MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means

AND THE

Senate Committee on Finance

JOINT Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 18, 2003

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, Joint Subcommittee on K-12/Human Resources, was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003.  Chairman Raymond D. Rawson presided in Room 3137 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  There was a simultaneous videoconference to Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas.  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. 

 

Senate COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator Barbara Cegavske

Senator Bernice Mathews

Senator William J. Raggio

 

Assembly COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms. Sheila Leslie, Chairwoman

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons (Excused)

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Gary Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst

Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst

Larry Peri, Senior Program Analyst

Linda Smith, Committee Secretary

Catherine Caldwell, Committee Secretary

 

Senator Rawson referred to the past three years, which had been devoted to planning and implementation of the child welfare system integration, and he noted the process had not been easy.  Budget Account 3142, Child Welfare Integration, would be closed within 30 days, and all decisions related to the budget had to occur within the 30 days.  Senator Rawson emphasized new revenue would be required to fund the integration budget included in The Executive Budget.  If the revenue was not raised, the program could not continue.  Senator Rawson said it was untenable to go part way into the program and not continue with the integration.  There were two choices, move ahead with the integration, or back out of the program—it was all or nothing.

Senator Rawson thought if the program did not move forward, the state would not meet the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Title IV-E money would be threatened. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie agreed with the Chair’s comments.  Ms. Leslie said it was extremely important to keep in mind how horrible the bifurcated system had been for children.  System integration in Washoe County was almost complete, and Ms. Leslie felt it would be unthinkable to back down, and equally as unthinkable not to go forward with an integrated system in Clark County.  Ms. Leslie also hoped the Subcommittee could reach agreement within the next 30 days to go forward with the program.

 

Senator Rawson said because the members were quite familiar with the budget, it would not be necessary to go through every line item.  He asked Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, to testify first.

 

Mr. Reilly said integration was the “right thing to do.”  Ethically, the state owed it to the children to give them a permanent home in a timely manner; bifurcation undermined that goal.  Mr. Reilly confirmed Nevada would not meet the ASFA requirements if the bifurcated system was not eliminated and there would be fiscal penalties.  Mr. Reilly said a study of the Washoe County system demonstrated clearly that children in an integrated system were placed in permanent homes in a timelier manner and had fewer placements.  A study of children that “aged out” of the system, which was conducted in Las Vegas, found the outcomes were abysmal.  Children in Clark County who went through the child welfare system had more foster care placements, were more likely to incur violence in dating relationships, had trouble with the law, spent time in jail, had higher pregnancy rates, and were more likely to be homeless after leaving foster care.

 

Mr. Reilly said Clark County had acted responsibly and had worked closely with the Department of Human Resources (DHR), the Governor’s Office, and the Legislature to ensure the integration system would work.  The county had used maximum flexibility to meet the Governor’s minimum budget and funding requirements.  The county would have increased responsibilities in many areas that would not be supported by state funding.  Mr. Reilly said the county had agreed to absorb cuts of over $3 million for cost-of-living adjustments, growth, inflation, overtime, and other areas included in The Executive Budget.  The county would be severely affected by the proposed reduction of over $4.4 million in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding for the biennium.  Mr. Reilly indicated the Clark County Board of Commissioners supported integration of the children’s welfare system and the budget.  However, if the integration did not take place this session, Clark County would not be interested in continuing because of the impact on county staff, state staff, and many of the families.  Mr. Reilly said he would be happy to answer any questions.

 

Senator Rawson recognized the members of the Las Vegas Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and asked the members to stand.

 

The Honorable Gerald W. Hardcastle, Eighth Judicial District, Family Division, Department D, Clark County, said when the issue of eliminating the bifurcated system arose years ago, everyone working in the child welfare system envisioned the changes that would be made and looked forward to a new system.  Through the efforts of Thom Reilly, Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, and numerous other individuals, the process of child welfare integration began.

Judge Hardcastle recognized the outstanding leadership of Susan Klein‑Rothschild in the integration process.  Clark County had to move from an unfair system to a fair system for the foster children.  Judge Hardcastle acknowledged the possible loss of federal funding was a legitimate concern.  He said there should also be concern about federal receivership of the foster care system.  Judge Hardcastle said, “We should be doing this because it is absolutely the right thing to do for these poor children that are abused and neglected in our community.” Presently, the child welfare system in Clark County was an absolute disaster; the system was dying.  Case managers were leaving, caseloads exceeded reasonable standards, services were not being provided, and no funding was available for drug testing.  Judge Hardcastle believed it was critical to complete the integration process.

 

Michael J. Willden, Director, Department of Human Resources (DHR), introduced Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and Diane Comeaux, Deputy Administrator, DCFS.  He then referred the members to the DHR handout (Exhibit C).  In prior hearings, the DHR had been asked to identify the increased costs for integration, and Mr. Willden felt it was important for the Subcommittee to understand the integration costs were already included in The Executive Budget.  Mr. Willden emphasized that during the current meeting the DHR would present what the costs would be if integration did not move forward.

 

Senator Raggio said he did not think anyone would argue about the validity or desirability of the integration program.  He understood the costs for integration were included in The Executive Budget; however, the budget was not funded.  The Subcommittee needed to understand how much it would cost to implement the final phase of the integration program in Washoe County and to begin implementation in Clark County.  Additionally, the members needed to know what the future costs would be to the state, as well as the local governments, once integration was completed.  The members understood there was a large cost to transfer staff from state employment to county employment because the counties were able to pay much larger salaries than the state.  Senator Raggio said he did not think Clark County could drop the program as stated earlier in the meeting by Mr. Reilly.

 

Mr. Willden said the DHR was prepared to answer Senator Raggio’s questions and would also respond to questions about the future funding.  The Interim Committee on Children, Youth and Families had recommended a funding plan, which was not used in building The Executive Budget.

 

Mr. Cotton referred to page 9 of Exhibit C, which contained detail on the costs of implementing A.B. 1 passed by the 17th Special Legislative Session.  The A.C.R. 53 Subcommittee, through A.B. 1, had proposed integration of the state’s child welfare system and enhancement of the system.

 

Mr. Cotton referred to a spreadsheet on page 19 of Exhibit C and said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Cotton said if the integration occurred in Washoe County there would be a reduction of $326,000 in federal financial participation.  Senator Rawson indicated the Subcommittee would have questions about the reduced federal funding.  He thought the counties had concerns about not being able to bring in the same amount of federal funding as the state. 

 

Ms. Leslie asked for clarification on the legal counsel issue.  She noted the explanation included in the handout (Exhibit C) indicated the DCFS should see a dramatic reduction in the Attorney General’s cost allocation in the 2005‑2007 biennial budget.  Mr. Cotton said the DCFS was required to build current costs into the 2003-2005 biennial budget.

 

Diane Comeaux, Deputy Administrator, DCFS, said the Attorney General’s cost allocation was on a “two-year roll forward process.”  She said the amount included in the FY2004 budget for AG costs was the “2004 budget plus the difference between the 1999 actual expenditures and 2001 budgeted expenditures.”  Based on experience, the reduction in the AG cost allocation would not be realized for another two years.  Ms. Comeaux said she could not provide an estimate for the reduced amount of the cost allocation; however, the AG cost allocation included in the DCFS budget was $452,567.  Because of the budgeting process only the federal share was included in the budget account.  She said, “When you back out just the federal share or add in the General Funds, the actual allocation is $1.2 million.”  Approximately 25 percent of the usage, or $306,000, could be attributed to the northern region of the state.

 

Ms. Leslie asked if Washoe County would have responsibility for legal counsel.  Ms. Comeaux said the legal costs for Washoe County included on page 19 of the handout (Exhibit C) were the costs included in The Executive Budget.  She verified that the amount of $222,312 was the amount included for legal counsel to cover salaries and benefits for 1.75 FTE attorneys and 1 FTE clerical support position; some operating and indirect costs were also included in the amount.  Mr. Cotton pointed out that funding for legal counsel for both Clark County and Washoe County was included in the 2003-2005 biennial budget.

 

Mr. Cotton referenced the chart on page 17 (Exhibit C) which provided detail on the cost of integration of child and welfare services into Clark County, which had not yet been integrated.  The chart also included costs if the services remained in the DCFS and the differences between the two scenarios.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Cotton concluded his presentation and said there was a difference of approximately $5 million in FY2004 and $3 million in FY2005.

 

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani asked for further explanation of the AG cost allocations.  She noted that the integration in Washoe County was almost complete and asked when the DCFS anticipated removing the funding for legal counsel from the AG’s budget.  Ms. Comeaux said she believed the AG’s Office, because the cases had already been transferred, had reassigned the positions to other areas, or did not request additional positions in other areas.  Ms. Giunchigliani thought the Subcommittee could find savings through the AG’s budget.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the statewide adoption coordinator and the interstate compact coordinator.  Mr. Cotton said the DCFS would continue the two positions as state positions.  A new adoption coordinator would be created in Clark County.  The Division kept the adoption coordinator position because the DCFS continued to oversee adoption programs statewide, with the exception of Clark and Washoe Counties. The same issues applied to the interstate compact coordinator.  The coordinator’s responsibilities would include oversight of the federal interstate compact, regulatory changes, and ensure compliance with federal plans on interstate compacts.  The position in Clark County would coordinate the activities of children moving into or out of the state who were in different custodies.

 

Senator Rawson asked if the coordinator for Clark County was required because of the large volume of children, and Mr. Cotton said, “Yes.”

 

Mr. Cotton referred to the “Future Funding Plan” which began on page 21 of Exhibit C.   The DCFS had worked with Clark and Washoe Counties and the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families to develop a plan.   Mr. Cotton said the plan included a “swap” of costs between the state and the two counties.  He noted The Executive Budget did not utilize the recommended funding plan because there would have been too many risks to the state.

 

Senator Rawson thought the Subcommittee continued to have an interest in a swap but recognized there might not be time to address the issue this session.  Senator Rawson felt the swap would benefit the counties and the state.

Mr. Cotton said the information contained in the handout looked at having continuing discussions to determine if a “fixed funding formula” could be developed during the upcoming biennium.  Senator Rawson recognized the state cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) might be different than the COLA in the counties.  He asked about the future liability for the state should the counties continue to have greater salary increases than the state.  Mr. Cotton said page 22 (Exhibit C) addressed some of Senator Rawson’s concerns:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Cotton referred to funding after the 2003-2005 biennium.  The DCFS recognized that if integration did not occur, the state would maintain responsibility to fund an adequate child welfare system.  He referred to the principles the Governor had given the DCFS to follow when developing future integration budgets:

 

 

 

Mr. Willden said he wanted to be very clear on the rates because of questions raised about the term “non-federal share.”  He explained if a future legislature chose to raise the rate from $21 to $23 and there was a 50/50 match, then $1 of the $2 increase would be the state’s share that would be passed through, along with the federal dollars, to the counties.  However, if a county elected to increase the amount beyond the $23, that county would be responsible for the non-federal share to match the increase.

 

Senator Rawson said the explanation of the rates provided by Mr. Willden was an important point because the rate structure provided some stability in the state budget.

Mr. Cotton continued his presentation on future funding:

 

 

Senator Rawson asked if Clark and Washoe Counties had agreed to the DCFS proposal for future funding.  Mr. Willden thought, based on discussions with Mike Capello, Washoe County Social Services Director, Katy Singlaub, Washoe County Manager, and Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, the counties understood the difficult economic situation and would accept the current proposals, but nothing less.  Senator Rawson indicated the time for negotiations had passed.

 

Mr. Cotton addressed the last few items related to the future funding proposal:

 

 

 

Senator Raggio asked for an explanation of transferring “higher levels of care” to the counties and information on the suggested incentives.  Mr. Cotton said the area of higher levels of care did not transfer to the counties when A.B. 1 was passed.  Children requiring higher levels of care were in residential care, group home care, and higher-cost care other than foster care. Washoe County had a utilization review team comprised of state and local staff that determined the appropriate level of care.  A child needing a higher level of care and associated costs for the care were transferred to the DCFS.  Senator Raggio thought philosophically it was just as important for those children to be integrated.  Mr. Cotton agreed the higher levels of care were part of the integration process and explained it was difficult for any system to show savings and progress without the integration.  Senator Raggio said,

 

I have been primarily concerned with not the reason for doing this, but the eventual costs.  That seems to be lopsided insofar as the state share is concerned.  It sounds like we decided that was too costly to the counties, who want this very desperately, and we left the high costs with the state.  If it is a philosophical understanding it was equally important, it seems, that that be seamless as well.   That’s why I am asking these questions.  I am concerned ultimately about the fairness between state and local governments, and everybody knows I have raised the issue about the ability of either the state or the local governments to fund any of these kinds of programs.

 

Ms. Comeaux said higher levels of care were uniquely funded with Medicaid and Title IV-E dollars, which were difficult to manage.  She believed the complexity of federal funding was the reason the DCFS decided not to transfer higher levels of care initially, but planned to look at the transfer in the future.

 

Mr. Willden said the DCFS concurred that the higher levels of care needed to be integrated.  Currently, the higher levels of care cost the state $10 million.  The DCFS planned, perhaps in the next two years, to transfer the entire system to the counties and determine an appropriate funding mechanism.  During the interim the counties would control the front-end of the system and perhaps be able to prevent the children from going into the higher levels of care.  The DCFS hoped to pass-through contractually over the next biennium a percentage of any savings resulting from children not elevating through the system.  Mr. Willden thought the incentive would result in the counties providing better services and keeping children at lower cost levels of care.

 

Ms. Leslie thought Washoe County would be able to save significant money “on the back-end,” and said she would like to see some type of cost-sharing plan.  Mr. Willden said the intent of the DCFS was to have a cost-sharing plan in place by July 1, 2003.

 

Mr. Willden wanted to make certain the Subcommittee understood the future funding plan included in Exhibit C was not the final future funding plan. The biggest concern over the past few years was becoming comfortable with all the risks related to a swap.  Mr. Willden stated there was still great interest in having some type of fixed funding formula, but thought all the parties wanted to see some actual years of experience.  Washoe County had a number of months of experience, but Clark County had no experience with integration.  Mr. Willden said the DCFS thought the proposed integration of the child welfare system was a good first step, would provide information on actual experience in operating under an integrated system, and then the DCFS could hopefully return to the next Legislature with a proposal for a fixed formula moving forward.

 

Senator Rawson said during some of the meetings he had been surprised at the cooperation and the excitement that had developed between the different groups.  It had been a refreshing experience. 

 

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District 8, said she was honored to have served as Chair of the Legislative Committee on Children, Youth and Families during the last interim period.  She thought Thom Reilly and Judge Hardcastle had eloquently set forth the need for integration.  Ms. Buckley looked forward to working with the Committee to make certain the system would be improved for the children.

 

Senator Rawson stressed the importance of funding the budget as presented, but recognized the Legislature had to work through the issue of how the revenue would be raised. 

 

Katy Singlaub, Washoe County Manager, appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee in support of the Child Welfare Integration Budget for the DCFS.  She introduced Mike Capello, Director of Washoe County Social Services, Judge Deborah Schumacher and Judge Charles McGee, Second Judicial District Family Court, and District Attorney Dick Gammick.

 

Ms. Singlaub said Washoe County and partners throughout state government had participated in planning the integration project over the past five years starting with A.C.R. 53, which established the Legislative Commission’s Subcommittee to study the integration of child welfare systems in Nevada.  The Subcommittee made recommendations to the 2001 Legislature to end the bifurcated child welfare system in Washoe and Clark Counties. Effective January 6, 2003, the last of 53 state workers and 500 children were successfully transferred to the care of Washoe County.  The Governor’s funding proposal for integration included several components that represented a sound plan to fulfill the mutual goals for child welfare integration.  Caseloads for child welfare workers would be consistent throughout the state.  The state would reimburse Washoe County and other counties for family foster care at the rate approved by the Legislature for all families throughout the state.  Washoe County would continue to be responsible for the costs of the front-end, or emergency investigation and early placement end, of the system.   The state would be responsible for the back-end, or long-term placement costs of the system, except that the state would be responsible only for cost-of-living adjustments equal to any cost-of-living adjustments paid to state workers and only those inflationary cost increases approved for state agencies.  The county had committed to the Governor, Assemblywoman Buckley, and all the key stakeholders that it would support the funding proposal because the proposal was fair and equitable. 

 

Ms. Singlaub said Washoe County had proceeded in the partnership effort as directed by A.B. 1 because “we believe it is the right thing to do.”  The integrated child welfare system was already yielding positive outcomes for children and families and would enable Nevada to meet the requirements of the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act.  A pilot project authorized by S.B. 288, passed by the 1999 Legislature and sponsored by Senator Maurice Washington, had produced some evidence that integration worked.  A study of the pilot project conducted by Dr. Thom Reilly showed that children were moved less frequently, received more caseworker visits, visited their parents more often, and, most importantly, on average the children in the pilot project had a shorter stay in foster care; 65 percent of the children in the pilot project left foster care within 18 months, compared to 42 percent of the children who did not participate in the pilot project.

 

Ms. Singlaub indicated Washoe County empathized with the Governor and the Legislature in the revenue shortfall challenge.  Washoe County was also facing a large shortfall of $18 million in FY2004.  The county absorbed $2 million in reductions of state funding last year and with the Governor’s proposed integration budget would be facing a $2.7 million gap between the back-end costs and the support from the state over the next biennium for staffing levels, caseloads, and practices that had been utilized since the start of the pilot project.  Additionally, the county would not receive the $1.8 million grant that had been received for the past 8 years from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).  Mike Capello had testified at the Division of Welfare’s budget hearing on March 4, 2003, that the TANF grant covered services to children and families at the front-end of the system.  Services included counseling, drug court, and in-home services to stabilize families.  Services were provided to prevent out-of-home placements and/or facilitate permanent placements for children as quickly as possible.  Ms. Singlaub explained that service cuts at the front-end had a negative impact on the back-end outcomes for children and families over time.  The cuts represented a total of approximately $5.4 million in funding, reductions that the county commissioners would have to offset for the integrated system for all the children in the county’s care over the biennium.  Washoe County would not be in a position to absorb cuts in the back-end of the child welfare budget.  To do so would compromise the ability to provide needed services. Over the last eight years Washoe County had significantly enhanced the child protective services program, striving to ensure the safety of the children and providing those children and families with a comprehensive array of services that had a significant impact on how the children would live the rest of their lives. 

 

Ms. Singlaub stated questions were raised earlier about the abilities of the counties to assist the state in reducing the higher levels of care. In Washoe County there was documented evidence that front-end services did reduce the back-end requirement for higher levels of care. 

 

Ms. Singlaub said the Board of County Commissioners had maintained a long‑standing commitment to provide quality child welfare services and had fully funded with local dollars such things as the County’s participation in the Unity Information System. Washoe County believed deeply in what the Legislature envisioned for child welfare and had kept its promise to the Legislature.

 

Senator Raggio asked if the Board of Washoe County Commissioners had taken a formal position on the need to raise revenues at the state level.  Ms. Singlaub indicated the Board had endorsed the Governor’s budget proposal for child welfare, but had not taken a formal position in terms of state revenue issues.  Senator Raggio said The Executive Budget required an increase in specific taxes and he wanted to know if the Board endorsed the Governor’s tax plan to fund the budget.  Ms. Singlaub indicated she would convey Senator Raggio’s request to the Board.

 

Mr. Capello said the Board had asked him to appear on their behalf to provide the members with a brief history of the integration.  He said in 1986 the Board voted to place a 4-cent ad valorem tax on the ballot to support funding child protective services.  The initiative passed and since then the Board had been committed to funding the up-front child protective services program.  In 1995, a grand jury investigated the circumstances surrounding the deaths of nine children over an 18-month period.  The investigation resulted in a recommendation to evaluate the child protective services program.   An independent consultant reviewed the program practices and made numerous recommendations.  One of the recommendations was to broaden the area of abuse or neglect to a broad family assessment that would look at the underlying issues that resulted in child abuse and neglect.  Workers’ caseloads were reduced from 1:15 to 1:12 and the permanency, or ongoing foster care units were at 1:28.  A paraprofessional unit was developed to provide support services to families.  The Board voted to increase the ad valorem tax by one-half cent, dedicating that one-half cent to child protective services for a total of 4.5 cents specifically supporting the program.  In addition, there was an ongoing general fund transfer to support the overall program costs.

 

In summary, Mr. Capello said the Board of Washoe County Commissioners had been extremely supportive of the program and had built a system that had become the model within the state and throughout the western states.  Mr. Capello reiterated it was the front-end foundation of providing good case management and minimizing the movement of children that would reduce the higher levels of care at the back-end of the system.  The emotional traumas of disruption and not receiving needed services resulted in the children needing higher levels of service.

 

Richard A. Gammick, District Attorney, Washoe County, said it was paramount that qualified professionals represent child welfare cases. There were currently 5 attorneys and 3.5 FTE support staff who worked on the child welfare cases in Washoe County.  One of the attorneys had been promoted to Chief Deputy and administered the entire program.  Mr. Gammick said he was a member of the Executive Board of the Boys and Girls Club of Truckee Meadows and was deeply involved in just about every other child-related program because children were the future.  Mr. Gammick said the District Attorney’s Office was looking at cutting approximately $1 million.  He had committed to the child welfare integration and would be left with a tough decision if funding was not received to help support the program.  Mr. Gammick said the legislators were not the only ones having a difficult time addressing budget issues.  He asked that the Legislature continue to fund the integration of the child welfare system; not funding the integration would result in the loss of a valuable program. The county had been busy completing all areas involved in the integration.  Once everything settled down, Mr. Gammick thought the incentive issue could be addressed.

 

The Honorable Deborah E. Schumacher, District Court Judge, Second Judicial District, Family Division, Department 5, Washoe County, said the bifurcated system harmed the children it purported to protect.  She stated bifurcation resulted in delay, disruption of placement, disruption of service, and poor case management.  Judge Schumacher referred to her role as the lead judge for the Model Court effort in dependency in Washoe County, under the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.  In that guise, she had the opportunity, through a monthly conference call, to meet with all the national judges who were lead court judges in this area.  Most of Nevada’s sister states had completed reviews of child and family services.  Reams of documentation related to the reviews had been received, scrutinized, and reviewed to determine what Nevada would face in 2004.  Based upon the standards applied to Nevada’s sister states, Judge Schumacher was certain the bifurcated system would not be found ASFA compliant.  Judge Schumacher stated Nevada would not pass the child and family service review; no state had passed the review.  Judge Schumacher had every reason to believe, based on what had occurred in other states, that no remediation plan would be accepted that continued the bifurcation system because the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) was all about accountability and true outcomes for children and not about paper compliance. 

 

Senator Raggio referred to Judge Schumacher’s statement that no plan would be considered in compliance and accepted if bifurcation was involved.  He asked if the higher levels of care would be in compliance.  Judge Schumacher explained that funding for the higher levels of care was being assumed by the state, but Washoe County never transferred cases back to state custody.

 

Senator Raggio requested that Subcommittee staff confirm whether the Title IV‑E money would be available and whether Nevada would be considered to be noncompliant if the system was bifurcated.

 

Judge Schumacher said it was certainly her judgment that Nevada would be noncompliant.  She said no other state had a bifurcated system, “so you will not find in the reviews of other states the exact answer you are seeking, but you will find indicia of the kind of scrutiny that has been applied to other states.”   Judge Schumacher offered to provide staff with copies of the reviews.

 

Judge Schumacher wanted to be certain the Subcommittee understood that the ASFA was to child welfare reform what TANF was to federal reform.  The ASFA was a fundamental change that required making safety paramount, permanency planning to start immediately for children, documenting outcomes, and innovation.  It was important to find a way to fund reasonable caseload standards for social workers and provide the tools to unify families, which required in almost every case substance abuse treatment resources and mental health resources.  Judge Schumacher hoped the Legislature would find a way to continue the integration process.

 

The Honorable Charles M. McGee, District Court Judge, Second Judicial District, Department 2, Washoe County, said, like Judge Schumacher and Judge Hardcastle, he had become an expert in the ASFA and the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).  Both acts were disturbing to judges because executive functions were transferred to judges who were uncomfortable overseeing a system without having budget responsibility.  Judge McGee said, even if the Governor’s budget was adopted, it was very likely Nevada would still fail the ASFA audit.  All of the 34 states that were audited had failed and none of those states had the burden of a bifurcated system.  Judge McGee thought perhaps Nevada could “buy two years” because of the current fiscal situation, but the fallout from doing so would be catastrophic.  The state could “back out” of the integration process, but the effect would be a receivership down the line and the loss of the Title IV‑E guaranteed funding on a wholesale basis.  Judge McGee thought Washoe County might fair well in an audit because of the help provided by the state and because integration was 90 percent complete.  However, audits were conducted on states, not counties, and the entire state would fail an audit because of the disastrous numbers in Clark County.  Judge McGee suggested the counties wait and marshal their resources. 

 

Judge McGee said the deaths of the children in the welfare system that occurred during an 18-month period resulted in the county having to “go to war” on the bifurcated system.  He stated:

 

If we don’t take it all the way this time, if we don’t purge that Saddam Hussein monster of child abuse in Nevada the first time, then it is going to cost us legions more the second time around.  We have to do it right the first time, or not do it at all.

 

In conclusion, Judge McGee said Nevada needed child welfare integration desperately.  The state needed to complete the program or stop in place and watch Nevada go from being a leader in the area to last among the states.

 

Senator Rawson said he thought all the Subcommittee members understood the issue just addressed by Judge McGee.

 

Senator Rawson indicated there would not be time for everyone to speak and he asked everyone in attendance in Carson City and in Las Vegas who supported the integration of the child welfare system to stand.

 

Dr. J. Jeffers, President, Sierra Association of Foster Families in Northern Nevada, stated he was also a foster parent with three foster children in his home.  As president of the Sierra Association of Foster Families he represented hundreds of foster families and the hundreds of children in foster care.  Governor Kenny Guinn had declared May of 2002 as Foster Parent Appreciation Month.  The proclamation stated:

 

Nevada’s foster families by opening their hearts, homes, and lives, give these children an opportunity to experience life within safe surroundings and provide the very foundation of care upon which Nevada’s entire child welfare system is built and without foster families, these vulnerable children would otherwise be housed in institutional and non-family like settings.  It is in the public’s interest to support and extend gratitude to these selfless individuals who have chosen to become foster families.

 

Dr. Jeffers said at the time of the proclamation, foster families in Washoe County received $44 per day for each foster child in their home.  He disclosed that shortly thereafter, the reimbursement rate was reduced to $30 per day, or $1.25 per hour. The families were also notified that liability insurance coverage for foster homes would be cancelled, and each foster home was required to purchase liability insurance with a maximum $300,000 coverage.  Washoe County foster parents were notified that clothing allowances would no longer be provided for the foster care children.  Dr. Jeffers indicated the clothing allowances barely covered basic items, and said the majority of foster parents used personal funds to provide for the children in their care.  Respite care services would be reduced by 31 percent.

 

Dr. Jeffers said the cost-of-living was increasing and he was extremely concerned that The Executive Budget, if approved, would result in reduced funding for the foster care system.  Foster children required transportation to school, to doctor appointments, parental visits, and many other activities.  Many foster children were medically fragile as a result of neglect and abuse.  Foster parents met the needs of the children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  The parents received no vacation pay, no sick pay, no health insurance, no retirement program, and certainly no privacy.  One of the challenges of the Sierra Association of Foster Families was to be involved in recruitment and retention of dedicated, caring, and professional foster families.  Nationally, since 1995, children needing foster care placement had doubled, and the available foster care parents had decreased by 4 percent.  In Washoe County there were 200 licensed foster homes and almost 400 children in foster care.  Many children had to be placed in institution-like settings while waiting for a foster home to become available.  Dr. Jeffers said Nevada was experiencing an exodus of physicians due to the increased medical malpractice insurance costs, and he feared foster parents would follow suit and leave the system because the state elected to balance its budget on the back of the foster children. 

 

Dr. Jeffers said the Association had reviewed the Governor’s budget during the past week and had received numerous e-mails and telephone calls from concerned parents, many of whom would be unable to continue foster care if the budget cuts were approved.  An indication of the moral fiber of any civilization was how it provided and planned for the elderly and especially the children.

 

Dr. Jeffers concluded his presentation and said, “What you do and what the Governor does will determine whether these children will have decent housing, clothing, food, and a caring family to live with who will nurture, support, and love them.”

 

Mary Herzik, Director, Washoe County Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program, said she would be presenting the CASA’s position on the statewide integration of child welfare services.  The courts depended upon a core of specially trained volunteers to represent the best interests of children who came before the court as a result of child abuse and neglect.  The mission of the CASA and the courts was to ensure the children were placed in a safe, permanent home as quickly as possible.  Based on caseload, the CASA believed the state child welfare system was severely under-funded.  The system did not provide the resources to enable children to successfully achieve permanency within the 12 months required by the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Ms. Herzik recognized A.B. 1, passed by the 17th Special Session, provided basic enhancements to the child welfare system.  Ms. Herzik emphasized the enhancements must continue to be funded for Nevada to meet the requirements of the ASFA.

 

Ms. Herzik said she had recently heard of a young woman who had been in 21 different foster care placements and had 10 different social workers.  The young woman had just been released from the Adolescent Treatment Center (ATC) after receiving nine months of services and would be enrolling in McQueen High School in Reno.  The young woman’s history reinforced Ms. Herzik’s belief in the need for the integration of the child welfare system.

 

Ms. Herzik referred to the major concerns the CASA had related to a bifurcated child care system:

 

 

Ms. Herzik said the Legislature and the Governor had made a commitment to the children and families served in the child welfare system by the passage of A.B. 1.  The integration of services in Washoe County was complete and the responsibility for all children in the foster care system was under the Washoe County Department of Social Services.  Ms. Herzik emphasized the services to the children must continue to be funded, keeping the principles of A.B. 1 in mind.  The CASA in Washoe County strongly supported the integration of child welfare services.  Ms. Herzik asked that the budget not be balanced disproportionately at the expense of needed services and a seamless child welfare system.

 

Gard Jameson, Vice President, Children’s Advocacy Alliance Board (CAA), said two years prior to the passage of A.B. 1, the Alliance had conducted a “millennium foster care initiative’ inviting Child Protective Services, DCFS, the Foster Care Association, the UCCSN, and a variety of interested parties to look at the dismal state of affairs with respect to foster care in Nevada.  The CAA then worked in a public/private capacity with Joy Salmon and Thom Reilly of Clark County to bring forth the process, which was entitled “A Summit on the Integration of Child Welfare Services,” to begin to move toward the seamless integration.  The intent was to move from a permanency rate for foster care of over 3 years to a more appropriate rate of 12 months.  The Board was working on a plan to ensure funded scholarships for any child in the foster care system.  Mr. Jameson noted that many of the youth who emerged from the foster care system could find no place to go but the streets.  From the streets a significant number of the foster care children found their way into the prison system; prisons that cost a great deal of state money and had a tremendous social cost.

 

Mr. Jameson explained the CAA felt reducing funding for A.B. 1 would be unconscionable and could not be allowed to happen.  Mr. Jameson said the pattern in Nevada was clear, when there was a budgetary issue, the children were held hostage.  He recognized that many of the legislators were aware of “what we are doing to our children in the state of Nevada.”  The CAA report card showed an overall grade with respect to children of a D-, with an F in education and the area of teenage years.  One out of every ten Nevada teenagers had “made a move toward” suicide; one out of five had contemplated suicide.  Because of contradictory statistics in the area of child welfare, no statistics were included in the 2002 Report Card.  Mr. Jameson said the lack of consistent data reflected the abysmal state of the child welfare system in Nevada.  The Child Welfare League of America stated there should be 17 child welfare cases per child welfare worker.  In Clark County, the caseload ratio was close to 45:1. 

 

Mr. Jameson noted the CAA was organized after a budget crisis forced the closure of the Southern Nevada Children’s Home, separating siblings and further traumatizing abused children.  Mr. Jameson said:

 

We live in one of the wealthiest states in the nation.  We live in a state that is in the top quartile of wealthy states.  Such wealth goes directly to the issue of funding.  When it comes to children we are in the top quartile, but when it comes to caring for the children, we are alongside West Virginia, Mississippi, and Alabama.

 

Mr. Jameson said the state had an obligation to meet the goals of child welfare because Nevada had the resources. The CAA had demonstrated public/private partnerships were possible and would help Nevada in funding the issues.  The CAA had raised $1.2 million to construct a building for the SAINT (Sexual Abuse Investigative Team) program at Child Haven in Clark County.  The CAA understood the position of the Subcommittee and thanked the members for their advocacy on the part of foster care children.  Mr. Jameson asked the members to explain to fellow legislators that a significant removal of funding from A.B. 1 was absolutely unconscionable.   Mr. Jameson concluded his presentation and referred to comments made by the head of the Foster Care Association, “The clearest sign of the failure of any democracy is when the rights of children are denied.”

 

Stephanie Martin began her testimony and stated she had been in the foster care system for six years.  Miss Martin explained she was born into a dysfunctional family and had been severely abused as a child.  She had been in three drug rehabilitation programs and had recently been paroled.  Miss Martin said she returned to a loving foster home and foster mother.  She had received a great deal of help from her social worker and through counseling.  Miss Martin indicated she had become a different person because of the foster care system and the loving care she had received from her foster family.  Miss Martin wanted the Subcommittee to understand there were many young people who needed love, help, and guidance from families.

 

Senator Rawson asked Miss Martin if she was currently attending school.  Miss Martin indicated she was on parole and would be meeting with school officials on Friday.  She expressed her desire to graduate from high school and acknowledged there would be tough days ahead, but with the help of her foster family she would succeed.  Senator Rawson thanked Miss Martin for her testimony and explained the members did not know how to address individual cases, but the Subcommittee would do their best to help the foster care program.

Carolyn Sasek, member, Sierra Foundation of Foster Families, read her testimony into the record:

 

Quality of life, what does that look like to you?  To me it is spending time with my family, learning new things, embarking upon new challenges and being a participant in my community.

 

I imagine that to a child coming into foster care quality of life is not quantifiable.  The larger numbers have known circumstances that to most of us are incomprehensible.  We are taught through our training that these children are often removed from their homes suddenly and without knowing why.  So they leave a home that is dysfunctional, but home nevertheless—it is their family, it is what they know.

 

As I understand, most children are first placed in Kids Kottage.  This is not to slam Kid’s Kottage, the staff does the best it can with what it has to work with, but it is a facility, an institution of sorts, it is not a home.  There is a staff, not parents.  It has its limitations. The basic needs are met, i.e., food, shelter, clothing, but what about the emotional support, nurturing, and a sense of belonging that can only be fully recognized in a home environment.

 

In a home environment, a family setting, a child learns socialization skills that are essential to personal relationships and social interactions.  After all, who taught you manners and kindness?  In a family you participate in shared activities such as picnics, games, and outings that are enjoyed because you are part of a family.

 

Extracurricular activities such as playing on a school or community sports team, taking gymnastics, dance, or music lessons have been proven to benefit children in numerous ways.  Have you considered that extracurricular activities have the ability to create new patterns of living, thus breaking age old family cycles of inappropriate choices, such as, drug and/or alcohol addiction, teen pregnancy, criminal activity, running away, homelessness, and suicide?  Participation in community sports or taking lessons for any of the activities noted is unlikely for a child being cared for in a facility, but participation in any of the activities, for a child living in a home environment, not only allows and encourages the participation, but with it comes the loving support of a family cheering them on from the bleachers.  I don’t know about you, but it was always more fun with my own fan club.

 

What’s the alternative if in-home foster care is reduced or eliminated?  Institutionalizing the unwanted will be stepping back decades to a time when those with illnesses and disabilities were throw away children and most often sent away to live in hospitals no matter how major or minor their disability.

 

In this case it won’t necessarily be a true illness or disability, as defined by Webster, that causes these children to be forced into such an environment, it will be a lack of alternatives.  The private foster care home will not be an option.

 

In the long run it will cost our communities far more and I’m not talking about just dollars and cents, although that will be far more as well.  I don’t have to tell you what the financial scope is to build and operate a facility to provide for children in care.

 

Children raised in a loving, supportive home environment have a far greater success rate to become productive members of our society. Children raised in an institutional setting are more likely to feel detached and have less of a conscience, greater difficulty with life and social skills.  In the long run a greater potential for requiring ongoing assistance from our social services, as well as a greater potential of being incarcerated in our correctional system.  Is this the future we want for our children?  Is this the future we want for our communities, our state, our country?

 

On the outside of an elementary school in Reno, Nevada, there is a saying that I implore you to consider: Children are 25 percent of our population and 100 percent of our future.  It is with this in my heart that sustains my desire to be a foster parent.  There is a poem that sums it up the best:

 

“One hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove, but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.”

 

Cindy Adams came before the Subcommittee as a private individual. As a marriage and family therapist, Ms. Adams had worked primarily with abused and neglected children and their families for the past 18 years.  She was also a foster family parent and an adoptive parent and was concerned with the decreased subsidies and funding for foster families.  Ms. Adams said foster and adoptive parents were at the front lines of intervention to future crime rates, over‑crowded jails, and untold costs to the communities.  Foster and adoptive parents had 24-hour-a-day roles of retraining values, healing wounds, and teaching children how to be productive members of society.  Many of the parents expended their own funds to cover the needs of the children. Ms. Adams said 100 percent of the children in foster care were in need of some type of treatment.  Many of the children were destructive, and the foster families received the full brunt of their anger and destruction.  Ms. Adams said foster families often needed respite because of being so overloaded.  She voiced concern that many of the foster families would be exiting out of the foster care program.  Ms. Adams said it was so important to offer the abused and neglected children the opportunity to be “real kids.”  She urged the Subcommittee to do whatever was required to fund the foster care program and not take away funding from the foster families.  There were too few foster families.

 

Mary Reese, foster parent, said in addition to being a foster parent of teenage girls, she was also a Washoe County teacher.  Ms. Reese indicated her presentation would be brief and would address the practical side of being a foster parent.  During a one-week period Ms. Reese had purchased a “Good Kid Picture” for $10 because one of her daughters was an honor student.  She also provided a chocolate cream pie for the math class, $20 for cheerleading practice, $5 for the school dance, and $10 for the book fair.

 

Katherine MacKenzie, Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, emphasized that her section of the Public Defender’s Office represented parents whose children had been removed in abuse or neglect cases.  Ms. MacKenzie stated de‑bifurcation was a positive step in the congruity of services to families.  In the past, Washoe County was the initial removing agency and provided short-term reunification efforts.  If reunification could not be achieved in three to six months, a petition was filed to transfer the case to the Division of Child and Family Services.  After the case was transferred to the state for long-term reunification efforts, the family would have another social worker and the child would be moved into a state foster home.  The child was already traumatized by removal from the family home.  Each move in foster care was another trauma to the child that was imposed by the county or the state of Nevada.  At each social worker change, valuable time was spent rewriting a case plan or reidentifying services because the family was being serviced by a new agency.  The reunification process took a step backwards because things had to be done all over again with another agency.  Ms. MacKenzie indicated the changes were often more excessive than those just described.

 

Ms. MacKenzie said having only one agency providing services in the de‑bifurcation process would result in a family having two social workers at the most, and the child would have only two placements at the most.  The benefits to the family and the child were self-evident.  De-bifurcation funding continued to be a necessity.  The ASFA required intensive services to reunify families at the beginning of the cases and required a permanency plan for the child at 12 months.  If the budget did not place a priority on de-bifurcation and the ASFA requirements, Nevada would have the possibility of failing badly.  The choice was now before the Subcommittee, and Ms. MacKenzie hoped the choice would be to continue to make de-bifurcation a financial priority to service the families and children of Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Goldwater recognized there were legislators who did not empathize with the fiscal problems the child welfare system was facing.  Mr. Goldwater thought the Subcommittee members understood the problems and were in agreement with the Governor’s recommendation.

 

Mr. Goldwater said he had received numerous e-mails from individuals who were against any tax increases and asked that the budgets be cut.  He did not think individuals who wanted tax cuts attended welfare budget hearings and he had made the same observation during hearings for mental health, Medicaid, and other disability budgets.  Mr. Goldwater wanted the DCFS to understand that the Subcommittee thought the Division had submitted a responsible budget.

 

Ms. MacKenzie agreed with Mr. Goldwater’s observation and she thought individuals who wanted the budgets cut should testify before the legislative committees.

 

Senator Rawson reflected that recently someone had said, “cut to the bone,” however, the Senator recognized “the cuts were to the marrow.”  He did not understand how anyone could responsibly suggest cutting the budget when the daily rates for foster care had been cut from $1.80 to $ .87 an hour.

Cindy Johnson, foster parent, read a letter forwarded by an individual who could not attend the meeting:

 

Growing up for me was anything but normal or healthy.  As a child I knew not all children lived the way I lived.  I asked myself why?  Why couldn’t we have a normal house, normal clothes, and normal food on the table every night?  Doesn’t anyone care what is happening to us?  Isn’t there anyone that can help us?  Why won’t anyone listen?  I told myself that someday we would get out of here and someday I would be normal.  Finally, someone listened and the day my sister talked to her school counselor was the day someone helped us.  I will never forget that day, or any day since.  I knew all I needed was a chance and foster care gave me that chance.

 

Finally I had clothing, food, and opportunity.  I was able to go to school and not be burdened with thoughts of the misery I faced when I got home.  I could sleep soundly and uninterrupted.  I had teachers who believed in me and I excelled.  I graduated from high school with honors and a freshman scholarship to UNR.  I have had my ups and downs.  I have been both broke and financially secure.  I never stooped to drugs, prostitution, theft, or any number of addictions the way my siblings did.  Somehow I feel some or even all these things would not have been possible had it not been for foster care and the opportunity it gave me.  I know there are many other kids out there who feel the same way I did, that is why I am also getting licensed to be a foster parent.  I want to give at least one child the opportunity I was given and without the funding and the ability to give these kids the tools they will need to succeed in life means only more will suffer, just like I did.

 

There is so much more I need and want to say to help everyone understand how truly important this issue is, however, I hope the room is so filled with voices that there won’t be enough time as it is, so let’s raise those voices and fill the room.  Speak for our children.  Thank you.

 

Ms. Johnson identified the author of the letter as Chandra.

 

Ms. Johnson said she and her husband had been licensed foster parents for over eight years and had fostered over 25 children.  If there were additional budget cuts, Ms. Johnson feared she would not be able to continue providing foster care, and she would be devastated.

 

Mark Nichols, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Social Workers, indicated strong support for the priority of the child welfare system and adequately funding the system.  Mr. Nichols said in days of priorities and budget deficits at the family level, the state level, and the federal level, children were “our now.”   If the state continued to have large caseloads per social worker, children would continue to fall through the cracks.  Nevadans needed to step forward and support the legislators who were willing to address the state revenue issue. 

 

Mr. Nichols said he wanted to share a brief poem with the Subcommittee:

 

We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life.  Many of the things we need can wait, the child cannot.  Right now is the time.  Bones are being formed, blood is being made, senses are being developed.  To the child we cannot answer tomorrow, the child’s name is today.

 

In closing, Mr. Nichols urged the Subcommittee not to ignore the children in the child welfare system.

 

Deanne Blazzard, representing the Foster Care and Adoption Association of Nevada, said in the 18 years she had been a foster parent, she had provided foster care to many children because of the parent’s unwillingness, or inability to financially support the children.  Ms. Blazzard said the legislators were in the position of looking after the children who were now the state’s children.  The child welfare integration program needed to be funded. 

 

Michelle Snyder said she had been a foster child and had been a foster parent for the past six years.  Ms. Snyder felt the system was reverting to the system that existed 20 years ago. Her foster family did not have a lot of financial means and it was difficult for them to provide the needed care.  Ms. Snyder now recognized how stressful the lack of funding was for her foster family.  Ms. Snyder said she had raised 50 troubled teenage boys in a treatment level home and it had been difficult.  She believed taxes should be increased to fund the system. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie referred to the Youth Community Services budget and said she understood there was a need for a $1 million General Fund supplemental appropriation. Ms. Leslie reminded the DCFS that less than a month ago, the Division had indicated no supplemental appropriation would be needed. 

 

Mr. Cotton said he did not recall that the testimony provided in the earlier meeting was that no supplemental appropriation would be required.

 

Ms. Leslie said the Subcommittee needed to know how much additional funding was needed.

 

Jim Baumann, Administrative Services Officer, DCFS, said the request for a supplemental General Fund appropriation was approximately $1.1 million and was primarily driven by a shortage of approximately $4 million or $5 million in category 17, Medical.  The Division could move money from other categories to help cover the shortfall, but could not cover the huge category 17 shortfall.

 

Senator Rawson asked Mr. Baumann to provide LCB staff with the proper detail related to the supplemental appropriation. 

 

Senator Rawson adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Linda J. Smith

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                                                             

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblywoman Shelia Leslie, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: