Legislative Activity: House Human Services Committee Hearing on April 12, 2011

I decided to attend this particular hearing because several child-welfare related bills were on the docket.  Not unexpectedly, it was about three hours in until one of the bills I was listening for was heard before the committee.  The House Human Services Committee is a nine member committee, chaired by Representative Richard Pena Raymond. (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Committees/MembershipCmte.aspx?LegSess=82R&CmteCode=C310)  Throughout the hearing, members trickled in and left the room.  All members except for Representative Hughes were present for at least a portion of the time I was there.  Quite a few items were left pending because there was frequently not a quorum.  The general procedure at the hearing was: the chairman introduces the bill, the member who authored the bill lays it out, witnesses testify and respond to questions, the author delivers a closing statement, and the committee votes. 

The child welfare bill that I heard was HB 753 by Representative Naishtat.  (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB753) A committee substitute for this bill was heard.  The main purpose of this bill is to improve the quality of Child Protective Services (CPS) staff at Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) by implementing practices that ensure that the employee hired is the right person for the job.  A study that examines the salaries of each type of CPS case worker and the role that salaries play in employee retention is to be conducted.  The results with recommendations are to be given to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, and the committees that have jurisdiction over this matter. 

Susan Milam, Governmental Relations Director for the Texas Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers testified in support of the bill.  (http://www.naswtx.org/) She particularly advocated that caseworker hiring preferences be given to social workers.  She cited a 30% (or above) turnover rate at DFPS.  She asserted that social work training, especially at the master’s level, enables individuals with these qualifications to excel as child welfare workers.  She used University of Houston and University of Maryland research study data to support her claims.  A DFPS employee was a “resource witness” but no questions were asked.  There were not enough committee members present, so the bill was left pending.

However, the part of the hearing that impressed me the most was an argument crafted by Representative Strama for his bill (HB 2269) regarding the differentiation of reimbursement rates for child care facilities.  (http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/?district=50) While this was not directly related to child welfare/protection, several of his key points can most certainly be applied to this topic.  He acknowledged the “terrible policy choice” of serving as many kids as possible versus lifting the overall quality of the system.  He acknowledged that often with social service provision (and limited funds) it becomes a zero-sum game.  But, he also argued that it’s not always a choice between quantity and quality because you can use the market to drive quality (in this case, give parents tools to make decisions based on quality).  One of the witnesses from the United Way very aptly described the zero-sum situation and trade-off between quality and quantity as having “no right answer” but as a situation that deserves “intellectual honesty.” 

Toward the end, Representative Strama made another excellent point.  He basically said that we have already made the choice not to serve certain children.  We just didn’t say it out loud or intellectualize it.  We, as a community, never consciously defined the standard (in this case, relating to the quality of subsidized child care provided to low income children).  He also made the point that the children who will lose service as a result of this bill are no different than the children who are now on the waitlist.  And again, with the system that is currently in place, we as voters and community members have already sanctioned the fact that an inordinate amount of children are on the waiting list.  Defining standards and reimbursement rates (in this situation) just brings the discussion to the surface with the real consequences clearly and openly discussed (who is and isn’t served and at what level of quality).  All of these arguments can very appropriately be applied to child protective services and the quality of child welfare programs in Texas, especially under extremely tight budget constraints.  I was pleasantly surprised to see such a smart, well thought out argument presented at the hearing.

Rebecca Lengnick-Hall
MSSW & MPA Candidate
University of Texas at Austin
4/22/11