like an alcoholic or a drug dealer. MS. THERRIEN said as an alcoholic and member of Alcoholics Anonymous, she didn't think she looked like an alcoholic. She felt it was important to dispel those myths and for people to admit they've successfully overcome the problem. She explained the workers conduct what is known as a "cage screening" during the course of the interview in which there are four buried questions: Do you ever feel guilty about your drinking; have you ever had to have a drink in the morning to get you through the morning; has anyone expressed concern; and anxiety, attention, et cetera. An individual determined to have answered yes to any two of those questions or to another subtle screening program used by the worker will be sent on to a professional for an evaluation. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if he was correct in assuming that everyone will answer these questions. MS. THERRIEN surmised the division would ensure these questions were asked of everyone to avoid prejudice toward any one person. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Therrien for her comments and called Mr. Kreher forward to present his testimony at this time. Number 0835 RON KREHER, Special Assistant, Division of Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services, testified in support of the proposed committee substitute for HB 434. He directed the committee's attention to a draft service delivery model the division hopes to soon be piloting in the Mat-Su area. In response to an earlier question, he said there will be universal screening but the division hasn't yet determined which screening tool will be used. While the division in essence has the regulatory authority to do screenings and assign people to assessments, this legislation gives the statutory authority which the division may need when individuals request a fair hearing or appeal an adverse action resulting from assignment to assessment or screening. Number 0895 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Kreher to explain how the division plans to implement it. MR. KREHER said the division plans to do universal screening with all clients using a screening tool yet to be defined, and the staff who will receive training, will be able to identify whether or not an individual may have a substance abuse issue that may impede their ability to be self-sufficient. At that point in time, the individual's family self-sufficiency plan would be developed requiring participation in an in-depth assessment process. The assessment process would then be able to determine if the individual had a significant problem with chemical or alcohol abuse. The treatment program would then be developed and included in the family self-sufficiency plan and the individual would be required to comply with the condition of that plan to avoid sanctions against their program benefits. REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked if this would be done in writing or orally. MR. KREHER said it depends on what assessment tool is chosen; the cage can be incorporated into an interview, while other assessment tools are written. At this time, he wasn't sure what tool had been selected by the team developing the service model. Number 1005 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said it is his understanding that a number of public assistance recipients have difficulty with the English language and he wondered what impact that would have on the department's ability to adequately screen. MR. KREHER said he is hopeful those sorts of problems will be identified in the pilot project so methods for addressing them can be developed. In addition, there will be issues regarding the cultural appropriateness of some of these tools in particular areas, so the division will need to be fairly inventive once the assessment from the pilot project is received. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I'm wondering if there isn't an affidavit - if there isn't some sort of a 'you sign this at the risk of perjury' or something. How would you, for example, the prior testifier with that angelic face that she had, said that she was a member of AA and was apparently an alcohol abuser - you ask her or anyone - 'Now you realize that if you answer these questions two of four yes, we're likely to cut off your support' - the chances are quite good that you're going to cause someone that you ask - even if they're users, to not give you the right answers. How will this law without any kind of teeth in it, gain us anything?" MR. KREHER said first, individuals will not be penalized through the screening process unless they fail to comply with conditions once they're in the family self-sufficiency plan which is the step after the initial screening. He stated all clients realize that as a condition of eligibility, they must comply with the family self- sufficiency plan. It's up-front, it's in writing, it's on their application and it's also specified as a condition of the family self-sufficiency plan. He noted that many of the screening tests are subtle tests and the responses interpreted by trained staff, are such that capture potential false or manipulated answers. He frankly didn't suspect that would be an issue. Most of the individuals in treatment now have self-identified and are very interested in becoming self-sufficient. There are still some people feeling challenged by that issue, but people are realizing that welfare reform is a very real event in their lives and are making very honest efforts to move toward self-reliance. Number 1192 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked he has read statistics that an alcohol abuser will deny having a problem and would most likely answer no to the four questions even if they had a significant problem. He asked if this type of a voluntary indictment-type program has worked in any other state. MR. KREHER replied other states that have operated these programs and have been operating them for some time, have had mixed success; however, many of them have had some very positive successes. He directed the committee's attention to the information in committee packets regarding the high success rates other states have been having with screenings, assessment and treatment. He noted one of the requirements of Alaska's program involves up-front work search. Whether or not an individual is less than honest when completing an assessment form, oftentimes their success in the job market is an indicator of a substance abuse issue. If an individual passes the screen, but still has an issue in that substance abuse or chemical dependency is impairing their ability to achieve self-sufficiency, get off of assistance, find a job and keep a job, that person will be required to go through a more in-depth assessment. Number 1296 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "And I can understand what you're saying, if I were one of these individuals and I had -- like stopping smoking -- before I could stop smoking I had to want to stop smoking and until that time, I talked about it - I even tried a couple of times, but I really didn't want to bad enough to quit. So, I'm wondering how many of the people will take the screening test and those who really truly, truly want to quit, will answer reasonably, but those who don't think they have a problem and continue to want to have some welfare help, will not be answered honestly. And if the statistics are on those who answer, and that recovery rate is pretty good, you've already screened I guess -- you've screened five or ten percent of the people who really want to get off this and their success ratio is 50 percent -- that's pretty high. But it's only 50 percent of the people that said yes, and that may only be 10 percent, so you've got a 5 percent cure rate and that's pretty bad. So, I'm wondering what these statistics are and .... it just seems to me that without some sort of penalty or teeth you're not going to get the purpose who doesn't already want to comply and already want to shake the habit." MR. KREHER said while there may be some problems with getting all the people with a substance abuse problem into the treatment program, once those individuals have established treatment as part of the family self-sufficiency plan, the division has plenty of teeth to penalize that individual for noncompliance with those requirements. Noncompliance will be defined by the treatment program, not by the case manager and any individual refusing to comply with the assigned treatment or assessment will be subject to a penalty severe enough to make most people give it a second look. Number 1415 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if Mr. Kreher was familiar with the unresolved Fourth Amendment legal issues around search and seizure. MR. KREHER responded no, but it's his understanding the issue has to do with invasion of privacy. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "In terms of search and seizure for a drug test, you're not demanding to search, you're saying 'you should waive your concern about searching and if you don't then we will not provide this benefit to you,' so I don't think that's a substantial issue." MR. KREHER said it would only be a substantial issue if the division was pursuing drug testing as an eligibility criteria, I believe. The only time that drug testing might be a requirement is if it's a requirement of a treatment program. Number 1480 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was an intermediate assessment between the screening and treatment. MR. KREHER explained that once an individual is screened and there is a determination that this is a person with a high likelihood of having a substance abuse issue, the person will go then to a professional for assessment to determine the proper course of treatment. CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted there were individuals waiting to testify via teleconference. He asked Patricia Arnold to present her comments at this time. Number 1552 PATRICIA ARNOLD, Social Worker, testified via teleconference from Homer stating her belief that a urinalysis as a part of any application process short of a DWAI is discriminatory. She is more open to a questionnaire which takes into account the fact that humans apply for welfare assistance because of both medical and employment problems which are often outside of their control. Therefore, it remains important to respect both that self esteem and the feelings of self-worth the applicant carries upon his/her request for temporary financial assistance. Number 1575 REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN referred to the penalties that were previously mentioned by Mr. Kreher for individuals not fulfilling their self-sufficiency plan and asked what type of penalty Mr. Kreher was talking about - denial of benefits, violation of a misdemeanor or felony? MR. KREHER replied it's a reduction in benefits. Basically, the person who is noncompliant, loses their temporary assistance benefit and the associated Medicaid benefits. He estimated it was a $300-$400 reduction in benefits for the household. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Martha Hodson to testify at this time. Number 1666 MARTHA HODSON, Representative, Guardian for Family Rights, testified via teleconference from Kenai. She foresees a lot of problems with the bill in that it's real hard to even get judges to order a urine analysis or a blood test for drugs and alcohol. She said in terms of noncompliance and reducing benefits, it's the children who will suffer. Not all parents who drink or do drugs are necessarily neglecting their children. She is of the opinion there are still too many issues that need to be ironed out and it could be challengeable in a courtroom. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Hodson for her comments and announced that HB 434 would be held in committee for further consideration. SSHB 340 - TESTIMONY AT CINA HEARINGS; CHILD ABUSE Number 1765 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was SSHB 340, "An Act relating to child abuse and neglect, child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, delinquency hearings, and review of cases involving certain children who are in the custody of the state; relating to the crime of endangering the welfare of a minor; relating to disclosure of information about children and their families; amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 15, 17 - 19, and 22, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules; amending Rules 3, 7, 10, 12, 21, 23, and 25, Alaska Delinquency Rules; and providing for an effective date." He asked the sponsor, Representative Mark Hodgins to come before the committee to present his bill. Number 1784 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS, Sponsor of HB 340, directed the committee's attention to the sponsor substitute before the committee. Number 1800 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Sponsor Substitute for HB 340, Draft 0-LS1106\P as the working document. There being no objection, that version was before the committee. Number 1820 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said this Act implements an enforceable penalty for false reporting of child abuse or neglect and endangering the welfare of a child with respect to intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance. It gives notice of all hearings and an opportunity to be heard at all hearings for a child in need of aid to the child's grandparents, child's current and previous foster parents, and the child's health care providers. It also gives a foster parent or grandparent the right to disclose confidential or privileged information about a child in need of aid to a government official or their employee. The court cannot find a child in need of aid solely on the basis that the child's family is poor, lacks adequate housing or lives a lifestyle that is different from the generally accepted lifestyle of the community. Number 1865 CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the committee recently passed legislation introduced by Representative Dyson very similar to SSHB 340. He asked if there was a problem with overlapping. MR. HODGINS said Representative Dyson's bill is identical to sections in SSHB 340 and as long as the language remains the same, there's no problem. CHAIRMAN BUNDE referred to the provision relating to notification of grandparents and asked if reasonable effort was sufficient; in other words a hearing wouldn't be held up while the grandparents were being tracked down. MR. HODGINS replied it would be reasonable effort. Number 1903 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Representative Dyson's bill was currently in the Judiciary Committee with several proposed amendments. He asked if Representative Hodgins would be tracking SSHB 340 with that bill or would HB 340 stand alone. MR. HODGINS said he had anticipated the child in need of aid language being put in one bill; however, a couple different vehicles were chosen. There are some areas in SSHB 340 that are similar, but not overlapping. He called on Gary Cadd to provide more specifics. Number 1953 GARY CADD, Researcher to Representative Mark Hodgins, Alaska State Legislature, explained there are several areas that overlap and this particular bill goes further in notifying grandparents and foster parents. Number 1982 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that if both pieces of legislation were to pass, there might be conflicting sections. MR. CADD said it may be more appropriate for the Department of Health and Social Services to comment on that issue, but for the most part, it's the same language, but SSHB 340 allows for more people to be involved in a hearing. CHAIRMAN BUNDE commented he would like to take testimony via teleconference at this time. He asked Diana Buffington to present her testimony. Number 2020 DIANA BUFFINGTON, President and State Coordinator, Childrens' Rights Council of Alaska and Chairman, Alaska Task Force on Family Law Reform, testified offnet from Fairbanks. She said one section had been left out of HB 375 which was the false child abuse allegations. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary testified in 1996 that nationwide over a million children a year are abused and neglected. While these numbers may be staggering, the nation should also be concerned about the nearly two million false and unsubstantiated reports of child abuse and neglect that are filed wrongfully and in some cases, maliciously. The Executive Director of the Child Welfare League of America admits 62 percent of the allegations of child abuse and neglect are false and child protection agencies across the United States have estimated false and unwarranted allegations up to 80 percent. Ms. Buffington said high level of false allegations lead to more severe cases going uninvestigated, under-investigated or slipping through the cracks entirely. Most false allegations are made by the residential parent who has recently separated or divorced to gain control of the custody settlement. She pointed out that Section 2 of SSHB 340 would address the false allegation issue. Number 2108 MS. BUFFINGTON said a good job was done up to a certain point on the recent audit of the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS). The audit touched on reports of harm prioritization, the screening and investigative process and workload adjustment. The 1997 reports of harm in Alaska are staggering at 15,547 statewide, with 10,529 reports of harm assigned for investigation, 3,740 workload adjusted and not assigned for investigation and 1,278 reports were unaccounted for in the audit. She pointed out the audit does not indicate, except on page 12, how many 1997 cases were confirmed with the child left in the home, confirmed with the child removed, unconfirmed closed, unconfirmed (indisc.) and invalid. Number 2266 MS. BUFFINGTON spoke in support of SSHB 340. She added that it's time the DFYS quit considering foster families as babysitters. Many foster parents feel they have little say in the parenting plan and little or no input in case hearings. Sponsor Substitute for House Bill 340 will give foster parents more participation in the child's future. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Buffington for her comments and asked Martha Hodson to testify at this time. Number 2275 MARTHA HODSON, Representative, Guardians for Family Rights, testified via teleconference from Kenai in support of HB 340. She said, "There's a lot of information that parents either don't understand or (indisc.) that they can't understand at the time when these things are going on, that's an area I get into or I try to, but without the information, it's hard for me to help them understand." She discussed the problems grandparents in the Kenai area are having with supervised visitations with their grandchildren, amongst other problems, which is totally uncalled for. She admitted that the grandparent's issues are definitely different from the parental issues in CINA proceedings. MS. HODSON stated she supports SSHB 340; there's good parts and bad parts in all legislation. TAPE 98-48, SIDE B Number 0002 MS. HODSON continued with a discussion on the impacts of false reporting. She referred to the DFYS audit and said there were a number of cases in Kenai that could not be accounted for in the audit. CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Hodson for testifying the asked Walter Gauthier to testify at this time. Number 0135 WALTER GAUTHIER, Representative, Guardians of Family Rights, testified via teleconference from Homer in support of SSHB 340. He agreed that it is somewhat duplicative of HB 375 but without the other 40 some pages of additional governmental power. He referred to page 6, Section 10 and page 13, Section 24 and expressed concern that the phrase, "The court's official records under this chapter may be inspected only with the court's permission and only by persons having a legitimate interest in them" is repeated twice in regards to both CINA courts and delinquency courts. He said the Guardians of Family Rights has been filing numerous reports to the Alaska Judicial Council and the Judicial Conduct Commission concerning judges who do not follow their own CINA court rules and procedures. The current law states that a parent has a right to a copy of the court file and a copy of the recording of the court hearing. Oftentimes these are the only evidence and documents that parents can get. The language regarding the inspection of records only with the court's permission disturbs him because no court or judge likes having their decisions overturned or criticized and if left up to the judge, the permission will not be granted. MR. GAUTHIER stated he supports SSHB 340, but he suggested the language be changed to reflect that parents still have a right at any time to the court files and court hearing tapes. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Edgar Boyko to present his remarks at this time. Number 0322 EDGAR PAUL BOYKO testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He commented on the legitimate concern expressed by Chairman Bunde of the potential overlapping between this legislation and HB 375. His opinion is that SSHB 340 is a good bill that's needed and agreed with the last speaker that perhaps the sponsor should consider amending the issue of access to court records. The sponsor has recognized the legitimate interests of foster parents, but has not addressed the fact there is no standard given to when permission should be given and denied. He expressed concern that this bill might be sidetracked because of similarities with HB 375, which in his opinion has many problems. He considers SSHB 340 to be a good bill and should go forward. CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted the overlap or duplication he had referred to was with HB 366 sponsored by Representative Dyson. He asked if there were any questions of the sponsor. He announced the committee would not take any action on HB 340 because it was the first hearing. He suggested that Representative Hodgins get together with Representative Dyson to discuss the strategy for SSHB 340 and HB 366. Number 0540 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted he and Representative Hodgins have been communicating and coordinating. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked the representative from the Division of Family and Youth Services to come before the committee at this time. Number 0589 THERESA TANOURY, Administrator, Child Protective Services, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said the issue of false reporting is interesting and she appreciates the sponsor's concern about false reporting. She said it is not appropriate for the system to be dealing with false reporters, but she added that false reporting is very difficult to prove and most of the time people are making good faith efforts in reporting. She explained the department does not capture false reports; in other words the numbers of reports that may be viewed as false are not captured. With regard to the 1,000+ reports in 1997 that were not considered legitimate reports of abuse and neglect, she said reports coming into the division fall into one of two categories. The first category is insufficient information where the reporter has not given the division enough information to determine abuse or neglect and/or enough information about the family or the child to proceed. Second, is the non-child protective services category in which the division does a risk assessment based on the information given by the reporter and determines the report doesn't include child protection concerns. This category has to be documented and the reason for placing the report in this category must be explained. She noted these are not considered legitimate reports and are above and beyond what the division refers to workload adjusting. MS. TANOURY informed the committee of a national study on false reporting by the Kempe Center which found that very few reports are considered false reports and that of those reports that are considered false, many of them are in divorce/custody situations, which are very hard to investigate. She stated, "One of the things the study found was that of the number of divorce situations that happen and the ones that are contested and then the ones that actually come to our attention are those in which there's such severe conflict going on that maybe - you never know - maybe there is some abuse, somebody needs to check on the child, but there are lots of allegations. It is difficult to investigate, but at the same time it's a horrendous conflict going on within two parents struggling over a child or the child's caught in the middle. So there is some grounds to understand that maybe there should be somebody checking on the family and being involved." Number 0815 CHAIRMAN BUNDE assumed that in order to have a legitimate report, the department has to know the identity of the reporter. MS. TANOURY said the department does accept reports from anonymous reporters. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if it was fair to assume that someone making a malicious report wouldn't give their name. MS. TANOURY said there are anonymous reporters and mandated reporters. Number 0870 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "Are we talking about a perception here because the teleconference indicated 62 or greater and most of those were by the resident parent. Is there a perception that if that person was thinking that there were that high a percentage of false reports and you're indicating it's very low, is it because they're saying 'well, okay there was a report of a problem and when they got there, there was just a difference of opinion and that was okay' - you're saying that same difference of opinion though may be a bonafide report because that's systematic of maybe a bigger problem. So, are we talking about that wide difference there in statistics because of perception or different sets of statistics?" MS. TANOURY thought there may be some difference in terms of what is called "reports" and how those reports are categorized. She said the division also has a category called "invalid" which means the division may have gone out to investigate the report, but didn't think the report was valid. Some people feel that is a false report, but the division considers a false report as someone maliciously making a report against someone that is not right to do. Number 0960 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to Section 2 and asked if the statement "knowingly makes a false report: would be considered malicious intent. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "This would require an element of proving knowledge that the report was false which is tantamount to saying intentionally making a false report. That's a high standard - that's a tough standard." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "I am interested in the categorization of the complaints. I just - as we all did I think - received some information from the municipality of Anchorage Health Department on child abuse reporting and there's two different types of categorizations; one reports and one substantiated reports. Yet there's an abundance of folks telling us we're the highest state in the nation in child abuse and I've had a theory of my own for a long time, but I think that that's not quite correct: We happen to have one of the most educated public and tough reporting laws that exist in the United States and the three or four categories of - short of substantiated complaints that you have seems to indicate that we get all sorts of reports and that the statistics that the municipality, at least, put together, we're the same as the rest of the United States - 15 out of 1,000 kids. So, I don't know - I would, for what it's worth, beg the department to use that statistic rather than the reported statistic considering that we have facilitated reporting to the nth degree which is very good, but not to use it." Number 1095 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented this legislation will make it a crime to knowingly report that a person suspected there was abuse and neglect. In his opinion the use of the world "suspected" is a major hole. Number 1154 DEBORAH DOWNS, Child Protection Services, Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said there appeared to be some confusion in semantics - some people are making the assumption that when the division designates a report of being unsubstantiated, that equates to a false report. She wanted to clarify that those are entirely different situations. She further stated, "Also, regarding Representative Brice's question, I think the issue of false reporting is the intent - the word used in here is "knowingly". If a person has cause to believe that an injury has taken place or a child is neglected or at risk and makes a report, that is not making a false report. However, if the person is knowingly making up the information being provided and are aware that it's a false report, it's the intent that is the difference. CHAIRMAN BUNDE closed public testimony and said SSHB 340 would be heard at a future hearing. HB 302 - UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA OPERATING BUDGET Number 1219 CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the next item on the agenda was HB 302, "An Act relating to the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." He noted the committee had adopted committee substitute 0-LS1285\F, Ford, 4/16/98, at a previous meeting. CHAIRMAN BUNDE read the following intent language from the 1989 legislature: "It is the intent of the legislature that the University of Alaska administration review and compile information on student enrollment, credit hours and productivity at all university campuses. It is the further intent of the legislature that this information be used to develop a formula approach as an alternative method of allocating and reallocating funding for these campuses, and that this formula approach alternative be presented with the university's FY 89 budget request." CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked why the university has not complied with the intent of the legislature some ten years ago. Number 1310 WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University of Alaska System, said, "Actually, we did comply with the intent. We had a model that we used -- as you may recall we -- since you were elected in 1992, I believe -- I believe that was the last year we had an increase - the only increased funding we've received other than we had two years in the last six where we got some salary money for the collective bargaining agreements - other than that the only new money we've received was money that you were helpful in getting $2 million for University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) for instructional positions. And that's really the last increment that we've had for any money. So, we've been using the model that was developed - we have two models that were developed -- actually it's a series of models -- an instructional model, physical plant model, and a faculty salary allocation model that were developed in 1991. We worked on them through the course of that year and they've been used essentially to sort of help us figure out how to reduce the budget and models aren't as effective to reduce the budget as they are to increase the budget." Number 1380 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Chairman Bunde how he arrived at the four different groups. CHAIRMAN BUNDE responded it was based on his experience working at the university and modeled on other states. Number 1420 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "There are a couple of other statements I want to be very clear. We'd made mention that this was a funding formula; it's not a funding formula, it's an allocation formula, first of all. The next concern I have is what happens if the university develops a program that isn't in one of these four groups that are currently here? I mean, we're making the assumption that the university is a static institution; that these are the programs that will be provided forever and ever and that if any other new program is to ever be developed, they're going to have to come back to the legislature to be put into one of these four groups. What was your thoughts on that?" CHAIRMAN BUNDE said certainly future programs would be placed in one of these categories based on the university's point of view. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that caused him concern - it will be based on the university's point of view, as well as the political support the program might have. He said discussions involving allocation of a shrinking pie is never a fun issue, and he believes the discussion should focus on how to increase the pie. CHAIRMAN BUNDE said he agreed; he thinks the allocation comes before the pie increases, but he advocates for enlarging the pie. Number 1528 MS. REDMAN expressed her appreciation to Chairman Bunde for the changes that were made to HB 302 and said it now comes very close to the formula currently being developed with Chancellor Gorsuch's committee; however, she still believes it should not be put in statute. She also appreciated that HB 302 provides for allocations of increased money. CHAIRMAN BUNDE pointed out it also calls for a 2 percent inflationary increase. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled the UAA campus has a significant number of part time students and inquired how the head count on a part time student compares to a full time student under HB 302. MS. REDMAN said everything is converted to full time equivalent (FTE) so it accommodates the part-time students the same, so there's no advantage or disadvantage. She further explained, "It's depending on the number of credits that are taken by students and then we divide the number of credits by 12 and that equals one FTE." CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ms. Redman for the FTE of the various campuses. MS. REDMAN said the Fairbanks campus is approximately 3,500; the Anchorage campus is at about 6,800; and the Juneau campus is approximately 1,000. Number 1634 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "Relating to the inflation - now if you've got an inflation increase on an allocation formula for all campuses equal, how does that work if the funding level stays stagnant?" Number 1650 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said the inflation factor is for the total budget and then it's factored out through the formula. Number 1660 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it would be a formula program, much like the others, there would be a demand for increase, whether it's by student or by consumer price index (CPI). CHAIRMAN BUNDE explained, "The Chair's vision of this is that we have "x" amount in the university this year, inflation factor would 2 percent, so it would be "x" amount plus 2 percent and that money then would be disbursed through the formula." Number 1715 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move from committee CSHB 302 as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected. CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson, Green, Porter and Bunde voted in favor of the motion. Representative Brice voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 302(HES) moved from the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee on a vote of 4-1. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee at 5:05 p.m.