October 7, 2026 · CHILDREN AND YOUTH · 5,486 words · 13 speakers · 135 segments
Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the House Children and Youth Committee to order. Just a reminder that this meeting is being broadcasted and recorded. Please make sure your cell phones are silenced. I ask that members use the microphone when speaking and make sure the green light is on as well. I apologize for being late. sometimes technology is not your friend. Today we'll be voting on the following legislation. House Bill 2123, I am the prime sponsor. Senate Bill 1372, sponsored by Senator Brooks. House Bill 2601, sponsored by Representative Hambidge. And House Bill 2695, sponsored by Representative Parker. The first bill assists in ensuring birth parents and prospective adoptive parents are providing fair practices in the adoption process. The second bill provides for an annual report of child care facilities and ensures carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detector devices are housed in child care facilities. The third bill provides for funding to local courts to develop diversion and community-driven alternatives to incarceration for court-adjudicated youth. The fourth bill assists grandparents and other relatives who are raising minor children of another family member in applying for temporary assistance for needy families' benefits.
To get started, I'd like to ask Brooke to take the role.
Chair McNeil?
Here.
Representatives Boyd?
Abelman?
Designation.
Serato?
Designation.
Curry?
Designation.
Fleming?
Designation.
Genst?
Designation.
Hambidge?
Howard?
Yes.
Kazim?
Designation.
Krajewski?
Yes.
McAndrew?
designation Nelson designation Parker chair clunk here representatives barger flick Hogan designation McKenzie Margettis designation Mihalik designation Pugh legal for obisch Wallen designation Walsh you have Thank you.
The chair calls up House Bill 2123, printers number 2746. Danielle, please provide a summary of the bill.
House Bill 2123, sponsored by Representative McNeil, amends Title 23, Domestic Relations of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to Prohibit Unlicensed Adoption Intermediaries from Providing Services or Engaging in Adoption Advertising. The bill accomplishes this by enforcing a fine as an offense. A birth parent and a prospective adoptive parent would be required to have separate legal representation unless the birth parent waives their right. Finally, a home study for prospective adoptive parents may include a minimum of six hours of training on transracial adoption, attachment, and trauma-informed parenting. The following third-party interest group is neutral on this legislation. Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth, and Family Services. There is no known opposition.
Thank you, Danielle. The question is, will the committee report the bill? I will be offering Amendment A-04420. Danielle, please provide a summary of the amendment.
Amendment A-04420, sponsored by Representative McNeil, changes the enforcing state agency from the Department of Human Services to the Office of Attorney General. Fines imposed and collected will be deposited into the general fund.
Thank you, Danielle. Will the committee agree to the amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your willingness to bring this amendment forward and the change in the enforcement agency from DHS to the AG's office and the elimination of the establishment of a new fund. I do believe that would further complicate a process that wouldn't need to be there. I will be a yes on this amendment to keep this bill moving forward. Thank you.
Thank you. Those in favor of the amendment will vote aye. Those opposed, no. Brooke, please call the roll.
Chair McNeil?
Yes.
Representatives Bellman?
Boyd?
Designation.
Serato?
Designation.
Curry?
Designation.
Fleming?
Designation. Against? Designation. Hambridge, Howard, Kazim. Designation. Krajewski, McAndrew. Designation. Nelson. Designation. Parker. Chair Clunk.
I mean, yes, and all Republicans can be recorded as yes. Thank you. On the amendment, the ayes are 16 and the nays are 14. The question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Representative Daly is here. to provide brief remarks on the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for partnering with me on this legislation. I'd also like to thank you and this committee for holding the public hearing on this important issue just a couple of days ago. I became interested in this issue when a constituent came to me, and she was very familiar with the adoption processes in Pennsylvania, and she was really alarmed by the lack of regulation and the people that were able to not be really good citizens for some of the parents. So, and I was really very happy that Chair McNeil signed on as the first sponsor on this. And I think the issue is that Pennsylvania lacks the regulatory or statutory framework to address situations in which bad actors in the adoption brokerage business take advantage of vulnerable parents and hopeful adoptive parents. The goal of this legislation is to prevent unlicensed adoption intermediaries from preying on expectant mothers by directly soliciting them or false claiming through advertisements to be qualified adoption brokers. Even in the best of circumstances, the adoption process can be stressful, both legally and emotionally. House Bill 21-23 would help to provide reassurance to both expectant parents and adoptive parents. So thank you for your interest in this and your support of it. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Representative Dealey, and thank you for sharing the bill with me. I basically have the same language as you, so I won't speak for the bill. I'll repeat myself. If a question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended?
Chair Clunk? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Chairwoman as well for bringing this bill forward on such an important topic. Prior to this bill, I had no idea that these unlicensed adoption intermediaries were operating here in Pennsylvania, preying on our vulnerable birth mothers and potential adoptive parents for a very, very hefty profit. After the hearing on Monday, I do believe that we may need a stronger deterrent for these predatory adoption intermediaries. Given the amounts of money that these unlicensed intermediaries are charging our adoptive parents, my concern is that the civil penalty of a fine will not be enough of a consequence to these entities to deter them from continuing to operate in our state. I would prefer a criminal penalty, and I think that would have the most positive impact. My hope is that we might be able to discuss this and add criminal penalties to the bill before a final vote on the floor. But I do want to keep this bill moving forward because it is incredibly important to make sure we have these consumer protections for our adoptive parents, for our birth mothers. So I will be voting yes, ask my members to do the same to advance this bill through committee today. Thanks.
Thank you. Those in favor of reporting the bill as amended will vote aye. Those opposed, no. All Democratic members will be voting yes. And all Republican members should be reflected in the affirmative too. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair Clunk.
On the question, the ayes are 26 and the nays are 0.
The bill will be reported as amended. The chair calls up Senate Bill 1372, printers number 875. Danielle, please provide a summary of the...
Senate Bill 1372, sponsored by Senator Brooks, amends the Human Services Code by establishing annual reporting of child care facilities while ensuring carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detection devices are housed in child care facilities. The following third interest groups support this legislation Pennsylvania Association for the Education of Young Children Trying Together and First Up The following third interest group is opposed to this legislation Pennsylvania Council of Children Youth and Family Services
Thank you, Danielle. The question is, will the committee report the bill? I will be offering Amendment 04332. Danielle, please provide a summary.
Amendment A04332, sponsored by Representative McNeil, adds clarifying language related to the location and approved installation of the carbon monoxide alarm and definitions for the following terms approved carbon monoxide alarm child care center installed and operational it is important to note that the department of human services is supportive of the amendment thank you will the committee agree to the amendment
thank you madam chair i would like to note that representative margett has joined us for the meeting. And on the amendment, this amendment is essentially the same that you brought forward last year on your bill, which I supported, and I believe this amendment provides necessary clarification on the carbon monoxide alarm requirements, and I will be a yes and ask my members to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Clunk. Those in favor of the amendment will
vote aye. Those opposed, no. All Democrats will be voting yes. And all Republicans can be recorded
in the affirmative. Thank you. On the amendment, the ayes are 26 and the nays are zero. The
amendment is agreed to. The question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be supporting this bill today because I believe this is absolutely crucial for our taxpayers here in the Commonwealth to know what is happening within those walls of our child care facilities. Given that DHS has not posted this information since 2022, over four years, this bill is very necessary to ensure transparency. I will be voting yes. I do know that there are some stakeholders that have some concerns. Maybe we can work with those stakeholders moving forward before final passage. But if that's not possible, I do believe this is incredibly important for the taxpayers of this Commonwealth, and I will be encouraging my members to vote yes.
Those in favor of reporting the bill as amended will vote aye. Those opposed, no. All Democrats will be voting yes. And all Republicans can be marked in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you.
On that question, the ayes are 26 and the nays are zero.
The bill will be reported as amended. The chair calls up House Bill 2601, printer number 3525. Danielle, please provide a summary.
House Bill 2601, sponsored by Representative Hambridge, establishes the Reclaim Program in Pennsylvania by providing funding for courts to develop diversion and community-based alternatives to incarceration for court-adjudicated youth. The following third-party interest group is neutral on this legislation. Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth, and Family Services. There is no known opposition.
Thank you, Danielle. The question is, will the committee report the bill? I will be offering Amendment 04332. Danielle, please provide a summary.
It's Amendment A-04571, sponsored by Representative McNeil. It changes the enforcing state agency from the Department of Human Services to the Juvenile Court Judges Commission. The Juvenile Court Judges Commission shall issue the temporary regulations within six months of the effective date, not later than 120 days after the effective date. The commission shall promulgate temporary regulations to determine the program application and review process, the rules and procedures needed to perform their responsibilities and any other rules or procedures as needed as determined by the commission in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate. It is important to note that the Juvenile Court Judges Commission is supportive of the amendment.
Thank you, Danielle. Will the committee agree to the amendment?
Thank you. I appreciate the Chairwoman working on this particular amendment and making sure that the enforcing agency is moved from DHS to the Juvenile Court Judges Commission. That is the best agency to handle this, and I will be supporting the amendment and ask my members to do the same. Thank you.
If those in favor of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed no, all Democrat members will be a yes. And all Republicans can be marked in the affirmative. Thank you.
On the amendment, the ayes are 26 and the nays are zero.
If question recurs, will the committee report the bill as amended?
Representative Hambridge and Representative Kincaid are both present to provide approval.
Thank you.
and really making sure that kids are not getting caught up in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Reclaim in Ohio provides local juvenile courts with financial incentives to keep nonviolent and low-risk youth in community-based treatment programs instead of sending them to state institutions while also providing robust funding for those community-based programs. Counties receive monthly state allocations for treatment of youthful offenders and at-risk youth, but deductions are made based on credits used for youth who don't receive treatment through local community programs in the previous year and actually are put into state institutions. and then after the total incarceration costs are subtracted from that allocation, it's on a credit basis, the remaining funds are used in the community-based programming. And what we have seen in Ohio is that this has resulted in a substantial increase in kids being able to be treated at home in their communities, to be able to stay in touch with their families, to be able to have the kind of investments that we know help to prevent recidivism and to make sure that kids who make one mistake do not continue down that road. Ohio dropped its incarcerated youth from more than 2,600 in 1992 to less than 375 in 2020 because of this program and because we have invested in local community programming. It doesn't prevent the kids who are accused of serious violent crimes from being incarcerated, and those kids are not deducted from the overall funding. They're not counted against the credit. So this doesn't impact the ability of juvenile courts to handle violent offenses that are committed by youth. But it does incentivize the courts to look at kids as kids and to make sure that at-risk kids and kids who have made minor mistakes are not in a position where they are really not able to get out of the cycle. that we are diverting and we are addressing these kinds of issues in the community to make sure that these kids are remembered to be kids. Kids make mistakes, and nobody should be held to the worst thing that they have ever done, especially kids who have the most ability to be able to learn from their mistakes and do better and live full lives and take advantage of opportunities and so reclaim is considered like the gold standard in how we address you know youth offenders in in the country and personally I don't think that Ohio should be doing anything better than Pennsylvania so I'm happy to propose this with my co-prime rep hand bitch I really think that this could do so much good for kids here in Pennsylvania and and make sure that we are investing in the future of Pennsylvania, even if those kids make a mistake. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative. Representative Hambich?
Thank you so much. Representative Kincaid recently and I recently had the privilege of serving as inaugural fellows for the National Conference of State Legislatures Juvenile Justice Fellowship. And one of the most striking things that we ran across was how much progress other states from across the political spectrum are making and sort of we are in this holding pattern of not making progress on trying to improve this juvenile justice system. They're able to hold kids accountable, reduce unnecessary detentions, save money, expand diversion, and invest in programs that actually reduce recidivism. Pennsylvania has one of the highest rates of youth detention in the country with approximately 91 children per 100,000 being detained or committed to a juvenile facility. And one of the things that we took away from this experience was that detention can so often make the problem worse. For each additional day a young person spends in detention, the likelihood of them recidivating increases by 1%. So taking kids out of their communities, putting them, punishing them too harshly, taking away their support system really puts them at risk for recidivision. And it's not protecting the people of the Commonwealth. It's not saving us any money. And we're not doing these kids any sort of service. We know that these children, if they are placed, they have a less likelihood of success in the long term. And we really need to reexamine how we're doing this. So I'm really proud to bring the Reclaim program to Pennsylvania. I think we could benefit a lot of kids. I think we could save dollars. And I think that we can help reduce recidivism and protect our community.
Thank you, Representative. The question occurs, will the committee report the bill as amended? Representative Schlegel.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm concerned and interested in knowing that because the bill places mandates on counties, has the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, have they weighed in on this?
We have not received any response from them. thank you
Representative Pugh
yes I appreciate this and the work that's in the thoughtfulness that's going into it but I do have a question because I like to think that our human services department in our county is you know second to none and they do a great job working across the board with each department but my concern is going to come down to staffing the one complaint that I get continuously from each one of them inside of the department is they're shorthanded. So how are we funding the staffing that it's going to take to do this inside of the counties?
Representative?
So the staffing comes with the funding. So, one, the fewer kids that we are incarcerating in our detention facilities means that there is less pressure on the staff that is there to be able to handle those kids. They can get more attention and more investment in those facilities because they're not shorthanded. And then the other aspect of it is that we are taking money that we otherwise would be investing in the increased cost that it takes to detain kids back into our community-based treatment programs, which would allow them to actually staff up and to be able to expand the programming to make sure that those kids are able to be taken care of. And that is the effect that we have seen in Ohio as well, because they were running into the same issues, that they didn't have the kind of investment that they needed in order to be able to have local treatment programs that were robust and supported kids, while at the same time they had a ton of kids that were in these detention facilities, and they were short-staffed there as well. What this does is sort of right sizes the ability for staffing to be able to take place and that they have reliable, consistent, robust funding in both regions to be able to address the needs that are there. So you've got less than 400 kids who are being held in detention across the state, so you're able to staff adequately there, while at the same time you have robust funding for the local treatment programs. So you are able to address those issues. That's what has been seen in Ohio. So and to Rep Schlegel's question, we haven't talked to the County Commissioners Association, but at the same time, it's also not necessarily on the county commissioners specifically to handle this. This is actually more going through the juvenile courts and through like the treatment program. So these aren't specifically things that are the burden of the county itself. It's more shared between the courts and the treatment programs.
Okay, I get that. And I'd be interested in knowing what Ohio is paying because I do know we're short-staffed in Luzerne County and they're having a very difficult time to do that. So when they're not in that detention facility, I worry if we don't have the staff outside of it to take care of the kids so they don't fall through the crack or something happens to them. So I think funding is going to be an important part of this.
Thank you. Representative Barger.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the Reclaim program in Ohio is a good one. It's obviously working. It saves money for sure. It reduces recidivism for sure. I mean, we've seen this. Normally, I'm really reluctant to vote for things where we don't know where the money is coming from. And it's just because I'm wired that way. I'm like, oh boy, where is it? You know, you say robust funding and I hear, you know, like, like, where does that money come from? But, um, so normally I would be no on that, but I think programs like this are worth discussing because we can save money. But I'm reluctant to even say that because we say that often, you know, and I think maybe sometimes we have a credibility issues with our counties and local municipalities. Hey, we're going to spend money to save money. And sometimes it doesn't work out. And they hear mandates that don't come with sufficient funding. I share my colleagues' concern about where, even if you have the money, where do the people come from? I know that finding the people to fill up positions is a tough, tough thing in Blair County. But I still think it's worth it. I think we should put this on the table and talk about how do we fund it. Are there other programs that maybe need to go away so that we can fund a program that we can see in other states is working? I have argued in committees and on the House floor that one of the beautiful things about federalism is they have these other policy laboratories that we can look at and see what's working and what isn't. And I think you did a good job finding one. Ohio is working. We should try to do a good job of emulating that and not keep doing the same thing over and over again. So I'm concerned about the funding and how do we staff, even if we have adequate funding, how do we staff this? Even though I know long-term, I think what you're saying is true, that we will make up for the staffing by having more efficient, like we're not hitting those state beds as hard as what we are now. I think it's worth discussing. So with those two concerns going forward that we have an honest conversation about how to fund this the right way, I think it's a good program, and we need to do something different with our juvenile offenders. So I appreciate you bringing it forward, and I'll be a yes.
Thank you.
Chair Clunk. Thank you, Chair McNeil, and thank you to Representative Hambridge and Kincaid for bringing this forward today. I echo some of the concerns of my colleagues here on the committee. I wish we would have had a hearing on this because I think we could have learned a lot. And maybe next session we can have a hearing on this to really flesh this out, to figure out, you know, where are we going to get the funding? How is this funding structure going to look? What is it going to look like? what programs could we potentially roll into this or eliminate to really focus on something that we know that works? So one of my questions is, so in Ohio, do you know how much seed money, if you will, was put into starting this program? So we have an idea of what we're looking at here in Pennsylvania of what we would need to start this program, because I'm just not sure if we need money up front or if it's a shift of money within the pot that's already being allocated for these types of services so that if it's i'm just throwing out a number here i have absolutely no idea say it's 100 million that we're focusing in on these types of you know children all of that money right now is going to these detention centers with the state but we can shift half of that to the counties to do this in their own home county in their home communities So is that what Ohio is doing I just don I don know enough about how this is actually going to work in practice And I want to be supportive of it but I just want to understand better how it
going to work. Thank you. Thank you for that question. I think it's really important. So
Ohio shifted how it does things. So when Reclaim was first launched, it was initially a one-year pilot program with, I think, about nine or ten counties in it. The pilot program was incredibly successful, and so then they expanded it statewide for the year after. And how it initially was funded was basically that they would get, they took sort of the pool of money that was given to, you know, detaining kids and, you know, funding these treatment programs. And it was a monthly allocation based on sort of a per diem, how many kids were being adjudicated. And then there was a deduction from that monthly allocation that was based on the number of kids that were sent to detention to basically pay for them to send them to detention. What they realized after a couple years was that model was kind of unpredictable. And so they started going to a model where it was a yearly allocation based on the year prior so that both the detention centers and the treatment programs would have a little bit more stable funding. So I think us going into this, we are probably going to need to start with an initial pool of money in order to not kind of run into the same problems that Ohio did, where we would start with, you know, a pool of money to kind of launch this. And I don't know what that is. I think that that is a question that we would have to figure out. But after that, it basically has become an Ohio, a self-sustaining model that actually has decreased the overall cost. So they have not needed to put more money into that allocation. They have been able to just use what they have had in that pool and actually not even necessarily all of that. So it has become sort of a self-sustaining model in that way.
thank you for that that was really really helpful and and i do think you know moving forward
maybe talking with the jcjc to really they might be able to give us some numbers on you know approximately how many kids do you think would qualify for this you know what types of numbers are we looking at what's the budget right now what would that cost get the counties involved as we move forward with this i know we're late in session right now so um you know an issue like this probably isn't going to cross the finish line to go to the governor, which I think is good, so we can continue to have these conversations in advance of next year, especially heading into budget, to really talk about how this might work in practice. Because I would love to learn more about this, especially on the cost savings, and really just ultimately helping our kids, giving them the tools that they need in their home community. So I still have some concerns, but I really want to move this process forward so we can continue the conversation. So I will be voting yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Those in favor of reporting the bill as amended will vote aye. Those opposed, no. Brooke, will you call the roll?
Chair McNeil?
Yes.
Representatives Bellman?
Yes.
Boyd?
Designation, yes.
Serato?
Designation, yes.
Curry?
Designation, yes.
Fleming?
Designation, yes.
Genst?
Designation, yes.
Hambridge?
Howard?
Yes.
Kazim?
Designation, yes.
Krajewski?
Nick Andrew?
Designation, yes.
Nelson?
Designation, yes.
Parker?
Yes.
Chair Clunk?
Yes, and all Republicans can be voted in the affirmative.
Thank you.
On the question, the ayes are 26 and the nays are zero.
The bill will be reported as amended. The chair calls up House Bill 2695, printers number 3762. Danielle, please provide a summary of the bill.
House Bill 2695, sponsored by Representative Parker, amends Title 23 domestic relations of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by removing barriers for grandparents and other relatives who are raising minor children of another family member and applying for TANF benefits. The following third-party interest group is neutral on this legislation. Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth, and Family Services. There is no known opposition.
Thank you, Danielle.
Representative Parker is present to provide brief remarks on the bill.
Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman McNeil and Chairwoman Klunk. Thank you for considering House Bill 2695, taking care of our kids. There are over 202,000 children in Pennsylvania that live in kinship care or our household headed by their grandparents or other relatives. More than 80,000 of those households are responsible for meeting the children's basic needs. We're talking about food, diapers, formula, clothes, doctors, appointments, and more. It adds up very fast. And the grandparents who are retired or are on a fixed income, it hits harder. Under the current state law, temporary assistance for needy families applicants are required to pursue support against a non-custodial parent. This is a huge burden for kinship caregivers who sped up and took responsibility for the child or children. It shouldn't be difficult and time-consuming for caregivers to receive needed assistance. House Bill 2695 would adjust the Child Support Enforcement Program to ensure that caregivers can receive benefits if they meet certain requirements. Only grandparents and guardians who meet this criteria would be eligible for any benefits. We need to streamline the TANF application process for eligible kinship caregivers because they stepped up when they were needed, and that's what we should be doing for them. Thank you for your time and hopefully your support.
Thank you, Representative Parker. The question occurs, will the committee support the bill? Representative Schlegel.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As a grandparent, and having heard from a number of grandparent constituents in the 101st District, I'm certainly happy to see that we now are moving forward on behalf of those grandparents that are very much involved with the raising of their grandchildren, providing support and doing what it takes to help to provide them with a life that will move them forward to becoming productive citizens so thank you very
much thank you representative you yes this piece of legislation means a lot to
me as a grandmother also and the grandparents that are in Luzerne County in 120th district we meet quite regularly and them trying to find the funds that they need to raise their grandchildren is very, very difficult to the point they would love to see any adoption fees for a grandparent actually be waived because they can't afford to actually go through the process. So I appreciate this. Any help we can give our grandparents in
raising our grandchildren, I think, is a huge step forward. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Clark.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Representative Parker for bringing forward this bill, we all know folks in our own families, our friends, our constituents. I think of my constituent Gina, who's a grandmother who's going through this, who is caring for her son's daughter. And grandparents in particular are taking on that role in so many communities all across our state, and they should have fast access to assistance if they need it to help take care of their grandchildren so I truly appreciate the carve out that this bill provides so that these folks are not losing precious time and receiving these benefits by having to go through that exercise of pursuing the child support from the parents who are truly just for the reasons you know that are in the bill unfortunately unable to do that to comply so for the grandparents the sisters brothers aunts uncles cousins and all those family members who are caring for the children of those relatives that unfortunately can and we I hope and pray that one day they can. But until then, we are just so grateful that those family members are stepping up, and we need to be removing those barriers for those family members who are just doing the Lord's work. So I will be voting yes and ask all the Republican members to do the same.
Thank you. Thank you. Those in favor reporting the bill as committed will vote aye. Those opposed no. All Democrats will be voting yes. And all Republicans should be voted in the affirmative. Thank you. Thank you.
On the question, the ayes are 26 and the nays are zero.
The bill will be recorded as committed. No further business. We are adjourned. Thank you.