---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
---------- DOCUMENT HEADER ----------
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-seventh Legislature – Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 5 -- 3:00 p.m. or upon adjournment of COW
Chairman Allen called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Brown |
Mrs. Groe |
Mr. Paton |
|
Mr. Gallardo |
Mr. Murphy |
Mr. Allen, Chairman |
|
None |
|
|
David Berns, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES)
Janice Mickens, Program Administrator, Arizona Child Protective Services (CPS)
Steven Goodrich, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Office of Attorney General
Kathleen Chafin of Seattle, representing herself
Robin Scoins, Arizona Family Rights Advocacy Institute
Opening Remarks
Chairman Allen welcomed the members and the public to the Committee, which is charged to look at government relationships and issues in depth, and today would look at operations and performance.
Discussion and Vote on Findings
Chairman Allen then asked for a vote on the findings from the meeting with Arizona Department of Corrections on March 2, 2006.
Mr. Gallardo distributed the Minority Report (Attachment 1) and commended Director Doris Schriro for her presentation and for all the accomplishments of her agency. He noted that his report documents the "top ten" of those accomplishments.
Chairman Allen remarked that the Majority Report includes detailed information received from Director Doris Schriro (Attachment 2).
Mr. Murphy moved that the House Select Committee’s Majority Report findings relating to the Arizona Department of Corrections from the meeting on March 2, 2006, be approved. The motion carried.
Testimony
David Berns, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), provided the committee with a list of the Top Ten Improvements at DES (Attachment 3). He then discussed each of the ten improvements in some detail, noting that he has been with the department just over two-and-a-half years.
When he started, Arizona DES had the fastest growing welfare case loads in the country, but since then has seen a 20 percent decline in families on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). He also discussed various jobs programs and in-home services for Arizona families (Attachment 3).
Director Berns discussed child protection programs in the child welfare system:
– child care waiting list
– child safety
– group homes and shelters
– foster homes
– adoption and guardianship
– developmental disabilities and independent living
Chairman Allen described the dire economic circumstances of DES when Director Berns began his tenure, and asked him if the state's improved economic growth has contributed to the improved DES situation today. Director Berns replied that the increased number of jobs available has helped the TANF situation, but he believes that is more the result of policies implemented than the economy. Director Berns stressed that when TANF passed in 1996, caseloads began to decrease by the new policy which allowed coordination of employment efforts with the intake efforts of DES.
Chairman Allen asked if, in the case of Item 1 of Attachment 3, cash assistance caseload decrease, that was not attributable to economic improvement; Director Berns replied that he believes it is due to policies put in place to address those issues. He noted that cash assistance has not correlated with economic upturns and recessions in the past.
Chairman Allen introduced a letter from Ms. Herschella Horton, Legislative Chief of DES, in response to Mr. Paton's questions regarding Arizona's "Safe Haven" provision (Attachment 4).
Mr. Paton asked if federal law requires DES to create and maintain a database of mothers who utilize Arizona's "Safe Haven" provision. Director Berns replied in the negative.
Mr. Paton asked if DES has documentation that identifies any of the 12 mothers who have dropped their newborn infants off at Safe Haven locations since 2001, when the law was passed. Director Berns replied that DES has knowledge of only one of the mothers due to the circumstances of the drop off. The mother was admitted to and gave birth at a hospital, then declared that she wanted to relinquish the child to Safe Haven; she then signed relinquishment documents, which are now under court seal. Her name is not available in a DES database or for public disclosure.
Mr. Paton asked if there is no access to this name ever again; Director Berns replied that the name would never be released for purposes of a court proceeding or anything of that nature.
Mr. Paton asked why the name would be kept in any case; Director Berns replied that the child actually did not go through the Safe Haven statute as the mother voluntarily terminated her rights while in the hospital, which made the child available for adoption immediately. The termination documents must be preserved for legal purposes.
Janice Mickens, Program Administrator, Arizona Child Protective Services (CPS), addressed the committee to explain that if a mother delivers her baby to a Safe Haven provider, her name is not known. In this particular instance the woman had been admitted to a hospital before she gave birth, so her name was known.
Mr. Paton asked if hospitals are Safe Haven providers; Ms. Mickens replied that they are, but that in this instance the hospital had the mother's name and cannot protect anonymity. CPS is required by federal law to attempt to reunite mother and child.
Chairman Allen cited Title 13, Section 3623.01, Subsection D which seems to require anonymity. Ms. Mickens explained that the mother does not have to give her name when using Safe Haven. However, in this case, the woman gave her name when she was admitted to the hospital, so the hospital has a record on her, then she gave birth, then decided to give the child over to Safe Haven. CPS is obligated by federal law to reunite mother and child, so CPS must make reasonable efforts and therefore must obtain the name of the mother.
Chairman Allen asked if CPS would ever make an effort to pierce the anonymity provided by Safe Haven; Ms. Mickens replied: never.
Mr. Paton said that in this one instance, the mother did not have anonymity because she was admitted to the hospital; Ms. Mickens replied in the affirmative, but that the court subsequently ruled that the relinquishment was Safe Haven, so the name is sealed.
Mr. Paton asked what other mothers' names are known to CPS; Ms. Mickens replied: none.
Mr. Paton asked whose decision it was to maintain this mother's name, sealed or unsealed; Ms. Mickens answered that it is maintained as a legal record, but it is not in the CPS case management system's database.
Mr. Paton asked if the number of Safe Haven babies is 11 or 12; Ms. Mickens replied that the twelfth baby was entered by mistake because it was an abandoned child, not a Safe Haven child.
Mr. Paton asked if an underage woman gives birth in a hospital, is it routine for the hospital to alert CPS; Ms. Mickens answered in the negative, unless they have suspicion of potential abuse or neglect. A hospital can give the woman information, or there can be a relinquishment with no CPS involvement.
Mr. Paton then asked if an Arizona physician would alert CPS if there are no signs of abuse or neglect; Ms. Mickens answered in the negative.
Mr. Paton asked if a woman was being investigated by CPS for one child, and self-reports that she used Safe Haven for another child, would CPS record that in her file. Ms. Mickens replied that CPS might if it pertained to services needed, such as dealing with the loss of that child.
Mr. Gallardo asked if any of the 11 mothers who have utilized Safe Haven have been under any type of CPS investigation; Ms. Mickens replied that CPS would not have any way of knowing that.
Mr. Gallardo asked if there have been any complaints filed where a woman revealed that she was one of the 11 Safe Haven mothers; Ms. Mickens answered in the negative.
Mr. Paton asked for further clarification: if a woman self-reports that she has used Safe Haven, would CPS record that in her file. Ms. Mickens replied that CPS would only report it if it pertained to services needed, but that it would not be recorded in a way that they could find the information again.
Mr. Paton asked if that information were put in a Risk Assessment, would it elevate the mother's risk evaluation; Ms. Mickens replied that it would only indicate a need for services. Mr. Paton asked if the Risk Assessment is a tool that can be used to remove a child from a home; Ms. Mickens replied that it is not used for that, rather it is a tool used to determine needed services and case plan direction.
Mr. Paton asked if that information could go into a Safety Assessment; Ms. Mickens replied that she doubted that it would. Mr. Paton asked if it could; Ms. Mickens said she could not envision such a situation. Mr. Murphy asked if that was a no or a maybe; Ms. Mickens said it was a no.
Mr. Paton asked for assurance if, aside from this one woman, no documentation exists on any of the other women who have used Safe Haven since 2001; Ms. Mickens replied that she could assure him of that.
Mr. Paton asked Director Berns if he would support legislation that would require DES to expunge any documentation that indicates that a mother under investigation by CPS has utilized the Safe Haven provision; Director Berns answered that, while he has no personal or philosophical problem with such legislation, he does not know the legal implications or if it would conflict with current law.
Mr. Paton asked Director Berns if he would support legislation that would prevent DES in the future from collecting any information that a mother has utilized the Safe Haven provision; Director Berns answered that philosophically he is in agreement, but that if a mother wanted to reunite with the child, CPS would want to respond in a timely way.
Chairman Allen asked if DES has any contact with the mothers after the child has been turned over to Safe Haven; Director Berns replied that DES has no way of knowing if a mother has given her child over to Safe Haven.
Mr. Gallardo clarified that there is no way for CPS to know if they are investigating a mother who has previously used Safe Haven; Director Berns concurred.
Mr. Paton stated that he wishes to make certain that the integrity of the system is protected so that mothers will trust in it, believing that their decisions will not be a source of any future CPS actions. Director Berns stated that he concurs and would be happy to work to help craft legislation that ensures that integrity.
Chairman Allen requested descriptions of the Risk Assessment tools used by CPS. Director Berns explained that there are two:
– The Child Safety Assessment (Attachment 5) deals with immediate issues, such as is the child without anyone to care for him or her, or is the child bruised, in need of medical attention, or subject to immediate abuse.
– The Strengths and Risk Assessment (Attachment 6) is driven by the needs of the family which, if not addressed, could place the child(ren) at risk; it therefore assesses longer term issues, using the expert model type. (He noted that Arizona does not use the other type of risk assessment based on an actuarial, "points" model.)
Ms. Mickens explained that both tools are research evidence-based, using national resource centers in their development. The Safety Assessment is the first assessment done by CPS, within 24 hours of an investigator seeing a child. It is done again at the close of an investigation, prior to sending a child home, and every 6 months. And it is done on every child and every adult in the home.
Mrs. Groe asked if the assessment is based on observation or on a phone call; Ms. Mickens replied that it is based on the information gathered in the first 24 hours, usually in an interview situation.
Chairman Allen commented that the Assessment seemed to have only Yes or No answers and did not offer degrees of answers; Ms. Mickens replied that this tool is used to understand acute situations, which will lead to more detailed information later.
Chairman Allen asked how CPS quantifies the results; Ms. Mickens explained that any safety factor which is checked Yes results in a finding of unsafe, and the investigator must develop a safety plan for that child (Part 4 of Attachment 5).
Chairman Allen asked if someone can look at these checkboxes and tell how severe the problem is; Ms. Mickens replied that all safety factors are risk factors, but that the Safety Assessment will tell CPS if the children are safe in the home and what steps were taken to make them safe. Ms. Mickens explained that within 45 days of a Safety Assessment and the case opening, CPS investigators will do a Strength and Risk Assessment.
Chairman Allen asked if the Safety Assessment may lead to the removal of a child from the home; Ms. Mickens replied that it may.
Mrs. Groe asked about the average length of time spent in the home gathering the initial assessment information; Ms. Mickens explained that it is hard to define, as there are also interviews in school as well as at home, there may be many people in the home which must be interviewed and the openness of the family to the interview will impact the time required to interview. Ms. Mickens can estimate the length of an investigation, but the Safety Assessment is accomplished within the first 24 hours, which is a short window of time.
Mrs. Groe asked what steps are taken if the family is not cooperative; Ms. Mickens said that families are not required to cooperate, and the CPS investigator must work with the information available.
Chairman Allen asked if the family is made aware that they do not have to cooperate; Ms. Mickens replied that a CPS booklet is provided and they are verbally told.
Mr. Murphy reiterated the question of what is the average time for an initial assessment; Ms. Mickens replied that it might be five hours, but she is hesitant to state that. Mr. Murphy asked how she knows how many people to employ; Ms. Mickens replied that she knows the average time for a full investigation - up to 30 days – and she will go back and attempt to quantify for the committee the small slice which is the initial investigation.
Mr. Gallardo stated his belief that each case is different and therefore hard to quantify; Ms. Mickens concurred, stating that each CPS investigator can do 10 to 12 investigations each month.
Chairman Allen asked if one case worker can read another’s sheets and have a feel for the situation; Mr. Gallardo reiterated that each case is very different and that such a question is unfair. Chairman Allen asked again if each case is interpretable by viewing the sheets; Ms. Mickens replied that only if the case worker is familiar with the case can he or she view the sheets and understand the situation, citing the many variables within each case.
Chairman Allen asked what, after 24 hours, would be in the file; Ms. Mickens listed the Safety Assessment, a CPS report, and any notes from the contact who reported the problem. She described the CPS report as a detailed narrative including names of the children, their ages, and the parents; it gives a description of the particular abuse or neglect incident that was reported, information about prior knowledge of the family in any other system, any domestic violence, any drug or alcohol use, and notes if anyone in the family is Native American.
Chairman Allen asked if the CPS report was a CPS or a DES tool; Ms. Mickens replied that it is a CPS tool, and the Safety Assessment is a DES/CPS tool.
Chairman Allen asked if the first person to arrive on the scene is carrying this CPS tool; Ms. Mickens replied that they are carrying the CPS report that was filled out during the hotline call which starts the CPS investigative process. Chairman Allen asked if that paper record goes with the caseworker to the site to do the Child Safety Assessment; Ms. Mickens replied that the caseworker may or may not take it with them.
Chairman Allen asked if this record may have a bearing on removing the child; Ms. Mickens replied that it is a piece of information used by CPS to start such a process, and she invited any members to visit the hotline office to observe the process.
Chairman Allen stated that his concern is that the assessment tools provide the path to the removal of the child, and that the Yes/No answers on the tools don’t provide any shades of grey in the investigation; Ms. Mickens explained that the CPS report is an allegation, and that CPS must then find evidence that the allegations are true and also provide a temporary custody notice which clearly identifies why a child is being taken.
Chairman Allen stated his concern that if someone is wrongly accused and a child is removed, it is difficult to pinpoint where the CPS process went wrong – the assessment tools do not provide information that would be read the same way by different individuals.
Chairman Allen then asked if the family does not want to comply with a CPS assessment interview, would that be a factor leading to removal of a child; Ms. Mickens replied that it is not, however it does impede the investigation.
Mr. Murphy inquired about the removal rate of cooperating families compared to that of non-cooperating families; Ms. Mickens said that the information is not recorded in an investigation.
Mr. Gallardo asked if the family does not want to cooperate, that in itself would not lead to removal of a child; Ms. Mickens replied that it would not.
Mrs. Groe inquired about parental involvement and alternatives for the parents when a safety plan is devised by CPS; Ms. Mickens explained that the parents may sign that they will comply with the safety plan, or, if they are not happy with the plan, then CPS will go back out to redo the plan.
Mrs. Groe asked if, in that case, would the same person from CPS be sent out; Ms. Mickens said that it would be the same person, the caseworker assigned to the case. Mrs. Groe asked what would happen if the parents requested a different person; Ms. Mickens replied that CPS would look at the reasons for that request and evaluate it.
Mr. Murphy asked how often parents might ask for a new person, and how often would CPS grant that request; Ms. Mickens answered that it has happened and that CPS has made a change, but that it is rare.
Chairman Allen asked if a caseworker has immunity; Ms. Mickens replied that she did not know, but that caseworkers do get sued.
Chairman Allen asked if a child is removed, is there a treatment plan for the child and is the parent a part of that plan; Ms. Mickens replied that parents are included in case plan staffing and the decisions about what services are available. Parents can also bring others to the case plan staffing meeting and can join in the decisions which will determine the plan for the child - unless there is a safety issue, then CPS will make the decision. She then related a specific instance, to illustrate the process.
Chairman Allen asked about borderline families which have small risk issues, but have a CPS case opened and disagree with the assessment, will they lose the child; Ms. Mickens replied that they would not lose the child, but more likely would be asked to participate in in-home services. If the family does not cooperate with this, an intervention could be scheduled and the court would watch over the child, who would stay in the home.
Chairman Allen introduced the topic of standard of evidence used in the court hearings for termination of parental rights.
Director Berns stated that the court will use the standard of preponderance of evidence, and introduced a representative from the Attorney General’s office to explain.
Steven Goodrich, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Office of Attorney General, addressed the committee to explain burden of proof and the difference between two standards of evidence:
– preponderance - a weighing of the evidence, whether one position or result is more likely than the other
– clear & convincing – requiring a much higher degree of evidentiary proof
Mr. Goodrich stated if the law for adjudicating cases were to change - a contested hearing is typically judged on a preponderance of evidence - there would be greater resistance to clearing cases. If the state were required to provide clear & convincing evidence, this would greatly increase the burden on CPS. Use of the preponderance standard generally leads to agreement among the parties.
Chairman Allen asked if changing the standard would raise the bar on the system, and move the protection towards the parents; Mr. Goodrich stated that CPS would then have to prove that the parents’ environment is not safe for the child(ren).
Chairman Allen asked if the Attorney General has participated in Native American courts, which do use the higher standard of proof; Mr. Goodrich replied that they have some participation but that he would have to research it further.
Chairman Allen asked what is the success rate of Native American child removals using the clear & convincing standard; Mr. Goodrich replied that is a difficult question, given the different cultures and socio-economic groups. He stated that the populations are so different that they cannot be compared to each other.
Mr. Murphy asked why Native American children have a different standard for removal; Mr. Goodrich replied that Arizona state law provides for a preponderance of the evidence, but Native Americans are subject to Federal Law, which mandates a clear & convincing standard.
Chairman Allen asked if the standard for removing a child is the same if the complaint is on a foster placement; Director Berns replied that a higher standard of protection is applied for a child in the state foster system. He gave the example that an interview in a foster home is tape recorded, but that is not the case in a biological home interview. The State licenses the foster home and therefore applies stricter standards.
Chairman Allen asked if it is harder to remove a foster child from the home in allegations of sexual abuse; Director Berns stated that is not the intent of CPS at all, in fact, CPS has more history in the foster situation.
Chairman Allen asked if the assessment process is the same for foster homes; Director Berns replied that the foster home has a licensing assessment in addition to the standard CPS assessment, but that the Safety Assessment proceeds in the same fashion for foster homes.
Chairman Allen asked how often children are removed from one foster home and placed in another; Director Berns replied that this is all too common.
Chairman Allen asked if there is a parent advocacy group in Arizona; Director Berns replied that there is family advocacy in the CPS office as well as private advocacy groups. He added that these are probably not as well-developed as the child advocacy centers.
Mrs. Groe stated that CPS’ taping of sexual allegations in the case of foster parents but not in the case of biological parents was troubling to her, and asked if CPS were reconsidering that policy; Director Berns replied in the affirmative.
Mrs. Groe asked what happens to children taken out of a home where they were covered by their parents’ health insurance; Director Berns replied that the children would be eligible for AHCCCS as well as the Children’s Medical and Dental Plan. Their parents’ insurance would be the first choice, however, if the children can remain on that. Mrs. Groe requested additional information on this.
Chairman Allen asked if CPS provides parents with information prior to their court appearance. Mr. Gallardo asked if they would have counsel for the parents. Director Berns explained that parents are given a booklet describing the process, as well as an explanatory form given them when the child is removed from the home. Ms. Mickens added that the parents are given a copy of the court petition which is filed, a notice of the hearing is mailed out, and they are also given a verbal notice by CPS.
Chairman Allen stated his concern that the parents are not properly prepared for their court appearance. Ms. Mickens described that at each stage of the court proceeding there is a report and review hearing, and of course the parents have attorneys appointed for them if they do not have their own.
Mr. Gallardo stressed the importance of knowing what is provided to the parents; Chairman Allen concurred. Ms. Mickens explained that all material is sent out ten days in advance of the court date. Mr. Gallardo asked if all CPS documents are included in this material; Ms. Mickens replied that all evidence that CPS will present in court is provided to the parents prior to the hearing.
Mr. Goodrich stressed that the purpose of the hearing is to provide due process for the family, and there is a vigilant court of appeals which will review all the proceedings. Mr. Gallardo asked if the parents have right of appeal; Mr. Goodrich answered in the affirmative.
Chairman Allen asked for two further items to be researched:
– temporary social security numbers provided for children in order to get AHCCCS
– responsibility for health care for children whose parents already have such insurance for them
Mr. Murphy asked for information to be provided to the committee about child support and what happens to those payments when a child is removed.
Mr. Gallardo commended DES and CPS for their work for the State of Arizona and to protect the children.
Kathleen Chafin of Seattle, representing herself, told the story of her twelve-year history with Arizona CPS, which was not a positive one. It involved her sister, a mentally ill individual with a methamphetamine habit, who had nine children with different men. Ms. Chafin is currently a foster parent to her nieces and nephews. The state of Washington is involved, as well as Arizona CPS, and she described an interstate agreement which was required.
She stated that Arizona put these children at risk by not releasing them to her sooner, thus affecting their education and separating the family unit. She described two arguing caseworkers who put the kids in foster care, rather than with her. She stated her strong belief that Arizona CPS’ actions could have destroyed this family.
Chairman Allen asked if she thought that CPS has trouble dealing with the exceptions; Ms. Chafin agreed that there appeared to be no ability to deal with shades of grey, and that CPS tries to place all cases in Yes/No categories. Mr. Murphy stated his concern with this story.
Robin Scoins, Arizona Family Rights Advocacy Institute, addressed the committee to describe problems with Arizona CPS that have come to her institute’s attention:
– ethically challenged caseworkers whose assessments are subjective and cause children to be removed from their homes for irrelevant reasons
– Native American children have higher standards and protections
Eighty percent of removal cases are attributed to neglect, but she stated that they are poverty-driven. Native American children are given a higher standard of proof before being taken from the home, and she stated that her family should be given the same level of protection.
Chairman Allen asked what brought her to this type of advocacy; Ms. Scoins replied that she cannot discuss that due to a Federal lawsuit, but essentially situations similar to what the committee has just heard. Relatives are often not acknowledged as caregivers.
Mr. Murphy asked if there was a clear-cut case where the caseworker lied in the file; Ms. Scoins answered in the affirmative. Mr. Murphy asked what recourse she would recommend; Ms. Scoins replied that a caseworker who has lied and a child was removed from the home should be terminated. But, she added, these instances are hard to find out because the records are sealed.
Chairman Allen asked what she thought of the CPS assessment tools; Ms. Scoins replied that they are presumptive and subject to a caseworker’s opinions. She added that just because a parent doesn’t wish to talk with the caseworker during the assessment does not mean that the parent is abusive, but the assessment tools do not have an area for that “in between” situation.
Director Berns thanked the presenters for all of the information provided. He agreed with Ms. Scoins regarding poor families, stating that statistics show that poor families are 22 times more likely to be in the child welfare system, although poverty is not a risk factor for child abuse. He said the problems of these families are compounded when they do not have resources such as housing, food, transportation, and medical insurance, and demonstrate the importance of providing services to support these families - if the only way you can get these services is by having an open child welfare case, that’s not a very good system.
Chairman Allen thanked the presenters.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
_______________________________
Jane Dooley, Committee Secretary
April 7, 2006
(Original minutes, attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS, PERFORMANCE AND WASTE
2
March 30, 2006
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------