PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

9:00 a.m.
Room 205, Ryan Office Building

Agenda

9:00 a.m. – Opening comments from Chairwoman Watson and Chairman Conklin

9:10 a.m. – Frank Cervone, Executive Director

Support Center for Child Advocates
9:20 a.m. – Brian Bornman, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators
9:30 a.m. – Larry Breitenstein, Assistant Professor/Social Work Program Coordinator
Slippery Rock University
9:40 a.m. – Sean McCormack, Chief Deputy District Attorney
Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office
9:50 a.m. – Questions

10:00 a.m. – Closing Remarks and Adjournment

 TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED CREATION OF OFFICE OF CHILD ADVOCATE

PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

JUNE 19, 2018

BY

BRIAN BORNMAN, ESQ.

PCYA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

My name is Brian Bornman. I am the Executive Director for the PA Children and Youth
Administrators Association, an affiliate of the County Commissioners Association. Our association
consists of all 67 counties and a number of associate members, primarily representing service
providers affiliated with the child welfare system in Pennsylvania. I have worked in the field of social
work since 1988 in various roles, including those of child therapist, a child welfare caseworker, and
legal counsel for a county child welfare agency. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
body and appreciate the efforts to look at different ways to benefit the child welfare system in the
state.

The idea of creating an “Ombudsman” or “Child Advocate” is not new and has been gaining in
popularity throughout the country. House Bill 1311 seeks to establish an Office of the Children’s
Advocate under the purview of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. The Pennsylvania
Children and Youth Administrators Association is generally opposed to the creation of such an
office for the reasons set forth below. That being said, there are also beneficial pieces of the
legislation that cannot be ignored or discounted. Those too shall be discussed. I will also address
some areas of concern that we feel will need addressed should this office be implemented.

At the outset, I would note that 36 states have some version of a Child Advocate or child Welfare
Ombudsman, although the make-up and operation of these varies greatly. Of those states
implementing some version of this office 11 have statutorily created an independent office, such as
HB1311 seeks to create. Three states have systems that operate within their equivalent of the
Department of Human Services, although they have some level of autonomy in their operations.
Five states have general governmental ombudsman offices that handle complaints for all services,
not just child welfare. Nine states have ombudsman that exist within their child welfare system,
much the way hospitals employ an ombudsman to handle complaints within their own system.
Lastly, nine states have some variation that is not necessarily set out in statute and may only serve

1
limited constituencies or populations.

In order to be able to explain PCYA’s position, there must be some explanation of how the
Pennsylvania child welfare system varies from other states. Of the fifty states, the vast majority
operate state child welfare systems. While there are variations in the details of how they operate,
the basic principle is that everyone from the caseworker to the state director of child welfare are
state employees. This represents 38 of the 50 states. Nine states have county administered systems,
with various levels of oversight by the state. Pennsylvania falls into this second category. Three
states have mix of county and state administration.

For state administered child welfare systems, an independent child advocate office is a much clearer
choice, compared to that of a mixed or county administered system. In state run child welfare
systems, complaints and concerns about a caseworker or local child welfare professional are
handled by another state employee farther up the chain of command. This creates obvious concerns
about how seriously those complaints may be taken and how the benefit of the doubt may be
always given to the actions of the child welfare professional, since they are all within the same
entity. However, for a system such as Pennsylvania, those concerns do not really hold as much
merit.

In Pennsylvania, the counties provide the day-to-day child welfare services. Investigations, safety
assessments, case management, placement services, and other service delivery are provided either
directly by the county or by contracted service providers who work on behalf of the county.
Placements and youth who are adjudicated dependent are supervised by the court. All counties are
licensed and supervised by the Office of Children, Youth, and Families (OCYF), a department within
the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. If someone has a complaint regarding their
treatment at the county level, they can file a complaint with OCYF. OCYF conducts their own
investigation and can issue citations against the county or take action against the county’s license
to operate as a child welfare agency for any noncompliance with regulation or statute.

Because there is already a process in place to review complaints of service delivery within child
welfare, and one that is undertaken by an entity that is separate from the county who is providing
the services, PCYA believes that yet another independent office of child advocate will be redundant.
Of the other county administered systems, only Colorado maintains an independent Child Advocate
Office. California also maintains an ombudsman office within their child welfare administration that
is autonomous, but not independent. The other states with county administered systems have a
county run ombudsman program, a program limited in the population served and/or constituency,
or have no ombudsman program at all.

Regarding Colorado, their system varies fairly dramatically from Pennsylvania’s in that the state
does not license or oversee the day-to-day operations of the county child welfare system. The state
sets targets or goals in conjunction with the counties and monitors the child welfare system in that
way. As such, there are not the same processes in place which Pennsylvania has to be able to
contact the regional offices of the state regulatory agency, rendering it much more like a state run
system in regards to the prior discussion on ombudsman.

Additionally, one must consider the costs associated with the creation of such an office. In
preparation for this hearing, I researched other state ombudsman and child advocate offices. When

2
looking at comparable states based on population and independent offices, there were no clear
matches, but there were some opportunities to extrapolate regarding costs.

Colorado has a population of 5 million, as opposed to Pennsylvania’s 12.8 million. Their Office of
Child Protection Ombudsman spent $504,000 in FY14-15 and $485,000 in FY15-16. They maintain a
staff of 5. Michigan, with a population of 9.9 million, spent $1.2 million in 2011 for a staff of 9.
Indiana, with a population of 6.5 million, spent $314,000 in 2016 with a staff of 3. Based upon the
duties set forth in this bill and the population and geographical area of Pennsylvania, it would be
reasonable to expect to have operating costs of $1 to 1.5 million annually to maintain an Office of
Child Advocate. While this is a small amount in comparison to the entirety of the child welfare
budget, those funds may be better spent on other services such a home visitors or parental
recovery services, particularly when it is for what could be considered a redundant safeguard.

Lastly, PCYA has concerns regarding adding yet another layer of uncertainty for families within the
system. It is frequently the case that the families involved with child welfare do not want to be
involved with child welfare. In any dependency case, it is almost never the case that the all the
litigants feel that they were treated fairly. Thankfully, Pennsylvania has substantial protections built
into the Juvenile Act to protect parents’ rights, while simultaneously providing a pathway for
agencies to be able to protect children. However, parents who may have had custody of their
children transferred to a county agency, seldom agree with the averments of the agency petitioning
the court or the findings of the court. They have the right to appeal these decisions to the Superior
Court; however, there are concerns that having an office with such broad sweeping powers to
investigate complaints under §6379.4(1) may feel that they essentially have another avenue of
appeal from the services they are being directed to undertake. It would be better if the cases under
court supervision were not subject to further review by an independent office.

This last concern brings me to our primary recommendation should this office be created. There
must be requirements surrounding the appointment of the Children’s Advocate that ensures this
office is not affected by political affiliation. Such an office holds a tremendous potential to create a
political narrative. The reports of such offices receive substantial media attention and the absolute
last thing any child welfare system needs is someone who may be tempted to use the position as an
opportunity for political advancement. It would be beneficial to have written into the bill that the
Children’s Advocate is prohibited from engaging in any partisan activity and even a prohibition
from running for political office for a period of time following the completion of their term. For
such an office to establish a reputation for being impartial and fair, there can be no hint of
partisanship.

I believe some of the specifics of the bill should be reconsidered. For instance, §6379.6(b)(3)
provides that any complaint that involves legal counsel shall be referred to the disciplinary board of
the Supreme Court, who is responsible for the discipline and oversight of practicing attorneys. If
you consider that nearly every single counsel who has represented parents in dependency
proceedings has had an upset client because their case was not successful, this may result in an
incredible number of complaints to the Children Advocate office.

While it is unlikely that disciplinary action will actually be taken by the Supreme Court against these
counsel, those counsel must report complaints to their malpractice insurance coverage each time a
complaint goes to the disciplinary board. It would not take long before no counsel would be willing

3
to represent parents or children if every complaint to the children’s Advocate Office will
automatically create a complaint to the disciplinary board, regardless of whether there is any merit
or not. The parent representation positions are already challenging to fill, as they generally pay
$40-75 per hour, compared to $200+ per hour for private practice. This guaranteed disciplinary
board report may effectively eliminate any willingness to engage in the practice of law in this area.

Similarly, §6379.6(b)(2) provides for reports to the court of jurisdiction for any non-attorney
Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) or Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for all complaints. This may
result in a similar unwillingness to engage in these positions. It would be beneficial to transmit such
a report only if the preliminary investigation yielded some reason to believe that there may have
been malfeasance or inappropriate action.

For 6379.6(b)(1), there is only a transmission to the licensing boards of licensed professionals, other
than legal counsel, CASA, or non-attorney GALs, if the investigation of the Children’s Advocate
leads them to believe there was some form of professional misconduct.

As there are real ramifications for repeatedly being reported to a disciplinary board, this should
only occur from the Office of the Children’s Advocate in there is reason to believe that there was a
violation of professional rules of conduct. As the Supreme Court holds jurisdiction for ensuring the
compliance of legal counsel with their rules of professional conduct, complaints regarding legal
counsel to the Children’s Advocate should be directed to raise those issues with the Common Pleas
Court handling the case or by referring the complainant to the Site for the Supreme Court
Disciplinary Board.

I have a concern regarding the third provision under the definition of “Remediable Action.” In my
experience, the single biggest complaint issued by anyone involved in the system, be they child,
parent, parent’s attorney, GAL, CASA, or any other professional involved in the system is that the
facts the CYS agency or court were operating under were erroneous or irrelevant. As the system is
based entirely on investigating a situation to determine whether services or protective custody is
needed to assure the safety and well-being of a child, yet the parent having custody of that child
does not want to have the agency involved, it is nearly impossible to ever have the facts 100%
correct. Even in cases of severe maltreatment with a medical diagnosis, the doctors can only opine
that the child could not have inflicted such injuries on themselves within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty. If every single case was subject to an additional investigation based upon any
error or incompleteness of information, the system could rapidly grind to a halt. I believe this
provision is overly broad and should be qualified in some manner, such as adding “substantially” or
“unreasonably” to the provision.

I noted earlier in my testimony that there are also many positives within this bill and I want to note
some of them at this point. Overall, the concept to review complaints and act as a form of mediator
for complaint resolution can be a powerful tool in improving confidence in the system and
facilitating greater degrees of family engagement in the process. The portions of the bill that direct
the Children’s Advocate to review the system for ways to improve it are great. In fact, I think it
should go one step farther and include exploration of other states’ solutions to identified system
challenges. Additionally, an independent examination and report to the governor and legislature
could identify areas for improvement and be very positive for the system. Other states have utilized
their Children’s Advocate Offices to assist with the state child death and near death reviews and this

4
may be a way to provide greater consistency in Pennsylvania in this area.

One overarching concern I have regarding the concept as a whole stems from some position
papers and advocacy materials that have been circulated in the past. There have been claims
that child fatalities and near deaths will dramatically decline if such an office is implemented.
It must be noted that research in this area has shown that this was the case. While there may be an
improvement in the overall confidence and sense of fairness within the system as a whole in states
where this has been implemented, there has not necessarily been the commensurate decrease in
negative outcomes. As with all other aspects of the child welfare system, this office is reactionary
and only becomes involved when the child welfare system does as well. While one can certainly
conceive of situations where the involvement of the Children’s Advocate may prompt an agency to
take a second look at a risky case or to intervene when malfeasance is occurring, such as the “Kids
for Cash” debacle, the reality is that the county agencies who investigate child abuse referrals every
day are still going to be the best trained and most experienced in assuring the safety of children.

There could certainly be some benefits from the creation of such an office, but this body must
decide if the expense, redundancy, potential negative consequences as discussed above will
outweigh the benefits.

In short, while PCYA believes that this bill is generally unnecessary due to our child welfare structure
in Pennsylvania, there is also the possibility of greater accountability throughout the system,
recommendations for systemic improvements, and improvements in the public perception of the
field. If such an office is ultimately created, there are a number of concerns that we hope can be
adequately addressed. In my mind the single greatest obstacle is in identifying someone to fill the
role that will be unbiased, objective, nonpartisan, caring, yet extremely knowledgeable about the
field of child welfare and the laws surrounding its implementation. The right person in this role
could make it extremely positive, the wrong person could create more problems than are solved.

I want to thank this committee for giving me this opportunity to discuss this proposed legislation
and to consider these concerns. Lastly, I want to thank all the professionals in Pennsylvania who
have committed their lives to protecting and caring for the at-risk and abused children in the state
and all the devoted kinship caregivers, foster parents, and relatives who go beyond the call of duty
to help those children they love.

Thank you.

Brian C. Bornman, Esq.

PCYA Executive Director
bbornman@pacounties.org

An Affiliate of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania 5

Ombudsman for Pennsylvania's Children
Testimony Dr. Larry Breitenstein illtglLS
The questions before us today is pretty simple.

o Do we want to surface problems we don't know about in the child welfare system?
o Do we want to learn from these problems?

OCYF and County C&Y do a great job in many areas of problem solving. We should be proud of
Pennsylvania's Total Quality lmprovement model for trying to surface problems and deal with them.
However, Jerry Sandusky, Cash for Kids and the past and current grand jury's investigating clergy abuse
sobers us to the reality that DHS, PCYA, PCCYFS, DA's, Family Court and all our child advocates have
failed to surface abuse and shortcoming in the system.

Reasons for an ombudsman:

l. To Surface Problems that otherwise stay hidden and continue to harm children. To tell us
about cases where the system may have failed to protect a child or group of children. This would
include:

r Those with unresolved questions about the actions or inactions of the children and youth
system. How CPS operates? ln Maine the Ombudsman does considerable clarification of CPS.
e Those cases where the child has been abused or neglected but current laws and regulations do
not provide protections. (Young children in residential facilities in schools for the deaf, sleep in
rooms with older non-related children, some of whom could be perpetrators). These facilities
are exempt from residential regulations, but the children aren't exempt from abuse.
o Cases where child abuse is not handled as expected by the legislature or DPW.
o Accepting referrals on drug exposed newborns from hospitals.
o Use of Risk Assessment Models
o lnterpretation of Behavioral Health Managed Care agreements.
r Calls to Childline that go unanswered.
o Disgepancies at ChildLine as to why some cases are numbered and some are not.
o Point out differences in county criminaljustice proceedings. Melinda Shawley case in
Westmoreland where hearing were continued three times for perpetrator.

2. Surface Problems faster:

a There was no one to listen to the Sandusky, Cash for Kids, Philadelphia Dioceses victims until
well after the system failed them.
a Those who simply don't trust the C&Y system. (former foster child who wouldn't report abuse
because how she was treated)
a Sometimes we have bad public and private employees in child welfare and reports to an
ombudsman could help surface those people, so we can get them on to their "life's work".
o A client who felt like the system didn't do an investigation as expected.
3. To clarify inaccuracies in the media. (1985, Allegheny County Quick case.). Press reported with
great frequency that C&Y did not investigate a dozen abuse referrals by the McKeesport School District.
What wasn't in the media was that the dozen or more incidents weren't reported when they occurred
but after the end of the school year when there was no forensic evidence to support a finding of abuse.
The district failed to report as required by law, but the result was then Co. Commissioner Barbara Haffer
holding several public hearings, which lead to the firing of the director, Mr. Carros. The problem of
schools failing to report would eventually be addressed 30 years later.

ln the Westmoreland County child deaths of Ashely Decker and Melinda Shawley, people claimed to
publicly report child abuse to CYS but didn't. The press reported CPS didn't investigate these reports,
when in fact no Childline report had been made. tn the Decker case a local doctor said he made a report
but none existed. ln both cases, DPW in death reviews never mentioned these facts. Had we had an
Ombudsman, I would have asked them to investigate our CPS investigation and services.

When DPW fails to tell the whole story on child deaths, county CYS becomes the scapegoat and we don't
address the root problems. DPWDHS under many administrations has had a culture of not addressing
problems they weren't prepared to solve. The current OCYF/DHS county relationship appears to be the
best it has been in decades, but that could change with a new administration.

4. To tell us about cases where abuse occurred but the agency did nothing wrong and kids still
died. (lndiana County kids who died in heated car).
5. Provide a safe platform to Problem Solve: DHS (DPW) in the past has often placed political spin
over problem solving. Currently we appear to be in a good position in PA. We have a Deputy Secretary
of OCYF who has experience but looking back 35 years, the current situation is the exception rather than
the rule. There have been times when we would average one Deputy Secretary a year often having no
public or private child welfare experience. An Ombudsman would be in the position to do a neutral
investigation of a case and render an opinion.

6. Oftentimes DHS does not have the correct staff to interview children reported for abuse in
residential, Sroup or foster care. Yes, they have been through CPS training, but they are not trained
forensic interviewers. What is the most embarrassing thing that has happened to you sexually? How
comfortable are you discussing that sexual abuse with me? How long will it take for us to have a
relationship where you feel comfortable? They have 30 days to do that investigation.

7. Surface disparities in resources to children.

Some counties have evidenced based services like Nurse Family Partnerships, MST and FGDM, and some
don't. There will be cases an ombudsman might say "had MST, NFP or FGDM been available in this
community, the outcome of this case would likely have been very different". This is turn will surface
policy discrepancies in DHS. A decades long debate at PCYA has been how only kids in first class
counties get first class services while 7th class county kids get 7th class services.

Expected Outcomes:
a Surface problems which heretofore we've been unwilling to discuss.
o Risk Assessment models
 o Countyturnover in staff
o County variance in local courts and DA's on prosecuting certain kinds of cases.
o Lack of forensic training for CPS
o County, state, DA or court decision making.
o Lack of expertise in OCYF and County staff.
o Put a child's face on the problem areas above.
o Provide an avenue to solve problems.
o Surface policy suggestions

What would an Ombudsman's office look like?

Ididn't get a chance to do a thorough study of the differences in how Ombudsman's operate but I was
struck by the simplicity and straightforwardness of Maine's office.

The Principles of Maine's system are:

o To provide a safe and cooperative format to solve the problem

' . To provide services in a caring objective and impartial manner
o To foster a blame-free working situation
o To work in the best interest of the child
o To improve the system of service delivery and the way the Maine's DHHS provides services to
children and families
o To tell people about Ombudsman services and to continually work to improve those services.

lf you use a model like Maine's, then you could project around 1000 investigations annually.

The Duties include:

o Looking at complaints and seeing how the Ombudsman's office can help.
o Gather more information on the complaint.
o Notify Maine's DHHS of problems.
c Work with people to determine the root cause of the problem and try to fix it
r Provide services as needed to iron out difficulties
o Help families get the assistance and support they need.
r Provide information to Maine's DHHS caseworkers and managers.
o Make recommendations to improve the system.
o Answer questions about the role and duties of the Ombudsman
o Families are encouraged to seek help from the Ombudsman when:
o When you are concerned about what is happening between your children and DHHS.
o You think DHHS is interfering with your rights as a parent
o You disagree with the plan developed by DHHS for you child.

Where should an Ombudsman's Office sit?

o Not under DHS

r Probably an independent office
 o Attorney General's Office?

ln Maine, DHHS objected to less than 1% of the findings and recommendations of the
Ombudsman's Office.

Staffing. Require all non-clerical go through the same certification as county CPS workers.

Staffing could be regional but probably work out of their homes.

Require all investigators be certified forensic interviewers.

Require annual reports of the Ombudsman, which could be included with the annual child
abuse report.

Crete some version of a steering committee or advisory board that would include the Deputy
Secretary of OCYF or her representative, aniJ representatives from appropriate DHS offices,
Attorney General's office and the Child Welfare Resource Center. The
PCYA, PCCYFS, JCJC,
committee would make policy recommendations and would structure rules for problem solving.
 Testimony on House Bill 1311

Seán M. McCormack, Chief Deputy District Attorney

Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office
June 19, 2018
House Children and Youth Committee
 Good Morning Chairwoman Watson, Chairman Conklin and the members of the House

Children and Youth Committee. My name is Seán McCormack, and I am Chief Deputy District

Attorney here in Dauphin County. I appear here this morning before you on behalf of the

Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify

concerning House Bill 1311.

Briefly, to give you a sense of my perspective on HB 1311, I would like to tell you a little

bit about my background. I have served in the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office since

1989, and I have specialized in the prosecution of child abuse crimes continuously since 1995.

Over that time, I have been involved with the investigation of thousands of child abuse

allegations. I am the chair the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association’s Child Abuse

Coalition. The Child Abuse Coalition is comprised of prosecutors from across the state who

specialize in the prosecution of child abuse cases. I have the privilege to participate in many

committees and task forces at the statewide level dedicated to improving state/county

responses to allegations of child abuse. In fact, over a decade ago I participated on a Joint State

Government Commission committee which studied the same proposal, the creation of a

Children’s Ombudsman (Advocate), which is the subject of HB 1311. I was the co-chair of the

Children’s Justice Act subcommittee that developed a statewide Model Set of Standards for the

investigation of child abuse allegations. And, I currently sit on the Pennsylvania Commission on

Crime and Delinquency Children’s Advocacy Center Advisory Committee.

As a prosecutor I witnessed firsthand many of the issues House Bill 1311 seeks to

address. I often contemplate just how we at the local and state levels can improve our
collective responses to child abuse allegations. More importantly, what do we need to do to

ensure that no child falls through the cracks? How can we avoid the mistakes that occur on

occasion that result in headline grabbing stories like the death of Portia Bennett in Philadelphia,

the sexual abuse committed by a predator like Jerry Sandusky, and, closer to home for me, the

starvation death of little nine year-old Jarrod Tutko?

The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, as it concerns HB 1311, is not in

support of the creation of a Children’s Advocate. When I was asked to represent the

association here this morning I took some time to reflect on my own thoughts concerning the

proposed legislation creating a Children’s Advocate position. The creation of the Office of

Children’s Advocate is a proposal I have considered often over the years. In preparation for my

testimony today, I went back and reviewed my notes from my participation on that Joint State

Government Commission committee. Additionally, I gave a lot of thought to the specific issues,

problems and past failures of the child protection system that HB 1311 is seeking to address. I

also reviewed the Report of the Task Force on Child Protection to get a better perspective on

the problems we face in this state as it concerns the child protection system.

The question is, does creating the Office of Children’s Advocate solve the pressing issues

that plague Pennsylvania’s child protection system? I suggest the answer to that question is

“no.” The pressing issues within the child protection system are well known to this committee.

Unmanageably high caseloads, inadequate training to prepare caseworkers for the reality of the

job, and low pay are consistently cited as the critical issues which need addressing. All of these
issues lead to an even greater crisis, unreasonably high caseworker turnover rates. A Child

Advocate does not solve those issues.

The Task Force on Child Protection looked at the issue of creating a Child Advocate

position in Pennsylvania and stated in its report, “Although an office of child advocate or

ombudsman has been viewed as an important tool to protect children, given Pennsylvania’s

state-supervised, county-administered system, the Task Force opined that the office may be

unnecessary and an extra layer of bureaucracy, and resources could be better spent elsewhere.”

I agree with that assessment. You know better than I do that Pennsylvania has limited dollars

to spend. The money that would be spent on the creation of an Office of Children’s Advocate is

sorely needed to address the pressing issues I described earlier. The duties of the child

advocate are in many ways already being performed by the Department of Human Services and

other agencies on both the state and local level. Some examples of agencies and groups that

are already shining a light onto the issues facing the child welfare system include, the Auditor

General, who, in September 2017, released a report studying the problems of the child welfare

system. The AOPC also has a workgroup dedicated to looking into the problem of caseworker

retention.

We share the same goals. And collectively we have done so much together. I know that

by working together again, we can advance our mutual goals. So while we may disagree on this

bill, I hope we can continue our conversation and work together to make Pennsylvania better

for our vulnerable and abused children. Just like we have done in the past.
 Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro
Testimony submitted to the House Children and Youth Committee on House Bill 1311
June 19, 2018
 Chairwoman Watson, Chairman Conklin, and members of the House Children and Youth
Committee, I am Josh Shapiro, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thank
you for inviting me to provide my thoughts on House Bill 1311.

One of my most important duties as Attorney General is to ensure that our

Commonwealth’s children are protected. I’m incredibly proud of my office’s long, accomplished
history of actions to protect children. In my first year in office, our Child Predator Unit arrested
93 dangerous child predators, including a police chief, a pediatrician, a university professor, a
National Guard officer, a deputy coroner, and the former warden of a county jail. Our work on
the Jerry Sandusky investigation helped take a serial child sex abuser out of the community and
show clearly that we will hold our institutional leaders to a higher standard when it comes to
protecting children. And every day, our Office of Public Engagement is in schools and
communities across the Commonwealth teaching children and parents how to protect themselves
from online predators.

I am also a strong advocate for Pennsylvania’s Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs). As

Chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, I supported the opening of the
first CAC in Montgomery County. CACs are vital to helping law enforcement and child
protection workers support victims and help them achieve safety and justice against those who
have harmed them.

The legislation being discussed today would establish a Children’s Advocate within the
Office of Attorney General to receive and investigate complaints related to child welfare
services, including complaints regarding the mismanagement of administrative agencies.

While I know this legislation is well intended, I believe its unintended consequences
would outweigh its benefits. This legislation would not empower my office to take action on
investigations conducted by the Children’s Advocate; instead, it would create additional layers of
bureaucracy, which could frustrate victims’ ability to seek justice. This legislation also does not
provide funding to my office to support the Children’s Advocate or any attendant staff; this lack
of funding would require me to divert scarce resources from other areas of our work.

To the first point, this legislation gives no authority to the Office of Attorney General to
prosecute any wrongdoing discovered during the course of an investigation. While the Children’s
Advocate would have broad investigatory powers, any criminal wrongdoing discovered during
those investigations would have to be reported to the local district attorney, while any
professional disciplinary matters would have to be referred to the agency with relevant oversight
authority.

These investigatory powers would not be unique to the Children’s Advocate or the Office
of Attorney General—they would be duplicative. Whatever agency the Children’s Advocate
would report these issues to would also, necessarily, have original investigatory jurisdiction. I
believe, upon receiving a referral from the Children’s Advocate, those agencies would engage in
their own independent investigation to verify the findings of the Children’s Advocate. This
redundancy could cause delays in the overall investigatory process, with little added benefit to
the investigation or the victims.
 I anticipate that the volume of complaints that would be received by the Children’s
Advocate would require significant resources to thoroughly review and handle them. The bill
would allow for complaints to be submitted to the Children’s Advocate by any individual or
organization. For comparison, Pennsylvania’s ChildLine receives over 150,000 thousand calls
each year. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, in 2016 there were
44,359 reports of child abuse. Of those, 4,549 were substantiated. These record highs were
fueled in part by the recent changes to Pennsylvania’s mandated reporting laws, and are expected
to be the new normal for the Commonwealth.

It is an unfortunate and heartbreaking reality that cases of child abuse and neglect
continue to rise in Pennsylvania. But this trend only points to an increased burden on the
Children’s Advocate as time goes on. Put simply, even if the number of complaints made to the
Children’s Advocate were a mere fraction of the totals noted above, any one person holding that
position would be overwhelmed.

If House Bill 1311 is enacted, the Office of Attorney General would need to hire several
new staff—along with funding the Children’s Advocate position itself—to carry out the
legislative mission. Without any new appropriations, my office need to reduce our efforts in
other important areas of our work in order to adequately staff the Children’s Advocate and
support its work.

Children are our greatest resource and must be cared for. Again, I appreciate the good
intentions behind this bill, and I am encouraged by your willingness to address such an important
and difficult issue. Our shared commitment to protecting children is why I appreciate your
continued support of my office’s Child Predator Section, and why I am requesting additional
funding for that unit in the budget currently being finalized to continue its important work. But
establishing the Children’s Advocate would create additional, unnecessary layers of bureaucracy
and reduce my office’s available resources by requiring me to reallocate funding from other
important areas of our work to adequately staff and support the Children's Advocate.

Thank you Chairwoman Watson, Chairman Conklin, and all members of the committee
for holding this hearing. I appreciate your hard work to protect children across the
Commonwealth.
Testimony on the Office of Children’s Advocate

Secretary Teresa Miller

Department of Human Services

House Children & Youth Committee

June 19, 2018

 Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on establishing the Office of

Children’s Advocate within the Office of Attorney General. Based on Representative Petri’s

House Bill 1311, the Children’s Advocate would be tasked with investigating complaints against

the child welfare system, policies, and procedures, advocating for legislative changes, providing

recommendations to the Governor, General Assembly, Supreme Court, Attorney General, and

Department of Human Services (DHS), and advising the public on assistance the Children’s

Advocate can provide.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Children, Youth and Families

(OCYF) oversees Pennsylvania’s child welfare system, which is state-supervised and county-

administered. Each of the 67 counties in the commonwealth have an established child welfare

agency. The structure of the county agency differs from county to county; however, all counties

are responsible to provide protective services to children in accordance with the Human Services

Code, Child Protective Services Law, Juvenile Act, Adoption Act, and DHS regulations. County

children and youth agencies may provide these services directly or through purchase of service

contracts with private providers with the county agency assuming a case management function.

DHS is committed to continuously assessing and analyzing child welfare system

strengths and challenges, and developing strategies to improve the services provided to children

and families. Currently supervision and oversight are provided on many levels. Within DHS,

four regional offices under OCYF’s Bureau of Children and Family Services monitor both

county agencies and private providers. The regional offices are responsible for annual licensure,

complaint investigations, investigations of child abuse when there is a conflict of interest due to a

contractual relationship, technical assistance, quality service reviews, child fatality/near fatality

case reviews, and needs-based plan and budget reviews. The regional offices, as part of their

1
primary responsibilities, investigate complaints received regarding the services delivered by

county and private children and youth agencies. This includes identifying whether statutory or

regulatory violations occurred and providing recommendations for practice improvement and

development of a corrective action plan.

The Pennsylvania Auditor General’s Office conducts financial and performance audits of

individuals, state agencies, and organizations that receive state funds, which includes county

children and youth agencies. Cost reports for all 67 county children and youth agencies are

reviewed by the Auditor General’s Office to determine the proper use of state funds to

administer social services and to protect children from abuse and neglect. Complaints to the

Auditor General’s Office can result in an audit that independently assesses the performance,

administration, and management of a children and youth agency.

Additional oversight of the child welfare system occurs through the appeal process. In

Pennsylvania, families, licensed agencies, and individuals named as perpetrators can appeal

several decisions made within the child welfare system. This process helps to ensure that due

process is served to the consumers of child welfare services. Depending on the situation, an

appeal can be made to the county children and youth agency, Family Foster Care Agency

(FFCA), DHS Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, Commonwealth Court, or the DHS Secretary.

With a focus on continuous quality improvement, DHS established the PA Child Welfare

Council in November 2016. The group consists of about 50 multidisciplinary members including

county children and youth agencies; private providers; courts and law enforcement; advocates;

and the Departments of Education, Health, and Drug and Alcohol Programs; the Juvenile Court

Judges Commission; and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The Council

2
and its subcommittees meet regularly to assess the child welfare system, identify strengths and

areas for growth, and guide systemic change.

To date, the Council has reviewed statewide child abuse and neglect data, reasons

children enter Pennsylvania’s foster care system, outcome data for counties participating in the

quality service review initiative, and federal mandated plans and system goals. This information

was used to establish priority areas for system change in the areas of safety, permanency, and

well-being. In October 2017, four subcommittees were formed to lead the development of

detailed action plans that would result in overarching system change. The Council and

subcommittees continue to meet on a regular basis to identify action steps that will lead to long-

term system change.

If the Office of Children’s Advocate is established, DHS recommends the office

complement existing efforts and avoid duplication of current oversight responsibilities of the

OCYF regional offices, Pennsylvania Auditor General’s Office, appeal process, and PA Child

Welfare Council. A Children’s Advocate should focus on assisting youth, families, partner

agencies, citizens, and media professionals with system navigation, and educating the public of

the roles and responsibilities of the child welfare system. The position could also engage in

cross-system collaboration with the Departments of Education, Health, and Corrections, and

serve as an active member of the PA Child Welfare Council, Statewide Child Fatality/Near

Fatality Trend Analysis Team, and other appropriate committees and workgroups.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit written testimony and thank you for your

continued support of Pennsylvania’s children and families.

3
 HOUSE OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

June 19, 2018

H.B. 1311

Testimony of Juvenile Law Center, Juveniles for Justice Youth Advocates

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this written testimony in support of H.B. 1311

Juvenile Law Center advocates for rights, dignity, equity and opportunity for youth in the child
welfare and justice systems.

Founded in 1975, Juvenile Law Center is the first non-profit, public interest law firm for children
in the country. Through litigation, appellate advocacy and submission of amicus (friend-of-the-
court) briefs, policy reform, public education, training, consulting, and strategic communications,
we fight for children who come into contact with the child welfare and justice systems. Widely
published and internationally recognized as leaders in the field, Juvenile Law Center has
substantially shaped the development of law and policy on behalf of youth. We strive to ensure
that laws, policies, and practices affecting youth advance racial and economic equity and are
rooted in research, consistent with children’s unique developmental characteristics, and reflective
of international human rights values.

Recognizing that young people are experts on their own lives and their lived experiences are
invaluable to informing the policies that affect them, Juvenile Law Center runs two youth
advocacy programs - Youth Fostering Change (YFC) and Juveniles for Justice (J4J). These
programs recruit and train young people with current or past involvement in the child welfare or
justice systems to lead advocacy and policy reform efforts in their communities.

1
Juvenile Law Center is also part of a Coalition of advocates in Philadelphia—including the
Defender Association of Philadelphia, Support Center for Child Advocates, Public Citizens for
Children and Youth, Education Law Center, CASA of Philadelphia, Disability Rights
Pennsylvania, and others –working to reduce the number of young people placed in institutions
and improve conditions of confinement for the youth who remain.

Juvenile Law Center, together with its youth advocates, strongly supports the need for a
Children’s Advocate [H.B. 1311], to give voice to the thousands of Pennsylvania youth in
institutional confinement.

Pennsylvania youth removed from their homes through the child welfare or juvenile justice
systems commonly face abhorrent conditions of confinement. Children in institutional
placements through the juvenile justice system may experience solitary confinement, physical
restraints, and strip searches – practices that would be considered child abuse if they occurred at
home. Children under the supervision of the child welfare system also experience harsh
conditions in residential placements, including restraints, physical abuse, bullying, medical
neglect, and marginal living conditions. These children are often placed in institutional settings
to address neglect, behavior, mental health issues, intellectual disabilities or school truancy, but
conditions in institutional placements often re-traumatize the children they are intended to treat.

Tragically, the young people who endure these harsh conditions often lack any meaningful way
to speak up and seek help.

This year, our J4J youth advocates focused their annual project on conditions of confinement in
institutional placements in Pennsylvania. They documented their personal experiences facing
illegal and inhumane practices within facilities. They also repeatedly noted how hard it was to
speak out about these practices while in confinement – even to their lawyers or judges. We have
heard similar stories from other members of our Philadelphia Coalition, who routinely work with
or represent youth who have experienced similar draconian conditions in institutional placement,
and likewise have often felt unable to seek help from an adult. The Juveniles for Justice
advocates commented:

As young people in placement, we didn’t know that lawyers and advocates had a limited
time with us. We didn’t know it was important to tell them everything that was happening
in placement. We were scared about retribution and did not think we would be believed
or that anything would be done.

2
Having a Children’s Advocate who will listen to youth in confidence and take their concerns
seriously is key to ensuring youth in state custody receive the safe, appropriate treatment they
need to thrive. Thank you for considering the testimony of Juveniles for Justice advocates Qilah,
Lilly, and Hid below.1

Please feel free to contact us with additional questions.

Kate Burdick, Esq.

Staff Attorney
Juvenile Law Center
The Philadelphia Building
1315 Walnut St. Suite 400
Philadelphia PA 19107
215-625-0551 x 130

Aqilah “Qilah” David, age 19

Qilah’s Story:

Good Afternoon, my name is Qilah. I am 19 and am currently a youth advocate with Juveniles
for Justice. Juveniles for Justice is a program through Juvenile Law Center that believes in the
power of youth voices and provides programming for youth with juvenile justice and child
welfare experience to create advocacy projects based on our experiences. We work to change
those systems. I am so excited to have been part of J4J for the first time this year because I have
gotten to learn about advocacy and what I could do to help better the systems. This year, in J4J
we decided to address harmful conditions in placement facilities.

I am writing this testimony not only because J4J decided to work on this issue but also because
my story is like many other youth’s and I want to help make a change for youth still in
placement. I personally have experience being in both the juvenile justice and child welfare
systems.

I was 15 when I was first sent to a juvenile detention facility. The first incident I had at this
facility, was when I had been having a hard time sleeping and was having menstrual cramps, so I
did not feel up to eating breakfast. I was tired, and I refused to go to breakfast. When I refused,
the staff grabbed and twisted me up out of the bed. Because it was hurting, I resisted. When I
did, the staff woman swung me around, punched me and when I defended myself, the staff
facilitator who was nearby and saw what was happening, threw her walkie-talkie at my head.
After this happened, I tried reporting what happened between me and both the staff but there was

1
Please note that a version of this testimony was previously prepared for a May 17, 2018 hearing before
Philadelphia City Council addressing conditions in institutional placements. The testimony has been edited for
brevity. The J4J advocates believe their testimony also highlights the need for a Children’s Advocate to investigate
harmful conditions in youth institutional placements and be the voice of youth experiencing these conditions, who
are often unable to speak out against them.

3
no disciplinary action for the staff’s behavior. Instead, I lost all my phone time with my family. I
was also put in solitary confinement for 1 day.

At another placement facility I spent four days in solitary, in a room by myself that only had a
metal bench. I did not receive any work and only received my meals throughout the day.

The education in this facility was also at a low standard. In school, we did art every day, it was
basically free time at school. I felt like it didn’t challenge me, and I did not learn anything new or
what I should have while I was there.

I also spent time in a residential facility through the child welfare system. The school work I
received was at a 5th grade level despite that I was in 11th grade at the time. This was not just
my experience but what happened to all the youth there, no matter what grade they were in. We
all had 5th grade work and we didn’t receive grades.

What happened to me in placement should not have happened and should not continue to happen
to any other youth.

Beatriz “Lilly” Jimenez, age 16

Lilly’s Story:

My name is Lilly and I am 16 years old. I am a current youth advocate with Juveniles for Justice
with the Juvenile Law Center. I am a sophomore in high school. I love to shop, dance, be with
my family and have fun. I have many plans for the future, including attending college for
criminal justice, joining the S.W.A.T. team, becoming a lawyer and an advocate for foster youth.

When I entered the delinquency system, I was only 13 years old. My mom thought going to a
juvenile holding facility would be good for me. She thought I would be safe. She did not realize
that I would be abused, strip searched, mistreated, or that I wouldn’t be able continue my
education. I am sharing some really hard things that happened to me because I don’t want them
to happen to other youth.

I first went into placement in May of 2016 and was in two different facilities for a total of about
seven months. First, I was at a lockdown placement in Philadelphia and it was the worst.

There was a lot of physical abuse happening in the facility. There was one staff person assigned
to each floor, and the staff felt that they could do whatever they wanted to the youth. Staff fought
girls, and male staff restrained female youth, which didn’t feel right to me. Staff also let youth
fight other youth by giving them permission to go “off sight” of the cameras so they wouldn’t be
seen. I had also heard about someone being pepper sprayed in response to telling a staff person
“no.” I had witnessed one of my roommates shackled for days and afterward she had black and
blue marks everywhere.

4
If I acted out, they put my hands behind my back and threw me on the floor. One time, I refused
to go to the main room, and a staff person body slammed me. Then, they put me in a small room
with just one staff person for about a whole day. The room was in the boy’s hall, and I had
nothing to do in there. I had eaten around breakfast, but from 9 am - 3:30 pm, they didn’t let me
eat anything.

The food also was unsafe – I found worms in my food a couple times.

There was no school at the facility. We had to stay in one room all day. There was no teacher, no
books, just a tv – and even that was only on when staff wanted to watch tv.

When I was at the facility, at one point I had a seizure related to my medication while I was in
my hut getting ready to sleep, and my friend noticed that I was shaking and my eyes were rolling
back in my head, so she notified the staff person on the floor. But, it took 5 to 10 minutes before
anyone came to help me. A man ended up coming, and he wasn’t even a nurse. All he did was
offer me water.

Another time, a staff member intentionally burned me with a flatiron while she was straightening
my hair. Afterwards, I was in a lot of pain and asked to see the nurse, but she wasn’t there
because she was only part-time, and I never got to see a doctor until I went to court hearing 4 or
5 days later. By that time, it was all scarred. When my judge saw what happened, she moved me
to a different floor. I had to stay at the same facility because the other placement where I was
supposed to go didn’t have a bed available yet.

Even though this facility is now closed, there are other juvenile delinquent centers where youth
may be going through the same thing. It is hard for youth to speak up about these things.

When I was at the facility, I was too scared to open up and talk. I didn’t think anyone would
believe me, and I didn’t think anything would be done if I did speak up—why should I think
anyone would help me as they are sitting there harming me?

Jihid “Hid” Mayes, age 19

Hid’s Story:

My name is Hid, I am 19 years old. I am writing this testimony to share my experiences in

juvenile placement facilities here in Philadelphia and my recommendations for change.

Here are some things I’d like to share about myself. People don’t usually ask (us) youth who
have been in juvenile placement about ourselves, it’s why they don’t really know who we are.
Nobody asked me about my likes, or dislikes, sometimes they don’t even see me as person. I am
an artist, and athlete. I love playing sports and video games. Currently, I am involved in Evening
Reporting Center and this is my first year as a Youth Advocate in Juveniles for Justice at the
Juvenile Law Center. I am interested in cyber security and the military. I also really enjoy

5
playing basketball and before placement, I was playing basketball and football, but when I got
out, I couldn't go back to my old school and couldn’t play.

I am giving this testimony because too many black kids are being sent away for petty crimes and
are being treated unfairly in placements.

My first day in the facility, I refused to be strip searched so they called a code. This code meant
that they pulled me into another room with 5-6 guards and a few of them held me and one guard
forcibly searched me. This happened more than once because I refused every time.

I also witnessed youth being restrained even for talking back and refusing to do something.
When staff yelled and argued with youth, they decided they were finished arguing and suddenly
they got physical and would call “code black” or “code blue” and would “jump” on the youth.

I also felt the school work was bad at the on grounds school. It seemed like they only gave us
work to keep us busy from doing anything. The work really didn’t teach me anything. One time
I got 10 punches from a guard for not doing the school work. But I wasn’t really interested in the
school work they kept giving work that wasn’t at my grade level. Another time, I was on social
media and when they caught me, they tapped me on my shoulder and told me to step out of class.
As soon as I stepped out of the room, one guard held me, and another punched me. Then they
made me go back to class. I never told anyone at the facility because the staff who punched me
would bribe me and other youth they hit with snacks to not tell the CO, or when it happened to
me, told me to not tell when I went to court. No kid should be beaten up from staff at the facility
and especially not for refusing to do class work that’s not on our level. If this happened in
regular school teachers could be arrested and fired.

In this same facility I also spent time in solitary for 1 week once. They put me in solitary because
someone in the cafeteria was looking at me and I felt threatened. In solitary, the whole room was
cushion – a sponge-like substance. They only checked on me when it was time for meals and
they brought my class work to me, otherwise there was nothing for me to do and no one for me
to interact with, I slept, looked at the wall, worked out in the room, and I ate—that’s it, for a
whole week. At first, I didn’t think it would impact me, but after even being in the room with
nothing to do for a few minutes it started to bother me, it made it feel weak because there was
nothing I could do to get out. There was only really me, the walls and the floor.

At this placement a lot of people were also physically injured, including myself. I had gotten a
busted lip and broken ribs from a guard. If you all were behind those walls and faced what we
faced you would understand how horrible it was for me.

I recently found out that this placement was later shut down. But, despite this place being shut
down this is just one of many placements that youth have and will continue to be sent to and
experience things like abuse, solitary, poor education without being able tell what happened.

The things we face change us and can hurt us to the point where youth want to commit suicide.
Kids shouldn’t be sent to placement, especially for petty crimes, and we shouldn’t be abused in
placement.

6
 CORRECTIVE REPRINT
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 1622 PRINTER'S NO. 3502
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOUSE BILL
No. 1311
Session of
2017

INTRODUCED BY WATSON, PETRI, BOBACK, V. BROWN, CALTAGIRONE,

DOWLING, FREEMAN, KAVULICH, MILLARD, MOUL, MURT, O'BRIEN,
ROZZI, RYAN AND TAYLOR, MAY 2, 2017

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH, MAY 2, 2017

AN ACT
1 Amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania
2 Consolidated Statutes, in child protective services, further
3 providing for definitions and for release of information in
4 confidential reports and providing for a Children's Advocate
5 and remedial powers, for response to complaints, for
6 cooperation of agencies and providers, for confidentiality of
7 investigations and records, for findings and recommendations,
8 for protection from retaliation and for nonexclusivity of
9 remedy.
10 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
11 hereby enacts as follows:
12 Section 1. Section 6303(a) of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania
13 Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a definition to read:
14 § 6303. Definitions.
15 (a) General rule.--The following words and phrases when used
16 in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this
17 section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
18 * * *
19 "Children's Advocate." The Children's Advocate established
20 under section 6379.3 (relating to Children's Advocate).
 1 * * *
2 Section 2. Section 6340(a) of Title 23 is amended by adding
3 a paragraph to read:
4 § 6340. Release of information in confidential reports.
5 (a) General rule.--Reports specified in section 6339
6 (relating to confidentiality of reports) shall only be made
7 available to:
8 * * *
9 (19) The Children's Advocate.
10 * * *
11 Section 3. Chapter 63 of Title 23 is amended by adding a
12 subchapter to read:
13 SUBCHAPTER D.1
14 CHILDREN'S ADVOCATE
15 Sec.
16 6379.1. Scope of subchapter.
17 6379.2. Definitions.
18 6379.3. Children's Advocate.
19 6379.4. Powers and duties of Children's Advocate.
20 6379.5. Investigative and remedial powers.
21 6379.6. Response to complaints.
22 6379.7. Cooperation of agencies and providers.
23 6379.8. Confidentiality of investigations and records.
24 6379.9. Report of findings and recommendations.
25 6379.10. Annual report.
26 6379.11. Protection from retaliation.
27 6379.12. Obstruction.
28 6379.13. Nonexclusivity of remedy.
29 § 6379.1. Scope of subchapter.
30 This subchapter relates to the Children's Advocate.

20170HB1311PN3502 - 2 -
 1 § 6379.2. Definitions.
2 The following words and phrases when used in this subchapter
3 shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the
4 context clearly indicates otherwise:
5 "Administrative agency." A State or county agency that
6 provides services to a child who is the subject of an
7 investigation conducted by the Children's Advocate under this
8 subchapter.
9 "Child welfare services." Foster homes, adoptive parents,
10 boarding homes for children, juvenile detention center services
11 or programs for delinquent or dependent children; mental health,
12 mental retardation, early intervention and drug and alcohol
13 services for children; and other child-care services which are
14 provided by or subject to approval, licensure, registration or
15 certification by the Department of Human Services or a county
16 social services agency or which are provided pursuant to a
17 contract with these departments or a county social services
18 agency. The term does not include such services or programs
19 which may be offered by public and private schools, intermediate
20 units or area vocational-technical schools.
21 "Complainant." An individual who makes a complaint under
22 this subchapter.
23 "Remediable action." An action by an administrative agency
24 or an agent of the administrative agency that is:
25 (1) contrary to law, rule or policy;
26 (2) imposed without adequate statement of reason; or
27 (3) based on irrelevant or erroneous grounds.
28 § 6379.3. Children's Advocate.
29 (a) Establishment.--The Office of Children's Advocate is
30 established within the Office of Attorney General.

20170HB1311PN3502 - 3 -
 1 (b) Appointment.--Within 60 days of the effective date of
2 this section, the Attorney General shall appoint a Children's
3 Advocate, subject to confirmation by a majority of the
4 membership of the Senate. The Children's Advocate shall be
5 qualified by training and experience to perform the duties and
6 exercise the powers of the Children's Advocate as provided in
7 this subchapter.
8 (c) Term of office.--The Children's Advocate shall hold
9 office for a term of five years and shall continue to hold
10 office until a successor is appointed. The Attorney General may
11 reappoint the Children's Advocate then serving for one
12 additional term, subject to Senate confirmation. A vacancy shall
13 be filled by appointment for the remainder of the unexpired
14 term. A Children's Advocate who has served part of an unexpired
15 term may serve up to two additional terms.
16 (d) Removal.--The Attorney General may remove the Children's
17 Advocate only for neglect of duty, misconduct or inability to
18 perform duties. The Attorney General shall provide a report to
19 the General Assembly citing the reasons for removal.
20 (e) Administrative support.--The Children's Advocate shall
21 be established as an entity in the Office of Attorney General
22 for purposes of administrative support.
23 § 6379.4. Powers and duties of Children's Advocate.
24 (a) General rule.--The Children's Advocate shall have the
25 following powers and duties:
26 (1) To receive, process and investigate complaints under
27 this subchapter.
28 (2) To pursue legislative advocacy in the best interests
29 of children.
30 (3) To examine policies and procedures utilized by

20170HB1311PN3502 - 4 -
 1 administrative agencies, including investigatory protocols,
2 reporting systems and emergency response procedures.
3 (4) To identify and make appropriate recommendations to
4 the Governor, General Assembly, Supreme Court and Attorney
5 General concerning issues affecting the welfare of children.
6 (5) To identify and make appropriate recommendations to
7 the department regarding uniformity of procedures utilized by
8 administrative agencies.
9 (6) Subject to annual appropriations, to employ
10 sufficient personnel to carry out the powers and duties
11 prescribed by this subchapter.
12 (7) To manage the expenditure of budgeted funds.
13 (8) To advise the public of services of the Children's
14 Advocate, the purposes of the Office of Children's Advocate
15 and the procedures to contact the Office of Children's
16 Advocate.
17 (9) To prescribe procedures necessary to carry out the
18 powers and duties of the Children's Advocate.
19 (10) To issue reports as necessary to carry out the
20 powers and duties of the Children's Advocate.
21 (b) Limitation.--The Children's Advocate may not overrule or
22 overturn an action by an administrative agency or court.
23 § 6379.5. Investigative and remedial powers.
24 The Children's Advocate may:
25 (1) Investigate alleged remediable actions concerning
26 child welfare services throughout this Commonwealth.
27 (2) Investigate received complaints concerning child
28 welfare services in this Commonwealth.
29 (3) Investigate complaints involving violations of
30 applicable law or regulation or the alleged mismanagement of

20170HB1311PN3502 - 5 -
 1 the department or administrative agency which directly or
2 indirectly placed a child in danger.
3 (4) Hold informal and formal hearings and request that
4 individuals appear before the Children's Advocate and give
5 testimony or produce documentary evidence that the Children's
6 Advocate considers relevant to a matter under investigation.
7 (5) If necessary, administer oaths and compel the
8 attendance of witnesses and production of physical evidence
9 by subpoena.
10 (6) Report findings and recommendations under section
11 6379.9 (relating to report of findings and recommendations).
12 § 6379.6. Response to complaints.
13 (a) Notice.--
14 (1) If the Children's Advocate decides to investigate a
15 complaint, the Children's Advocate shall notify the
16 complainant and the department, county agency, provider of
17 child welfare services and other interested parties of the
18 decision to investigate.
19 (2) If the Children's Advocate declines to investigate a
20 complaint or to continue an investigation, the Children's
21 Advocate shall notify the complainant and the department,
22 county agency, provider of child welfare services and other
23 interested parties of the decision and the reasons for the
24 Children's Advocate's action.
25 (b) Professional discipline.--
26 (1) If the investigation of a complaint leads the
27 Children's Advocate to believe the matter complained of may
28 involve professional misconduct, the Children's Advocate
29 shall bring the matter to the attention of the licensing
30 authorities responsible for professional discipline.

20170HB1311PN3502 - 6 -
 1 (2) If the complaint refers to conduct by a nonattorney,
2 guardian ad litem or court-appointed special advocate, the
3 Children's Advocate shall perform a preliminary investigation
4 and transmit the results of the investigation to the court.
5 (3) If the complaint refers to conduct by a licensed
6 attorney, the Children's Advocate shall refer the complaint
7 to the appropriate office within the Supreme Court.
8 (c) Referrals.--In the case of a complaint brought to the
9 attention of the Children's Advocate but not within the
10 Children's Advocate's scope of authority under this subchapter,
11 the Children's Advocate shall refer the complainant to a person
12 or agency with the authority or ability to assist the
13 complainant.
14 (d) Alternative responses.--
15 (1) The Children's Advocate shall advise a person making
16 a complaint to pursue all administrative remedies or channels
17 of complaint available to the person before pursuing a
18 complaint with the Children's Advocate.
19 (2) Subsequent to the administrative processing of a
20 complaint, the Children's Advocate may conduct further
21 investigations.
22 (e) Criminal violations.--
23 (1) If the Children's Advocate finds in the course of an
24 investigation that an individual's action is in violation of
25 Federal or State criminal law, the Children's Advocate shall
26 immediately report that fact to the district attorney or the
27 Attorney General.
28 (2) If the complaint is against a provider of child
29 welfare services, the Children's Advocate shall refer the
30 matter to the department for further action.

20170HB1311PN3502 - 7 -
 1 § 6379.7. Cooperation of agencies and providers.
2 (a) Investigations.--The department, county agency,
3 administrative agency or provider of child welfare services
4 shall:
5 (1) Upon the Children's Advocate's request, grant the
6 Children's Advocate or the Children's Advocate's designee
7 access to all information, records and documents in its
8 possession that the Children's Advocate considers necessary
9 to the investigation.
10 (2) Assist the Children's Advocate in obtaining the
11 necessary releases for those documents that are specifically
12 restricted.
13 (3) Provide the Children's Advocate upon request with
14 progress reports concerning the administrative processing of
15 a complaint.
16 (4) Provide the Children's Advocate with information
17 requested within 10 business days after the written request
18 of the Children's Advocate. If the department determines that
19 release of the information would violate Federal or State
20 law, the Children's Advocate shall be notified of that
21 determination in writing within the 10-day deadline.
22 (b) Public awareness.--The department, county agency or
23 provider of child welfare services shall provide written
24 information to children and youth receiving child welfare
25 services, a biological parent, prospective adoptive parent and
26 foster parent regarding the provisions of this subchapter. The
27 Children's Advocate shall develop written materials for public
28 distribution regarding the provisions of this subchapter.
29 § 6379.8. Confidentiality of investigations and records.
30 (a) Matters under investigation.--

20170HB1311PN3502 - 8 -
 1 (1) The Children's Advocate shall treat all matters
2 under investigation as confidential, including the identities
3 of recipients of information, individuals from whom
4 information is acquired and persons seeking assistance from
5 the Children's Advocate.
6 (2) Upon receipt of information that by law is
7 confidential or privileged, the Children's Advocate shall
8 maintain the confidentiality of the information and shall not
9 further disclose or disseminate the information except as
10 provided by Federal or State law or upon order of a court.
11 (b) Records.--
12 (1) A record of the Office of Children's Advocate is
13 confidential, shall be used only for the purposes of this
14 subchapter and is not subject to subpoena.
15 (2) Information contained in the records of the
16 Children's Advocate may not be disclosed in such a manner as
17 to identify individuals, except upon order of a court.
18 (3) The Children's Advocate or other agency may not
19 disclose a record of the Children's Advocate or a record
20 received from the Children's Advocate under the act of
21 February 14, 2008 (P.L.6, No.3), known as the Right-to-Know
22 Law, except upon order of a court.
23 (4) No person may disclose any record under this
24 subsection without the written consent of the complainant.
25 § 6379.9. Report of findings and recommendations.
26 (a) Report.--The Children's Advocate shall make a report of
27 the findings and recommendations for each investigation.
28 (b) Findings and recommendations.--The Children's Advocate
29 shall establish findings and make recommendations to the
30 department, county agency, provider of child welfare services

20170HB1311PN3502 - 9 -
 1 and other appropriate entities if the Children's Advocate makes
2 any of the following determinations:
3 (1) A matter should be further considered by the
4 department, county agency or provider of child welfare
5 services.
6 (2) An administrative action should be modified or
7 canceled.
8 (3) Reasons should be given for an administrative
9 action.
10 (4) Other action should be taken by the department,
11 county agency or provider of child welfare services.
12 (c) Subjects of report.--
13 (1) Before recording or disseminating a conclusion or
14 recommendation that expressly or by implication criticizes an
15 individual, the department, county agency or provider of
16 child welfare services, the Children's Advocate shall provide
17 the subject of the report with reasonable advance notice and
18 an opportunity to respond.
19 (2) When making a report adverse to the department,
20 county agency or provider of child welfare services, the
21 Children's Advocate shall include in the report any written
22 statement made to the Children's Advocate by the department,
23 county agency or provider of child welfare services in
24 defense or mitigation of the administrative action. The
25 Children's Advocate may request to be notified in writing by
26 the department, county agency or provider of child welfare
27 services within a specified time of any administrative action
28 taken on the recommendations of the Children's Advocate.
29 (d) Notice to complainant.--The Children's Advocate shall
30 provide a person making a complaint with a copy of the

20170HB1311PN3502 - 10 -
 1 Children's Advocate's report regarding the complaint and shall
2 notify the person of any action taken by the Children's Advocate
3 and by the department, county agency or provider of child
4 welfare services. The Children's Advocate may not release to the
5 person any report information or other material required to be
6 kept confidential under section 6339 (relating to
7 confidentiality of reports).
8 § 6379.10. Annual report.
9 (a) Annual report.--The Children's Advocate shall submit to
10 the Governor, General Assembly, administrative office of the
11 Supreme Court, Attorney General and department an annual report
12 on the conduct of the Children's Advocate, including any
13 recommendations regarding the need for legislation or for
14 changes in rules or policies.
15 (b) Contents.--The annual report must include, but not be
16 limited to, the following:
17 (1) A summary of complaints received, including:
18 (i) the number investigated by county;
19 (ii) the number of children involved in each
20 complaint; and
21 (iii) a description of the nature of the complaints
22 that were investigated.
23 (2) A summary of actions taken by the Children's
24 Advocate, including the number of referrals to other entities
25 and a description of the action taken in complaints that were
26 investigated.
27 (3) A summary of collaboration with other entities.
28 (4) A summary of the utilization of funds.
29 (5) A summary of public awareness activity under section
30 6379.7(b) (relating to cooperation of agencies and

20170HB1311PN3502 - 11 -
 1 providers).
2 § 6379.11. Protection from retaliation.
3 (a) General rule.--An official, the department, county
4 agency or provider of child welfare services may not penalize a
5 person for filing a complaint in good faith or cooperating with
6 the Children's Advocate in investigating a complaint under this
7 subchapter.
8 (b) Penalties.--Violations of subsection (a) shall be
9 subject to the penalties contained in section 6 of the act of
10 December 12, 1986 (P.L.1559, No.169), known as the Whistleblower
11 Law.
12 § 6379.12. Obstruction.
13 (a) General rule.--An individual, the department, county
14 agency or provider of child welfare services may not hinder the
15 lawful actions of the Children's Advocate or employees or
16 designees of the Children's Advocate.
17 (b) Penalties.--Violations of subsection (a) shall be
18 subject to the penalties in 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101 (relating to
19 obstructing administration of law or other governmental
20 function).
21 § 6379.13. Nonexclusivity of remedy.
22 (a) General rule.--The authority granted the Children's
23 Advocate under this subchapter is in addition to the authority
24 granted under the provisions of:
25 (1) any other statute or rule under which the remedy or
26 right of appeal or objection is provided for a person; or
27 (2) any procedure provided for the inquiry into or
28 investigation of any matter.
29 (b) Authority of Children's Advocate.--The authority granted
30 the Children's Advocate shall not limit or affect the remedy or

20170HB1311PN3502 - 12 -
1 right of appeal or objection and is not an exclusive remedy or
2 procedure.
3 Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.

20170HB1311PN3502 - 13 -
 BILL SUMMARY

DATE: 5/1/18

COMMITTEE: Children and Youth BILL NO.: HB 1311

PRIME SPONSOR: Watson PRINTER’S NO.: 3502

PREPARED BY: Greg Grasa PHONE NO.: 2-3468

A. SYNOPSIS:

Establishes the Office of Children’s Advocate within the Office of Attorney General.

B. BILL SUMMARY:

HB 1311 amends Chapter 63 of Title 23 (Domestic Relations Code) by adding new Subchapter
D.1, entitled Children’s Advocate.

The Children’s Advocate is established as an entity in the Office of Attorney General to

investigate complaints brought by individuals against the child welfare system.

Within 60 days of enactment of this legislation, the Attorney General shall appoint a Children’s
Advocate, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Senate. The individual shall be qualified
by training and experience to perform the duties and exercise the powers of the Advocate as
outlined in HB 1311.

The Advocate shall hold office for a term of five years. The Attorney General may reappoint the
individual for one additional term, subject to Senate confirmation.

Powers and Duties:

The Children’s Advocate shall have the following powers and duties:
 To receive, process and investigate complaints.
 To pursue legislative advocacy in the best interests of children.
 To examine policies and procedures used by administrative agencies.
 To identify and make appropriate recommendations to the Governor, General Assembly
Supreme Court and Attorney General concerning issues affecting the welfare of children.

This document is a summary of proposed legislation and is prepared only as general information for use by the Republican Members and staff of
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The document does not represent the legislative intent of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
and may not be utilized as such.
  To identify and make appropriate recommendations to the Department of Human
Services (DHS) regarding uniformity of procedures used by administrative agencies.
 To advise the public of services of the Office of Children’s Advocate, the purposes of the
Office, and the procedures to contact the Office.
 To prescribe procedures necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Children’s
Advocate.
 To issue reports as necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Children’s
Advocate.

Limitation:
The Children’s Advocate may not overrule or overturn an action by an administrative agency or
court.

Investigative Powers:
The Children’s Advocate may:
 Investigate alleged remediable actions concerning child welfare services.
 Investigate received complaints concerning child welfare services.
 Investigate complaints involving violations of applicable law or regulation or the alleged
mismanagement of DHS or administrative agency which directly or indirectly place a
child in danger.
 Hold informal and formal hearings and request that individuals appear before the
Advocate and give testimony or produce documentary evidence that the Advocate
considers relevant to the investigation.
 If necessary, administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses and production of
physical evidence by subpoena.
 Report findings and recommendations for each investigation.

Response to Complaints:
If the Children’s Advocate decides to investigate a complaint, notice shall be provided to the
complainant, DHS, county agency, provider of child welfare services and other interested parties.
If the Advocate declines to investigate a complaint, the Advocate shall notify the same parties of
that decision and the reasons for the decision not to investigate.

Professional Discipline:
If the investigation of a complaint leads the Children’s Advocate to believe the matter
complained of may involve professional misconduct, the Advocate shall bring the matter to the
attention of the licensing authorities responsible for professional discipline.

If the complaint refers to conduct by a non-attorney, guardian ad litem or court-appointed special

advocate, the Advocate shall perform a preliminary investigation and transmit the results to the
court.

If the complaint refers to conduct by a licensed attorney, the Advocate shall refer the complaint
to the appropriate office within the Supreme Court.

This document is a summary of proposed legislation and is prepared only as general information for use by the Republican Members and staff of
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The document does not represent the legislative intent of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
and may not be utilized as such.
Referrals:
If a complaint is not within the scope of the Children’s Advocate’s authority, the Advocate shall
refer the complainant to a person or agency with the authority or ability to assist the complainant.

Criminal Violations:
If the Children’s Advocate finds in the course of an investigation that an individual’s action is in
violation of state or federal criminal law, the Advocate shall immediately report that fact to the
district attorney or the Attorney General.

If the complaint is against a provider of child welfare services, the Advocate shall refer the
matter to DHS.

Cooperation of Agencies and Providers:

DHS, the county agency, administrative agency or provider of child welfare services shall, upon
request of the Children’s Advocate:
 Grant the Advocate access to all information, records and documents in its possession
that the Children’s Advocate considers necessary to the investigation.
 Assist the Advocate in obtaining the necessary releases for those documents that are
specifically restricted.
 Provide the Advocate with information requested within 10 business days after the
written request is received. If DHS determines that the release of the information would
violate federal or state law, the Advocate shall be notified of that determination within
the 10-day deadline.

Public Awareness:
DHS, the county agency or provider of child welfare services shall provide written information
about the Office of Children’s Advocate to children and youth receiving child welfare services, a
biological parent, prospective adoptive parent and foster parent.

The Children’s Advocate shall develop written informational materials about the Office for
public distribution.

Confidentiality of Investigations and Records:

The Children’s Advocate shall treat all matters under investigation as confidential. Upon receipt
of information that by law is confidential or privileged, the Advocate shall maintain the
confidentiality of the information.

A record of the Office of Children’s Advocate is confidential. Information contained in the

records of the Advocate may not be disclosed in such a manner as to identify individuals, except
upon order of a court.

The Advocate or other agency may not disclose a record of the Advocate or a record received
from the Advocate under the Right-to-Know Law, except upon order of a court.

This document is a summary of proposed legislation and is prepared only as general information for use by the Republican Members and staff of
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The document does not represent the legislative intent of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
and may not be utilized as such.
No person may disclose any record related to the investigation without the written consent of the
complainant.

Report of Findings and Recommendations:

The Children’s Advocate shall establish findings and make recommendations to DHS, the county
agency, provider of child welfare services and other appropriate entities if the Advocate makes
any of the following determinations:
 A matter should be further considered by DHS, county agency or provider of child
welfare services.
 An administrative action should be modified or canceled.
 Reasons should be given for an administrative action.
 Other action should be taken by DHS, the county agency or provider of child welfare
services.

Subjects of the Report:

Before recording or disseminating a conclusion or recommendation that expressly or by
implication criticizes an individual, DHS, the county agency or child welfare services provider,
the Children’s Advocate shall provide the subject of the report with reasonable advance notice
and an opportunity to respond.

When making a report adverse to DHS, the county agency or provider of child welfare services,
the Advocate shall include in the report any written statement made to the Advocate by DHS, the
county agency or provider of child welfare services in defense or mitigation of the administrative
action.

Notice to Complainant:
The Children’s Advocate shall provide a person making a complaint with a copy of the report
regarding the complaint and shall notify the person of any action taken by the Advocate and by
DHS, the county agency or provider of child welfare services. The Advocate may not release to
the person any report information or other material required to be kept confidential.

Annual Report:
The Children’s Advocate shall submit to the Governor, General Assembly, administrative office
of the Supreme Court, Attorney General and DHS an annual report on the conduct of the
Advocate, including any recommendations regarding the need for legislation or for changes in
rules or policies.

The annual report must include summaries of the following:

 Complaints received, including the number investigated by county, the number of
children involved in each complaint, and a description of the nature of the complaints that
were investigated.
 Actions taken by the Advocate, including the number of referrals to other entities and a
description of the action taken in complaints that were investigated.
 Collaboration with other entities.
 Utilization of funds.
 Public awareness outreach.

This document is a summary of proposed legislation and is prepared only as general information for use by the Republican Members and staff of
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The document does not represent the legislative intent of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
and may not be utilized as such.
Protection from Retaliation:
An official, DHS, the county agency or a provider of child welfare services may not penalize a
person for filing a complaint in good faith or cooperating with the Children’s Advocate in
investigating a complaint. Violators will be subject to the penalties contained in the PA
Whistleblower Law.

Obstruction:
An individual, DHS, the county agency or provider of child welfare may not hinder the lawful
actions of the Children’s Advocate. Violators will be subject to penalties contained in Section
5101 of Title 18 (Crimes Code) (related to obstructing administration of law or other
governmental function).

Access to Confidential Child Abuse Reports:

In addition to creating a new subchapter, HB 1311 amends Title 23 Section 6340 (relating to
confidentiality of reports) to add Children’s Advocate to the list of entities which can access
confidential reports of child abuse.

Definitions:
 “Administrative agency.” A state or county agency that provides services to a child who
is the subject of an investigation by the Children’s Advocate.
 “Child welfare services.” Foster homes, adoptive parents, boarding homes for children,
juvenile detention center services or programs for delinquent or dependent children;
mental health, mental retardation, early intervention and drug and alcohol services for
children; and other child-care services which are provided by or subject to approval,
licensure, registration or certification by DHS or a county social services agency or which
are provided pursuant to a contract with these departments or a county social services
agency. The term does not include such services or programs which may be offered by
public and private schools, intermediate units or area vocational-technical schools.
 “Complainant.” An individual who makes a complaint to the Children’ Advocate.
 “Remediable action.” An action by an administrative agency or an agent of the
administrative agency that is contrary to law, rule or policy; imposed without adequate
statement of reason; or based on irrelevant or erroneous grounds.
Effective Date: Immediately.

C. CURRENT LAW:

Current law does not provide for the Office of Children’s Advocate.

This document is a summary of proposed legislation and is prepared only as general information for use by the Republican Members and staff of
the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The document does not represent the legislative intent of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives
and may not be utilized as such.