MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 14, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:32 a.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Ms. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dr. Thom Reilly, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Judge Charles M. McGee, Second Judicial District Court
Judge Gerald Hardcastle, Eighth Judicial District Court
Judge Deborah Schumacher, Second Judicial District Court
Master Frances M. Doherty, Second Judicial District Court
Steven A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, State of Nevada
Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Clark County Family & Youth Services
Katy Singlaub, Manager, Washoe County Department of Social Services
Myrna Williams, Commissioner, Clark County
Michael Capello, MSW, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services
Allison Combs, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Pat Reddick, private citizen and former resident of Northern Nevada Children’s Home
Dorothy Pomin, Family-Foster Care Support/Advocate, Sierra Association of Foster Families
Mark Nichols, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter
Robert J. Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (AFSCME/Local 4041)
Rose Tuana, Executive Director, State of Nevada Board of Examiners for Social Workers
John Guerrero, private citizen and former resident of Northern Nevada Children’s Home
Richard Dreitzer, on behalf of 75 state workers
Jesica A. Reyes, private citizen and former foster youth
Krista Hershenhaus, private citizen and former foster youth
Mason H. Ross Jr., private citizen and former foster youth
Judy Tudor, private citizen and former foster youth
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and confirmed that there was a quorum present.
Chairman Anderson called for business to be addressed by the committee. He discussed three bills brought quickly to an agenda and advised the assemblage where copies of the bills may be obtained. The Chair welcomed former residents of the Child Welfare Cottages sitting in the audience.
Assembly Bill 343: Provides for integration of state and local child welfare services. (BDR 11-325)
Chairman Anderson requested opening remarks from Assemblywoman Buckley, chairwoman of the A.C.R. 53 study.
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley thanked the Chair and asked that Dr. Thom Reilly join her at the witness table. She introduced herself and advised that she represented Assembly District No. 8 and had been honored to chair the A.C.R. 53 interim committee. She was also very pleased that Chairman Anderson, Assemblyman Carpenter, and Assemblywoman Koivisto, members of the Judiciary committee, also served on that committee: Assemblywoman Buckley pointed out that Assemblywoman Koivisto had chaired the Seventieth Session subcommittee where the study began.
Assemblywoman Buckley provided an overview for those new to the issue. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) passed by Congress sent a message to the states and the country that improved care was required for children in foster care. Children needed permanency and stability. Nevada’s response to ASFA would drastically reduce the amount of time a child would linger in the system. Steve Shaw, the director of Child and Family Services, brought to the interim committee’s attention the effects bifurcation might have on Nevada’s ability to meet goals. Nevada’s child welfare system was bifurcated in Washoe and Clark counties. Consequently, those counties had initial responsibility to perform an initial investigation when abuse was reported. Counties’ tasks included determining whether to remove the child, removing the child, and caring for the child for up to six months. The state took over if and when long-term help was deemed necessary for the child and/or the family. She stated that having two different jurisdictions involved was very disruptive to a child’s mental and emotional growth. When jurisdiction was transferred, the child changed homes again, changed therapists and caseworkers. Their plan was changed and often six months of that child’s life was lost.
Assemblywoman Buckley outlined how the Seventieth Session established an interim committee to determine how bifurcation could be ended. She felt the interim committee was very lucky that everyone involved, whether of the county, state or judiciary, worked for the good of the children. The interim committee ultimately recommended that bifurcation be terminated. It worked with both Washoe and Clark counties to formulate a transition plan. Further, it was recommended that the current inadequate system not be transferred to the counties as it existed. Improvements that took into consideration the resources available were recommended.
Assemblywoman Buckley advised that four areas of spending were established:
Assemblywoman Buckley then advised that funds were included to “match up services” for rural communities. As well as the interim committee’s lobbying, a number of children’s advocates petitioned the Governor to fund those items and the Governor did include those recommendations in his budget. Further, Assemblywoman Buckley was informed by a 25-year veteran of the child welfare system that those funds constituted the largest infusion ever of resources to abused and neglected children.
In closing, Assemblywoman Buckley advised that the interim committee had immediately determined that state child welfare workers were to be treated fairly. Every state worker was to be guaranteed a job in the new system. There would be no cutoff of insurance, vacation and sick leave, and on behalf of the interim committee, Assemblywoman Buckley asked the counties to step forward to ensure that was done.
Chairman Anderson advised he intended to allow the judges present to testify so that they could return to their various courts.
Dr. Thom Reilly of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, introduced himself and assured the committee that there was no minority report as the report prepared was bipartisan and unanimous. He felt that the decision to end bifurcation was the “easy part”; a long-standing recommendation by all involved. The hard part would be working out the details of terminating a 50-year-old institution that was not cost effective, much to the detriment of the state of Nevada.
Chairman Anderson called for questions to Assemblywoman Buckley with regard to the A.C.R. 53 study or for Dr. Reilly on the intent of the resolution. He then instructed the committee secretary to distribute the report to the committee members (Exhibit C).
Assemblywoman Buckley requested Dr. Reilly outline the proposed transition model. At the Chair’s assent, Dr. Reilly began with the summary on page 17. He stated that the core of the recommendation was to transfer services in Washoe and Clark counties. Rural area services were not considered bifurcated as they would still be run by the state of Nevada. In Washoe and Clark counties, the child protective service systems were run by the county and foster care and adoption was run by the state. Under the model, case management services in Washoe and Clark counties would be transferred from the state to the counties. When a family interacted with the child welfare system, they would interact with the entire system. Traditionally, the entire system should be run by one agency. Another integral service that should be transferred to the counties would be the centralized intake services. They would make assessments as to reunification as well as possible mental illness as to the child and family. Also transferred from state to counties would be family preservation services, another “front end” service to help preserve families and keep them out of the child welfare system. He also discussed eligibility of service, federal funds, licenser, group homes, and family foster care funds.
Dr. Reilly then outlined how the state would continue to run all services in rural Nevada and remain in a regulatory capacity. He stated that a state agency was the only option in administration of federal and state funds. As to rural Nevada, counties of less than 100,000, Dr. Reilly had been advised by county representatives that those services should remain with the state. However, funding was included in the bill to decrease foster care caseloads for those counties and raise the level of service provided. Further, there were arrays of services available to eligible children: group homes, residential/institutional care, psychiatric care and more. A joint consortium of counties and the state should determine at the local level how best to use those services. Although day-to-day “gatekeeping” decisions on quality assurance would be performed by the state, there needed to be interaction with the counties given the limited funds available for mental health services. Development of the best mental health intervention and treatment model for a variety of different individuals needed to be addressed. Delinquency and low-income families were other factors where mental heath funding was concerned. Preventative services were needed for those individuals, avoiding involvement in the child welfare system wherever possible. Consequently, those higher levels of care should remain with the state.
Dr. Reilly referenced Assemblywoman Buckley’s statements on enhancement of quality of services. One was to consider reducing and evening out caseloads statewide to between one and 28 children. The interim committee had heard a great deal of testimony regarding large caseloads and accompanying difficulty in managing children and providing services. Additionally, the budget provided an increase as mental health services for children suffering from severe mental health was limited. The Division of Child and Family Services testified that approximately 37 percent of the children in care were severely emotionally disturbed. Foster care reimbursement was another big issue as rates were currently $12 to $14 per day. That rate was considered inadequate to attract the types of families that were needed for foster care. An increase to approximately $21 per day had been recommended. Rural Nevada was considered to have unique issues and problems that would be addressed through “matching up” of services like those in Washoe and Clark counties. In closing, Dr. Reilly discussed a unified computer system that needed to be implemented in Nevada as well as personnel issues raised by the transferees.
Before rejoining the committee, Assemblywoman Buckley thanked the Legislative Counsel Bureau staff that assisted the interim committee and, especially, Allison Combs.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Ms. Combs’ presence along with persons from Fiscal and their contributions to this bill.
Mr. Carpenter voiced his appreciation for Assemblywoman Buckley having kept the process in motion even through “dark days” where the complexities seemed overwhelming. He stated his belief that the children of Nevada would be much better off due to the planned changes.
Chairman Anderson agreed and thanked those who had been required to rethink the process and had appeared at daily meetings to restructure the system.
Dr. Thom Reilly then requested clarification from the Chair for the benefit of four young witnesses appearing on the independent living bill that the bifurcation issue was being heard separately. Chairman Anderson confirmed Dr. Reilly’s remarks and requested the witnesses remain for the independent living discussion. He then requested Judge Charles McGee begin his remarks.
Charles M. McGee, Second Judicial District Court Judge, voiced his appreciation for the committee’s consideration of the judges’ schedules. He advised the committee that the present meeting was a “watershed moment” for him as he had been a vocal critic of the bifurcated system for 20 years. He agreed that the existing system was maze-like and esoteric in nature with nearly endless ramifications. Judge McGee admitted that there had been some early efforts to table the issue as too complex and unmanageable. He then shared three cautions. First, it was already known that Las Vegas was in for some difficulties but to look at the long-range picture. Washoe County had a temporary, dedicated stream of funding that brought it closer to national standards on caseloads. Second, Washoe County’s demographics and organization matched up more conveniently than in Clark County. He then requested patience in and with Clark County. Judge McGee’s second caution was that, as exciting as watching the “de" bifurcation take place was, community support was mandatory if the process was to work. He described the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 as the largest, unfounded mandate that he had ever seen. Unless the state, counties, and cities came up with funding and resources to make reasonable efforts at reunification with parents, judges were to then certify that there were no reasonable efforts and to take away the full refunding - $18 million. He reiterated that the counties would not be able to do it alone. His third caution related to the rural counties. He advised that there was no way the rural counties could parallel Washoe or Clark counties when it came to providing services necessary under A.B. 343 and the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. The state of Nevada was going to need to “step up” a little and assist the rural counties. With those cautions said, he applauded the effort, courage and determination shown on this matter.
Chairman Anderson next asked Judge Gerald Hardcastle to testify from Las Vegas. Gerald Hardcastle, Eighth Judicial District Court Judge, applauded the efforts that had been made so far. He related that two or three years ago Stephen Shaw suggested his desire to make ending bifurcation a legislative priority during a conversation. He agreed that it was clear everyone wanted to end bifurcation but wondered at the possible insidiousness of the system. He echoed the concern for the current state employees.
Judge Hardcastle then addressed extension under certain circumstances of Medicaid for and court jurisdiction over foster children until they are 21 years of age. He also discussed how, during his first week back on the bench, there were three children whose involvement in foster care was ending:
Judge Hardcastle stated that $500 was more than most children left with. A few weeks later another an 18-year-old child was recommended for termination of services. Like most, he did not know whether he wanted to stay in or leave. The caseworker felt he was not making the appropriate efforts. Judge Hardcastle wanted to talk to the child about his future and the case came back two weeks later. At that time, the child’s arm was in a sling due to a condition that preexisted his termination date but which was not operated on until very shortly after he left. Those were not unusual stories. He felt the condition children currently left foster care in was a travesty. Two things needed to be done: one by the legislature and one by the courts. The legislature needed to extend jurisdiction over foster children until 21. Judge Hardcastle agreed that children at 18 were not capable of leaving the system. Extending services until 21 coupled with the development of independent living skills made sense. Additionally, Medicaid coverage needed to be extended. If the legislature would do that for the courts, the courts should start planning better and earlier to assist foster children who approached independence. He discussed “other plan-permanent arrangements” where a child’s strengths and weaknesses were immediately assessed. He also spoke of court-reviewed formal plans to ensure each child’s independent living needs were being addressed. Finally, that the children were to participate and be involved in the proceedings. He agreed the revised system would take the entire community’s cooperation and that coordination of services was needed.
Chairman Anderson thanked Judge Hardcastle for his concerns and support. The Chair voiced his admiration for those sitting on the bench and the masters who dealt with the subject matter on a daily basis.
Deborah Schumacher, Second Judicial District Court, family court judge, introduced herself. She had been on the bench for 4½ years and had previously been a hearing master for juvenile cases. Judge Schumacher advised that, for a few years, she had every single foster care case in Washoe County on her desk. She mentioned the medical phrase “a doctor should do no harm.” She felt it had been obvious for some time that the state and the courts had inadvertently been “doing harm” via the bifurcation system. The laws governing that system were decades old and she doubted anyone at that time had realized how the system would evolve. She advised that she was absolutely certain that the system as it existed did affirmative harm to the children involved. She agreed with discussion that had come before. Judge Schumacher emphasized that bifurcation should be dealt with even without the Adoption and Safe Families Act, but that the process must absolutely include ASFA. ASFA required courts approve a permanency plan once a child had been in foster care for approximately twelve months.
Judge Schumacher anticipated an increase in termination of parental rights of parents who were unable to create a safe situation for their child within the one-year period. It was her opinion that it was more difficult for the courts to meet the constitutional standards for terminating a parent’s rights under a bifurcated system, considering its many shifts and starts, the changes in therapists, and the frequent difficulties in bringing cases under control. Even though ASFA said termination of parental rights must begin, there was an entire body of law that indicated when it was appropriate. Judge Schumacher saw the courts in a position where prosecutors were required by ASFA to begin a termination but, under bifurcation and the relevant lost time, the efforts shown might not justify termination. She felt it was an extremely difficult and complicated legal situation that benefited neither the children nor their families. In essence, the parents might not have been given the opportunities needed, in which case the appropriate standard to terminate would not have been met.
Frances M. Doherty, Second Judicial District Court, Family Division Master, introduced herself and stated her pleasure in being part of such a momentous occasion. She advised that those responsible had recognized the care provided to the most in need was inadequate. Nevada was assuming the responsibility it always possessed - the responsibility to do for foster children what would be done for each participant’s own children. That included seeing to their safety, that their emotional and physical well-being was addressed immediately and that their educational needs and morale growth was attended to on an ongoing basis. The bifurcated system interrupted that attendance in a very brutal manner. Master Doherty advised that, when children were removed from their parents’ care, it was done out of concern for the child’s safety. Their stability was shaken a number of times as they were removed into the county’s care, from an emergency shelter, then into one or more foster homes. That would not be acceptable for “our own” children and it was not acceptable for Nevada’s foster children.
Master Doherty thanked Majority Leader Buckley for her efforts and stated that she brought “us through the forest and we can now see what we need to do with such clarity.” She then addressed one point that had not been discussed. She stated that the mental health needs of nearly all families in the system were extremely critical to the successful reunification of child and family, and critical to each child’s ability to become a successful adult. A.B. 343 provided for a mental health committee. She also stressed that, as the bifurcated system was “undone” and services were unified, mental health services must not be inadvertently bifurcated without providing a smooth provision of services, whether out-patient, in-patient, county responsibility or state responsibility. In closing, Master Doherty reported that all agencies had “checked their egos at the door” and were diligently committed to ensuring success without regard to territory, possessiveness, or authority because that was the right thing to do.
Chairman Anderson addressed Mrs. Koivisto and mentioned that she had been the subcommittee chair of that issue back in 1997 and 1999. She had, along with Ms. Buckley, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Anderson, been anxiously awaiting that moment for a long time.
Mrs. Koivisto asked Judge Schumacher if the shortened timeframe relevant to ASFA discussed in 1999 was a problem as to terminating the bifurcation of services. She wondered if that matter required revisiting. Judge Schumacher did not know if there was an answer for every case, but she was adamant that bifurcation interfered. Terminating bifurcation was a major step towards compliance. She advised that although prosecuting attorneys were to begin a termination of parental rights within 12 months, there was an entire body of constitutional law on family privacy that required consideration. ASFA said to bring the action but it did not specify that the action should succeed. Often 12 or fifteen months worth of work with a family was sufficient. When drug issues were present, as in 80 to 90 percent of foster care cases, eighteen months of sobriety was needed before comfort in decision-making could be achieved. Scientific data suggested one timeframe and a child’s need for permanency suggested a shorter timeframe.
Chairman Anderson reminded Mrs. Koivisto and the assemblage that the committee had requested a bill draft to outline some of the same issues Judge McGee previously indicated. That proposed legislation was expected within the week.
Judge McGee responded that he had met with the drafters of the federal regulations for the ASFA and the compliance standards. They informed him that “we” [Nevada] could utilize the “extraordinary circumstances” provision to elongate the case plan of individuals who are successfully involved with a drug treatment program. He agreed that perhaps as much as 90 percent of the people whose children were removed from the home, had a drug or alcohol problem. In his experience, those recovering from such an addiction were not “out of the woods” for about fifteen months. He felt the challenge was obvious. There could not be a reconnaissance model case work. Having people simply report to court every three months or to a caseworker every month by telephone was not feasible. The process included teaching very immature individuals how to become parents. If, for example, you had a mother with poor parenting skills who was also a drug addict, and got her clean and sober –she was then simply a lousy, sober mother. State or county services needed to become involved in those individuals’ lives and he advised it took time to teach them how to be grown up and responsible. The truncated timeframes could be dealt with. Even the more restrictive timeframes within Nevada statute could be worked with as long as there were resources. If Nevada did not have the resources, we could not generate reasonable efforts. Judge McGee felt that wrenching a bonded child away from his parent could be considered another abuse of that child. The proposed legislation would allow the courts and services to work with the community as a single agency and coordinate services in order to get parents clean and sober and get the children back home. Although child-focused, the bill was as much for parents as it was for their children.
Master Doherty added that the legislature approved an even shorter time to initiate termination of parental rights than federal provisions allowed. She believed it was an appropriate decision as long as all parties worked to unify the system. She advised that time was critical for children and felt that “dead time” was probably the worst thing that could be done to a child. Master Doherty believed that the shortened timeframe was not inappropriate.
Chairman Anderson then called the next panel, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Capello, Ms. Williams, and Ms. Singlaub. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Nevada Department of Human Resources, was the first to testify. He advised that the division, the department and the Governor all supported the unification of the child welfare system. The system, by its very design, did not serve the best interests of child abuse and neglect victims. He had participated in numerous interim legislative studies over the past 20 years, but none as complicated and challenging as A.C.R. 53 of the Seventieth Session. It provided administrative, fiscal, political, personnel and legal challenges. Funding for the unification of the child welfare system was in the Governor’s budget. There were approximately $20 million “new” dollars, a major injection into the child welfare system. He agreed that he had never seen such an influx of funding into a population of Nevada’s size. Mr. Shaw provided a word of caution. He advised that we needed to be thoughtful and cautious in how services were transitioned to minimize the detrimental impact on children and families. For that reason, DCFS would ask for a nonreverting account to isolate those funds. The funds would carry over to the interim in case the reorganization took longer than anticipated. He advised that there remained some unresolved issues relating to personnel and the funding mechanism. Mr. Shaw wanted to make it very clear, especially for his people, what was meant when an “inadequate” system was discussed. That wording did not refer to workers or the division, but described the specific process. He advised the committee that they had increased adoption over 50 percent since A.B. 158 of the Seventieth Session. Although they expected to do as well in 2001, bifurcation still needed to end. He was emphatic that bifurcation must be terminated.
Kirby L. Burgess, Director, Clark County Family & Youth Services (CCFYS), introduced himself and advised that he had been involved in youth services for over 27 years. He admitted that A.B. 343 was the largest, single accomplishment he had ever witnessed in the state of Nevada. He advised the committee of his support for A.B. 343 and that he was glad to hear that one of his main concerns, it being an enhanced system, had been addressed. He felt it was common knowledge that most of the kids involved in the process, approximately two-thirds, were in Clark County. The enhanced system would allow CCFYS to provide the best level of service and care possible. He advised that Clark County was also working along side the state of Nevada on integrating SACWIS (Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System). That integration would ensure that the entire state of Nevada, not just Clark County, would receive federal funds. He addressed the disparity in wages between the state of Nevada and Clark County with respect to bringing staff over from the state. He did request patience due to Clark County’s need for the most changes. He then stated that Clark County intended to utilize Washoe County as a systems model for the transition.
Chairman Anderson voiced his appreciation for Mr. Burgess’ testimony as well as his and Clark County’s burden under the proposed legislation. He also acknowledged the number of children Clark County dealt with as well as their efforts to resolve problems and meet children’s needs. He confirmed that solutions to the changes facing Clark County were not expected to take place overnight. Chairman Anderson made mention of a constituent in his district, a retiree from Washoe County, whose sole “cause” was fighting for the care and well-being of children.
After being addressed by Chairman Anderson, Commissioner Myrna Williams introduced herself and voiced her appreciation for the progress made with regard to the child welfare system. She discussed issues of infrastructure and services that only Clark County provided, even to surrounding cities, and advised that Clark County was definitely “stretching.” She complimented Mr. Burgess on his ability to turn ideas into realities. Commissioner Williams then voiced her hope that, perhaps in the next session, the problems that arose when siblings were separated through foster care and adoption would be addressed. She advised that those children “lose their roots and the only connection to family that they’ve ever had.” As to adequacy of the system, she agreed that the state workers were terrific and that the use of the word “inadequacy” did not apply to the state workers. She felt it reflected on the fiscal problems in understaffing. Commissioner Williams also addressed the complexity of issues relating to severely emotionally disturbed children and how she hoped the state and county would be able to deal with those matters in a more in-depth fashion. To date, symptoms had been dealt with rather than the diseases or root problems. She voiced her strong support for A.B. 343 and hoped everyone would take a long view of the fiscal matters involved. She assured the committee that this matter was a continuum. The continuum would save the state and local governments money by not overcrowding prisons with individuals whose younger years were so complicated and distorted. She advised that many prison inmates had lived in between 30 and 40 foster homes in their lifetimes and she had personally known some of them when they were children. In looking at a longitudinal study of the fiscal continuum over the long run as to health costs, prisons, juvenile detention centers, and the community in general, the benefits would be much more obvious. Just how beneficial it was to have the lives of those children turned around, on a human level, could not be measured. In closing, Commissioner Williams advised that Clark County had done some amazing things to ensure that it could meet the needs projected by A.B. 343 even while the economy was suffering. She did request no unfunded mandates, as they would force them to cut other services to seniors and others.
Michael Capello introduced himself as the Director of Washoe County Department of Social Services. Mr. Capello then hit the main points of his written presentation (Exhibit D). He wished to remind the committee that passage of S.B. 288 of the Seventieth Session allowed his department to work closely with the Department of Child and Family Services to form a pilot project with staff from both agencies. It constituted a mini-attempt to integrate the systems. Through that joint unit, they had been able to assist 156 children. He discussed the research project performed by Dr. Thom Reilly and how preliminary data strongly suggested they would be able to reduce the number of placements. It would certainly eliminate transition of caseworkers. They were able to access all of the mental health services available to both county and state staff. They were also seeing a reduction in the length of stays. He admitted that the data was limited to one year of experience, although he felt it demonstrated how an integrated system would meet many of the goals set. One of the lessons learned was that there needed to be no more than 28 children to a caseload. A wide array of family support and mental health services needed to be readily available to both staff and families to address issues early. Third, he advised that they needed to develop a large pool of flexible foster families, including those who early on would commit to adopting the children in the event they were not returned to their original homes. Finally, they needed a long-term commitment to funding child welfare and he reiterated his appreciation for the Governor’s efforts in that respect. He advised that a formula needed to be developed to address continued funding issues. Mr. Capello then advised the committee that those responsible for Washoe County’s involvement have worked hard to ensure an orderly transition of state employees to county service. That process included working closely with a personnel committee involving all stakeholders. He reiterated the value of the state employees. He then pointed out the state employees’ extensive knowledge of programs that Washoe County had not previously provided. He agreed that terminating bifurcation was a major challenge and confirmed Washoe County’s enthusiasm and commitment.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Mr. Capello’s personal sacrifices and efforts towards resolution of the bifurcation issue before calling Katy Singlaub forward.
Katy Singlaub, Washoe County Manager, echoed the thanks and praise previously stated. She confirmed Washoe County saw itself as a full partner with the state. Washoe County was committed and ready to assume responsibility for the momentous effort being addressed. She believed ending the existing bifurcated system would be a great legacy for the committee and legislature for future generations. Children within the child welfare system had been victims of circumstances and those actions being taken would end that victimization.
Chairman Anderson requested Allison Combs address the committee on the particulars of A.B. 343. Ms. Combs of the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau outlined A.B. 343, section by section. She advised that most of the new language changed references to the Division of Child and Family Services. References to Clark and Washoe counties and their respective roles as agencies that provided child welfare services were included. Those references were changed within adoption and termination of parental rights statutes. A new legislative committee on children, youth and families was provided for. Tasks involving review of child welfare services throughout the state, monitoring the mental health consortium, conducting hearings and making recommendations to the legislature were also provided. Other language allowed Washoe and Clark counties to perform necessary functions, establish required accounts and funds, and, among other necessities, create the mental health consortium.
Ms. Buckley advised that Clark County agreed to continue requiring social work licenses. She advised many, including a number of state workers, felt that not requiring licenses was a bad idea. That decision accounted for the social work licensure language included in A.B. 343.
Chairman Anderson reminded the assemblage that the bill became effective January 2002, except for the provision in Section 135.
Mr. Brower requested background information on Section 40 and wondered if it reflected standard Legislative Counsel Bureau language. That section allowed any member of the committee to administer oaths and allowed the chairman to cause depositions of witnesses to be taken and to issue subpoenas. Ms. Combs believed the language used was consistent with language used by other statutory legislative interim committees. Chairman Anderson confirmed that the language was consistent with his authority as chairman of the Committee on Judiciary. However, he was required to contact the Speaker before issuing any subpoenas. At the Chair’s request, Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, confirmed that the language was consistent with other standing committees. Such language was not required but did facilitate the process by avoiding the legislative commission. Mr. Brower then responded he had not realized the committee was allowed to depose witnesses given so many testified willingly, but he appreciated the clarification.
Chairman Anderson stated that the threat of a subpoena had been utilized to ensure compliance from other branches of the government when information was requested. He felt certain that some participation might have been avoided if the chairman did not possess such authority. He reiterated that testimony was being taken in support of A.B. 343 and called Pat Reddick forward to testify.
Pat Reddick introduced himself as a former resident of the Northern Nevada Children’s Home, having spent 14 of his first 18 years in foster care, and that his wife had also been in the care of the Children’s Home. He testified in support of A.B. 343.
Chairman Anderson called forward Dorothy Pomin of the Family-Foster Care Support/Advocate, Sierra Association of Foster Families. Ms. Pomin testified as to her full support of A.B. 343, agreeing that it was in the best interests of children. She stated that she had provided all aspects of care and most of her 12 years in foster care had been at a treatment level. She had taken many children into her home who had mental health issues due to disruption. She confirmed that many children suffered 18, 20 and even 30 placements during their foster care. One thing Ms. Pomin desired to have stated for the record was that to stabilize children, they needed stable foster homes. She called attention to the value of the preamble and its inclusions. She addressed the need for a very direct program for retention of foster homes through appropriate reimbursement and respite, and confirmed it was very expensive to the state when foster homes withdrew from the system. The pilot program had been so successful in part due to the excellent rate of reimbursement. She highlighted the phrase “rate of reimbursement” since people often misunderstood and believed foster parents were paid. They really were not. They were reimbursed for costs of care which, at the state level, amounted to approximately 50 percent. Those individuals essentially volunteered to spend money to be foster parents. She confirmed she was in full support of A.B. 343 and spoke on behalf of Sierra Association of Foster Families, Foster Care and Adoption Association of Nevada and Community Unity Coalition.
Chairman Anderson called forward Mr. Mark Nichols who introduced himself as the Executive Director of the National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter (NASW) and read from his written statement (Exhibit E). He testified in support of A.B. 343. He reminded the assemblage at large that “our children are our now” and not to delay meeting their needs. He felt children deserved and the public expected service by licensed social workers who abided by a professional code of ethics.
Chairman Anderson confirmed that all those who intended to testify in support of the proposed legislation had spoken. He then called forward Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employee's Association (SNEA). Mr. Gagnier confirmed his neutral position with respect to A.B. 343. He advised that the SNEA had not had A.B. 343 in its possession long enough to provide the Chair with a written amendment.
Mr. Gagnier advised that all comments made by him concerned Section 134 of A.B. 343, and began on page 60. He stated that several previous speakers had acknowledged the only real issues remaining pertained to personnel issues. As a representative for most of the employees being transferred from the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) to the counties, he stated that such personnel had very serious concerns. Some state personnel transferring to the counties were concerned with receiving equal treatment once they were there. SNEA intended to propose amendments in that regard.
Chairman Anderson confirmed for Mr. Gagnier that A.B. 343 was intended to be on a “fast track.”
Mr. Gagnier then addressed specific issues beginning with page 60, Section 1, subsection 4(b). He advised that the bill, at lines 32 through 44, would “short change” transferees as it forced them to choose between being paid for a relatively small portion of their unused sick leave or none at all. He believed that to be an unfair choice. Matter discussed at lines 32 through 44 constituted a very small portion of a person’s sick leave. He felt amendment was necessary.
In referencing page 61, subsection 6, Mr. Gagnier discussed prior concerns that Clark County had not intended to transfer social workers over with same categorization, “social workers.” He stated that nothing in the bill indicated transferred social workers would continue as social workers. Chairman Anderson then discussed how that could be construed as controlling a county’s hiring practices. Mr. Gagnier confirmed that the concern related to transferred personnel only. The Chair voiced his impression that Clark County intended to fill positions in that area with social workers. Mr. Gagnier stated there was no guarantee of such practice and, for that reason, wanted it included in A.B. 343. He then continued with his discussion, stating that an amendment was requested at page 61, subsection 8(a), line 30, with regard to employer-paid benefits. The United States Supreme Court guaranteed every state employee the right to choose between a joint-pay system and an employer-paid system. He advised that when the transfer took place, that right would be taken away and that was objected to. The most contentious issue discussed was that no prior state service was to be considered when transferees were placed on and progressed through the county pay scale. With respect to conversion of health benefits, Mr. Gagnier believed a clarification was all that was needed. There was a question of who paid for health insurance, if a waiting period for transferees existed, for that time period.
Chairman Anderson advised that A.B. 343 had been posted as a bill draft prior to its introduction and had been in circulation for approximately four days. He then requested Mr. Gagnier’s proposed amendments by Friday, March 16, 2001, as he intended to schedule it for that work session. If the bill was to be processed it would be as an amend and rerefer.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Rose Tuana of the State of Nevada, Board of Examiners. Reading from her prepared statement (Exhibit F), Ms. Tuana advised that the Board of Examiners supported the concept of A.B. 343. Although the Board had not performed a complete review of A.B. 343, Sections 130 and 136 specific to social work licensing were reviewed. During the subcommittee meeting on A.C.R. 53 one of the main issues discussed was fairness to all employees, state and county, affected by the bill. One of the concerns raised was that certain employees currently involved in child welfare who were not eligible for licensing, primarily in Clark County, would be required to be licensed under the models proposed during the meeting. The Board agreed not to oppose a limited grandfathering period to allow those employees who might be displaced to be licensed. One factor in that decision was that these employees, by virtue of their current positions, had some skill and experience in child welfare. Additionally, those same employees had access to further training in child welfare issues through the Nevada Partnership training program. Unfortunately, Section 130, as written, was not a limited grandfathering period. It reopened the original grandfathering provision to allow any person who was employed as a social worker, supervisor of social work, or administrator of social work employee to be licensed. As such, a person with no background experience or education to be a social worker could apply and receive a license. That would not be in the public interest or safety. Additionally, under Section 136, such a person could apply up to 2008. Initially, in 1987, when licensure was enacted, grandfathering was limited to six months. In the last legislative session, a new Board for Drug and Alcohol Counselors was formed. Their grandfathering period was also limited to six months. The Board of Examiners wished to propose amendments.
Ms. Tuana then reviewed her proposed amendments (Exhibit G) for the committee. Section 130, NRS 641B.210(1)(b), was to read “is employed by an agency in a county over 100,000 affected by this bill which provides child welfare services as a social worker, supervisor of social work or administrator of social work on September 1, 2002.” Additionally, instead of having it expire in 2008, the Board of Examiners would prefer it expired on July 1, 2003. In Section 130, NRS 641B.210(4), it was proposed that the date be changed from July 1, 1988 to September 1, 2002. That provision of the law was the provision that protected certain prelicensure employees of public agencies. It had no relevance to the current proposed grandfather provisions and the Board recommended the changes to that section be removed and the statute remain unchanged. Ms. Tuana advised that Section 130 as amended would ensure consistency of agencies, whether a county or a state agency. She felt that consistency throughout child welfare agencies was critical.
Chairman Anderson confirmed that Ms. Tuana would provide a copy of her amendments to the committee secretary before he called for further testimony from the assemblage.
John Guerrero introduced himself as a resident of North Dakota, born in Nevada. He was a resident of the orphans’ home between 1943 and 1947. He requested the legislators pass A.B. 343 and “give the kids today” the chance he had over 50 years ago. He felt he was a case Nevada could be proud of and that he had “done well” since leaving the children’s home.
Richard Dreitzer introduced himself as a Las Vegas attorney representing 75 state workers to be merged into the county system. Echoing Mr. Gagnier’s testimony, he also asked that state employees merged with the county “not be put behind” county employees as far as benefits and other elements of their compensation package. He expressed his hope and willingness to work with Mr. Gagnier in submitting proposed amendments on A.B. 343.
Chairman Anderson then suggested Mr. Dreitzer might wish to speak directly with Mr. Gagnier. He confirmed that Mr. Dreitzer was not affiliated with Mr. Gagnier. In answering the Chair’s inquiry, Mr. Dreitzer confirmed he would work with Mr. Gagnier as opposed to presenting any amendment to the committee. Chairman Anderson called for further testimony before closing the hearing on A.B. 343.
Chairman Anderson addressed a couple of issues in contention which he felt should be “cleaned up” before the bill was sent to the Ways and Means Committee. He discussed options for the bill, as to subcommittee, work session, delay, etc. Ms. Buckley recommended assigning A.B. 343 to a work session for next week. She felt that of the four issues raised, two should be easily resolved as the intent was agreed upon and the language simply needed work. A work session would give the committee an opportunity to review the amendments and have interested parties testify. Following discussion with Ms. Buckley, Chairman Anderson assigned responsibility for the materials on A.B. 343 to Ms. Buckley and requested materials by Tuesday.
Assembly Bill 342: Authorizes division of child and family services of department of human resources to enter into agreements for provision of maintenance and other services with certain persons. (BDR 38-324)
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 342 and called forward Dr. Thom Reilly.
Dr. Reilly advised the committee that there were also four young adults in Las Vegas, all former foster children, who wished to testify. They were interested in two issues. One involved not having an automatic exit at age 18. An extension until age 21 would give the Division and the courts an opportunity to perform case-by-case reviews whether to allow a child to stay in foster care until age 21 with an accompanying extension of Medicaid benefits to age 21. He advised that research, in the form of the Hunter Former Foster Care Youth study, had been performed. He felt that the outcomes were startling and that the children were making it although they experienced difficulty in their transition. He acknowledged Donald Gutterman’s contribution in pulling the study together and locating those Hunter youths.
Chairman Anderson provided instructions to the young adults testifying from Las Vegas before Jesica A. Reyes addressed the committee. Ms. Reyes introduced herself as a former foster youth. Upon exiting care, the state moved her out and “washed their hands” of her. As a former foster youth, she worked with Ken Meyer of the DCFS with respect to mentoring former foster youth on independent living. She advised that she was “just trying to make ends meet” since leaving foster care approximately four years ago. She worked two jobs: one full-time and another part-time, as well as went to school full-time. Neither of her employers offered medical benefits and she could not afford to pay a monthly premium. She experienced feelings of abandonment and isolation when her issues of abuse and neglect arose following her departure from foster care. Continued care would have benefited her with the option to remain in foster care until the age of 21 by which time she believed she would have had many of her issues resolved. Remaining in foster care with extended medical care until 21 would have assisted in her transition, as it would have also provided her with the counseling services she needed at 19. She needed assistance with such things as obtaining important documents, obtaining a driver’s license, improving her coping skills to better function within today’s society, networking and use of appropriate groups, as well as basic “how to” knowledge.
At Chairman Anderson’s cue, Krista Hershenhaus introduced herself as a former foster youth, having been in foster care for twelve years. At 18 she was not provided with a plan to leave but subtly pressured to join the Air Force. That lasted only four weeks at which point she returned to Las Vegas with no place to go and no money. A CASA worker “took [her] in” for a few months and helped her register for college. She advised the committee that she had graduated from high school when she was 16 and had been in college ever since. She felt it was important that foster kids have money to go to school and for rent so they could continue their education. She had several friends still in foster care who “checked out” when they were 18 and went to the Salvation Army homeless shelter because the state failed to help them get employment or continue their education. Some did not even graduate from high school because, at 18, they were pushed out. She had a number of friends who were “still there” at 18, 19, 21, and 22, “still there” going to college. She asked how prepared could someone really be at 18? In closing, she advised that she was in a severe car accident last October with no medical coverage and had $5,000 in bills. She felt it was very important that medical coverage be extended, especially to provide for counseling and “after care.”
Mason H. Ross Jr. introduced himself as a former foster care youth. Leaving foster care left him without a place to live. He was forced to leave school. He lived house-to-house until he met a teacher who led him to his current residence where the people were kind enough to take him in. He felt it was important A.B. 342 be passed. He recently lost his parents, a brother and other family members but no counseling was available.
Chairman Anderson attested to having heard Mr. Ross speak before and acknowledged the difficulty in speaking of such personal matters. He voiced his appreciation for Mr. Ross’ testimony and that Mr. Ross spoke for all those children in foster care.
Mr. Ross continued that he had recently received his general education diploma (GED). It had been difficult for him to find employment but he had done so. A.B. 342 would have helped avoid delays in his schooling. As far as medical coverage, he had been without medical coverage for approximately five years.
Judy Tudor introduced herself as a former foster youth who was employed as a supervisor with the DCFS. She testified predominantly as a former foster youth in support of A.B. 342. She agreed that 18 was an early age at which to be turned out into the world and many do not “have it together” at that age. She felt that there were quite a few issues that they were not able to deal with while in foster care. She respectfully disagreed with Chairman Anderson in that she did not believe the state did a very good job of being a parent. She believed the state did a good job providing services and trying to help foster children obtain services they needed prior to turning 18. She stated that by the time foster children were 18 and leaving the system, they did not have parents or a support system. They did, however, have issues with their natural family that were generally not dealt with while in foster care. For some of those who could remember when they were 16, 17 or 18, teenagers could be stubborn and did not necessarily realize that they had issues that needed to be dealt with. She felt that was truer for foster children. By that age, foster children usually just wanted out of the system. They often felt they were not treated fairly and often could not see the benefits the system could provide. They experienced obstacles and difficulties related to low self esteem, unresolved family issues, an unnatural comfort level with chaos, self-doubt, and self-sabotage. She agreed that extending foster care and Medicaid benefits until the age of 21 allowed for additional growth, counseling, and integration into society on a better level.
Chairman Anderson mentioned to Ms. Tudor that he was a school teacher who taught 16-, 17- and 18-year-old kids. He believed that Ms. Tudor’s experiences would be helpful to the committee and foster children alike.
Dorothy Pomin briefly advised the committee that A.B. 342 would not provide for reentry into the foster care system. She had performed group treating and had many children “age out” of her home. At 17½ Ms. Pomin observed in “soon to exit” children what she called “magical thinking.” That was where they thought they knew everything and that it would all work out. At approximately 19 they would realize they did not, in fact, know everything. She had numerous children experience the “if I’d only known then what I know now” syndrome and tell her they wish they could come back into the system. A.B. 342 did not address that mistake at all. Chairman Anderson inquired as to the difference between an 18-year-old leaving foster care and any 18-year-old leaving their family home. In essence, he asked what were the elements that demanded different treatment. Ms. Pomin responded that she believed many children bounced “in and out of the nest for a period of several years … as they get their feet back under them.” Foster children do not have that safety net.
Master Frances M. Doherty of the Second Judicial District Court added the Family Court’s support for bill modification of statute language that allowed more options to “our” children as they progressed through their older childhood and into adulthood.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 342.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 10: Urges Department of Human Resources to review federal Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 to determine feasibility of amending state plan for Medicaid to create new Medicaid eligibility group for young adults who have “aged out” of foster care. (BDR R-323)
Due to the limited time available, Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Buckley how she wished to proceed with respect to the resolution. Ms. Buckley responded that the resolution was also covered in the preceding testimony.
The Chair advised of his desire to take a do pass motion on A.B. 342 with a referral to the Committee on Ways and Means and that the Chair would entertain such a motion.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN Koivisto moved for a do pass with A Re‑referral to Ways and Means on A.B. 342.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT WITH MR. Oceguera ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
********
ASSEMBLYWOMAN mcCLAIN moved for a do pass on A.c.r. 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT WITH MR. Oceguera ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
********
Chairman Anderson requested Mrs. Koivisto present the resolution to the Assembly on behalf of the Committee on Judiciary and indicate their desire for support. The Chair then adjourned the meeting at 11:09 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl O'Day
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: