House Education [Mar 18, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representatives Bacon? Excuse. Bradfield?

Flannell?

Garcia-Sander?

Gilchrist?

Hamrick?

Hartsook?

Johnson?

Phillips?

Stuart Kay?

Story?

Martinez?

Madam Chair?

Okay. We are hearing two bills today. We will start with House Bill 1282. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. This bill, HB 26-1282, it addresses duplicative and contradicting regulations for school-based before and after school programs. So currently, the programs are not only regulated by Colorado Department of Education, which oversees school district operations, facilities, and staff training, but they are also regulated by the Department of Early Childhood under child care licensing rules. So this has created situations where districts have to navigate two separate regulatory systems, often with conflicting requirements for things like playground equipment and staff training. So one of my school districts, Adams 12, they came to me early in the fall to talk about the issues that they were facing. And they're looking for a resolution where they can still maintain health, life, safety, of course, while still acknowledging the other requirements that they have to meet to serve students and families. So the result is an increase in administrative costs, delays in onboarding staff, and a lot of confusion for students, families, and educators without improving safety or quality program. So my personal experience, I've worked as an attorney, I've worked both sides of this issue, meaning I've represented families whose students were in before and after school programs, and maybe there's a disciplinary removal, maybe there's some disability issues. So I understand the system, and I also understand the system from the other side because I've been through the process with CDEC representing before and after school programs. When things happen, like an inspector came in and there was, during COVID, hand sanitizer was left out, you know, on the outside. It wasn't in a cabinet. And then the process went. So all of a sudden there's a probation letter, you know, that went out to all the families. You know, it just seemed pretty extreme. so we did go through the process and we went through an appeal and which we won everything was okay we found out that there had been a conflict with one of the inspectors so my point is just it's a it's a complicated system in which a lot of people just need clarity and so that's what this bill is about so this bill is introduced it started off with a nice long list of things that we wanted to fix but because it was things that the school districts saw as duplicative and contradictory. But then after a very, very robust stakeholder process, it was clear that there was significant opposition from the early childhood community relating to equity and federal law. So through the stakeholder process, our conversations shifted to CDEC waivers and how important it is that we have a strong waiver process. So what happened is the school district, some of their concerns were things that they could get waivers for. And number one, they didn't know that they could get waivers, and number two, the waiver process takes too long because it can take up to six months So conversations with the department and the districts made it clear that there are waivers that are available that districts don know about And districts are getting charged when they apply for stringency appeals. And this prevents districts from serving students very efficiently and effectively. So we have worked collaboratively on a massive strike below amendment. And my co-sponsor will talk about that in more detail.

Thank you. And just noting for the record that AML Bacon is here.

I mean it simply says that for the preservation of safety which is what the bill is about Rep Johnson Thank you I mean it kind of leads to my second question because this is still going back to the school districts So I worried

Does it put a lot of burden onto the school districts?

allowing time for school districts to adapt for what's coming,

Rep Phillips.

So Rep Johnson, I heard like three questions there. So your question is why are we waiting 90 days to implement, or your question is is there a fiscal or both?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Permission to dialogue? Permission granted. Thank you. Okay, so first would be, let's address, so with L011, do we know if this is going to have any changes to the fiscal note, or do we know what it's going to put onto local school districts? So we were just informed. Yes, there's a potential for fiscal now because we changed from the 30-day timeline for waivers, and it used to be six months, but we don't know how much it is. So what we would do is, I mean, our choices are, you know, if this gets, because there's a fiscal, but it's an unknown fiscal, so we can route to appropriations. But then if the fiscal, probably almost if there's a fiscal period, But if the fiscal looks like it's not going to work for us, then we can strike that section about the 30 days. Okay. And then the second would be really – so the 90 days come into play with the safety clause. Petitions would allow for 90 days for people to come back and work things. If this does bring the fiscal note forth because of this amendment before the strike, my concern is not allowing those extra days for school districts, local governance to adapt. every time we push things through with new mandates or new recommendations. I'm always for allowing for folks, especially in rural areas, to have more time.

The two small things in the bill are not already being done. So I'm not clear what's not. Like what it allows for, it's staff training, it's playgrounds. You can have a playground inspection from an outside person now. That's what it does. And the waiver process, now you have 30 days. They have 30 days to get the waivers instead of six months. That's currently not happening. That's actually one of the problems is that the feedback we got from the schools was to get, because it was like, oh, you can get waivers, and then there were two problems. Oh, we didn't know we could get waivers. That's why we're like, okay, let schools know you can get waivers. And then number two, the waiver process takes too long, and so that's why we changed it. Okay I guess would you be open to still talking about a potential petition clause Rep Johnson we are always open to talking especially on this bill It not like we talked a lot already

Rep Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Rep Garcia, I prefer that the experts in the room answer a question, especially coming from you, because I fear that there would be some more detailed questioning following that I may not be able to answer. So I would like to defer your question to the experts in the room that will be testifying.

I just have to say, in all due respect and a little bit of humor, this started out as the chocolate milk bill, and the word chocolate milk is no longer in this bill. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alethea Gomez, and I'm the Colorado Executive Director of Executives Partnering to Invest in Children, also known as EPIC. We are the Colorado Business Community's voice for early care and education. Our membership of over 70 business executives believes that what's good for children is good for business and significantly impacts the economic growth and well-being of Colorado. First, I would like to thank Representatives Phillips and Goldstein for their work on this bill and their commitment to the children and families of Colorado. We really appreciate all of your hard work. I'm here today to share acknowledgments and concerns about this bill. EPIC cannot support different sets of regulations for the health and safety of young children based on who owns the building they are in, which is what is proposed in the bill is currently drafted. EPIC fully acknowledges that there are significant challenges in the child care licensing system and that child care providers of all types deal with conflicting and duplicative regulations. However, we believe that waiving some requirements for one set of these providers, those who are operating out of public schools, will make the problem worse, not better. We are fully supportive of efforts to improve the regulatory environment while still supporting the health and safety of all children. We believe that these efforts are best accomplished by looking at the whole system and maintaining consistent standards for various childcare settings. Currently, Senate Bill 2620 proposed is a task force to do just that. And we see this approach is the right one so that barriers are reduced for all providers, including school districts. I also understand, as Representative Phillips mentioned earlier, that there are amendments being introduced today which may address some of our concerns in this bill. If these amendments achieve the objective of streamlining regulations without creating an alternative set of requirements for public school settings, then EPIC could be supportive of that approach. We do understand that it makes sense for school districts to not have to submit the same information to multiple agencies, ask teachers to participate in redundant trainings, or have multiple inspections for the same purpose. We can support a bill that removes these barriers for school districts without providing a blanket waiver for health and safety regulations. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this bill today and I hope you will join us in our commitment to supporting Colorado's mixed delivery system and improving it for all providers. Thank you so much and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you and we'll go to Dawn Alexander. Welcome. Good morning chair and members of the community. Thank you for allowing our public testimony. I am Dawn Alexander, the Executive Director of the Early Childhood Education Association of Colorado. We represent private and nonprofit programs statewide that serve over 31,000 children annually, providing essential care for working families. We, like EPIC, strongly oppose any kind of additional carve-out for school districts. I know that there are changes to the bill and appreciate those changes and honestly really appreciate the fact that it's honing in on stringency appeals and the waiver process and all of that. And it looks like those changes are consistent across the industry, which we greatly appreciate. What we need to do, like Epic stated, is create one system that is supportive of the entire industry. Specific carve-outs for parts or pieces of the industry are undermining the morale and the functioning of our industry. Private providers are already facing an uneven playing field. We pay significant property taxes, often up to $250,000 a year, while districts and nonprofits do not. Since Universal Preschool launched, districts have repurposed empty schools to rapidly expand, accounting for 76% of new early childhood infrastructure in just two years' time. In that same period, 105 private programs permanently closed, not downsized or sold. They completely closed, threatening access and choice for families. There are unintended consequences for public policies. So further exceptions to school districts would accelerate that trend, leaving many communities with only their school district as a child care option. Child care families deserve diverse, high-quality choices, not policies that consolidate control in public entities. We urge the committee to not create new footholds for the school district and to strongly support the diverse child care industry out there, including private providers. Thank you for your time.

Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you Madam Chair And this is a question for Alethea Gomez I just curious did you hear what the bill sponsors presented as far as the strike below amendment and whether this affects private businesses private preschool before and after school care providers

Thank you.

hello madam chair and members of the committee i'm dr mathangy subramanian and i am the director of early childhood policy at the colorado children's campaign the colorado children's campaign is a non-partisan policy organization committed to making colorado the best place to be a kid and raise a kid. We use data and research to identify what kids across our state need most, then advocate for policies that strengthen their well-being and help them thrive. Our focus is the whole child, working across early childhood, K-12 education, health, and economic security for the greatest long-term impact, which is why we are here in support of the amended version of House Bill 1282. Thank you to Representatives Phillips and Goldstein for their leadership on this legislation and for their willingness to find thoughtful solutions to stakeholder concerns. Thank you also to the school districts, including Adams 12 and early childhood experts who positively engaged with the stakeholding process and ultimately came to a compromise. In its amended form, House Bill 1282 addresses duplicative regulations between the Colorado Department of Education and the Department of Early Childhood while remaining compliant with federal law. Colorado currently has a shortage of high-quality child care centers. Measures like House Bill 1282 that reduce paperwork and allow child care centers to concentrate on serving as many children at the highest quality possible make child care more available to Colorado families, which benefits us all. The strike below before us bolsters and improves our child care system by streamlining the waiver process for CD inspections while maintaining critical health, life, and safety standards and maintaining our compliance with federal regulations. The bill's stakeholder engagement process demonstrated how effectively school districts and other providers can work together to put children's and families' interests first. This kind of collaboration is key to the successful mixed delivery child care system that Colorado families deserve. This is why, as amended, we support House Bill 1282. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I welcome questions.

Thank you Good afternoon members of the committee My name is Caitlin McHenry and I am here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium testifying in an amend position ECEC is a nationwide nonprofit of high multi multi child care providers In Colorado, our members operate more than 200 early learning centers with the capacity to serve over 31,000 children every single day. Colorado's child care licensing system creates a baseline of health and safety requirements that all providers must meet to ensure that children are appropriately supervised, staff have the proper training, the building and facility are safe, and that these requirements are met on an ongoing basis. These minimum requirements are the same regardless of where a child is receiving care because they are designed around a child's needs, which do not change based on where the child is enrolled. That is why ECEC was opposed to the introduced version of the bill, which created a different set of regulatory standards based solely on where a child receives care. That said, we do recognize that out-of-school time settings on public school grounds are unique and that schools could have alternative methods for demonstrating their compliance with the CDEC rules. Importantly, this does not mean waiving those requirements, but rather considering additional opportunities to demonstrate that the requirements have been and will continue to be met. We want to sincerely thank the sponsors for hearing our concerns and working so diligently with stakeholders to develop major improvements to the bill. The amendment that will be considered today was a product of many, many productive conversations that will provide schools clear flexibility while maintaining all critical health and safety requirements. We urge the committee to adopt the amendment that will be presented today. We understand that challenges exist in the current licensing system because community-based providers experience them too. The answer is not to remove or lower those standards, but to make them smarter and clearer. Again, I want to thank the sponsors for their dedication to working towards a reasonable solution that works for all providers and families and urge the committee to vote in favor of this amendment. Thank you, and I would be happy to

Good morning, Chair Lukens and members of the committee. My name is Crystal Smith, and I represent KinderCare Learning Companies and our out-of-school-time program champions. I am testifying in the amend position on House Bill 1282 today and believe the amendments being brought are important to improve this bill further as we greatly appreciate the sponsor's ongoing stakeholder engagement to ensure this measure supports all provider types. KinderCare operates 40 child care centers and 33 Champions before and after school programs across Colorado, serving more than 5,200 children from six weeks to age 12, with more than 20% of the families that we serve accessing care through Colorado CCAP. Through Champions, we partner with school districts to operate before and after school programs in elementary schools using gyms, cafeterias, playgrounds, and multi-purpose spaces. Each site is licensed through the CDEC and we follow all required health and safety regulations, as do our Kinder Care Center-based programs. This is important to us as the safety and well-being of the children in our care is our first and most important priority. That is why our organization is opposed to the bill as written. Health and safety standards for young children should be consistent regardless of where care takes place. A parent choosing after-school care at Champions or a KinderCare Center should have confidence that expectations around licensing, such as child-to-staff ratios, background checks, and injury reporting are the same. Because KinderCare chooses to participate in important programs for families like UPK and Colorado CCAP we understand that we must also adhere to and consistently meet those programs regulations While we agree that streamlining duplicative regulations between CDEC and CDE is a worthwhile goal, HB 26-1282, as currently drafted, would weaken those standards for children based solely on where they receive care. We believe that there is a better path forward. For example, SB 26-020 would create a task force to review licensing requirements across child care settings, which is an appropriate venue to thoughtfully address any potential duplication while maintaining compliance through the CCDF requirements. I also understand that several amendments will be considered today. These would be a major improvement over the current bill draft as they would keep all critical health and safety standards in place for children. To maintain our existing strong mixed delivery system serving Colorado families, maintain the compliance with federal law, and promote the health and safety of all children, we respectfully urge the committee to adopt amendments that preserve health and safety standards while providing schools a pathway to demonstrate compliance. Thank you for your opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Teresa Ribble, and I am the Licensing Support Program Manager at the Department of Early Childhood. On behalf of the department, I am testifying to amend House Bill 26-1282. As introduced, the bill would eliminate non-duplicative health and safety regulations, including risking children's health and safety and making school districts ineligible to participate in the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, Universal Preschool, and Head Start. We expect an amendment to be introduced today that will address the majority of our concerns. We thank the sponsors and proponents for all of their hard work to address those concerns. The amendment removes regulatory exemptions and instead clarifies that programs that exclusively serve school-age children and that operate on school district property can meet CDEC's staff training and floor space requirements if they provide evidence of compliance with similar CDE standards. In situations where CDE standards do not meet the requirements of federal grants administered by the department, CDEC will still have the authority to enforce and monitor applicable federal grant requirements. This ensures that the department maintains compliance with CCDF requirements and that these programs can continue to participate in the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program. However, CDEC still has two remaining concerns with the bill as amended. The provision for establishing a minimum timeline for responding to waiver requests and the provision prohibiting the department from charging fees for stringency appeals would create an additional workload and cost for the department. I thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Chair Lukens, Vice Chair Martinez, members of the House Education Committee. My name is Asa Hollingsworth and I serve as a government relations specialist for Learning Care. Appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony urging critical amendments to House Bill 1282 in order to ensure the safety of young children. As one of the nation's largest child care providers, Learning Care operates 25 centers across three trusted bands, safely educating and caring for more than 4,100 children daily through dedicated staff and inclusion programs that ensure access for families across a range of programs, including the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, Off-Base Military Care, Employer Partnerships, Colorado's UPK program, in addition to private pay. Colorado's licensing requirements set a common floor designed to protect the health and safety of children in every child care and preschool setting. These minimum requirements are foundational and focus on the child, not the setting. We oppose any efforts to change standards based on where child care is provided. All children deserve the same rigorous safety protections regardless of the child care setting, and therefore, learning care is opposed to House Bill 1282 as introduced. House Bill 1282 presents several significant concerns. It strips CDEC of its regulatory authority over vital safety standards without designating a clear alternative for oversight, risking an imbalanced system that creates unnecessary friction between public and community-based education providers. The bill could prevent families from using state-funded UPK subsidies within public school settings, disrupt care options for families, and move away from child-centered health and safety standards by prioritizing the location of care over the needs of the student. Finally, legislation misinterprets necessary state and federal oversight often required for participation in public programs as being duplicative and threaten the state's alignment with federal CCDF guidelines, which may put federal funding at risk. However, Learning Care is deeply appreciative of the bill's sponsor's willingness to engage with stakeholders and acknowledge that out-of-state school time programs operate under unique circumstances and therefore make significant improvements to the bill. We understand that an amendment will be considered today that would significantly improve the bill by including alternative mechanisms that allow schools to demonstrate they are meeting or exceeding all CDEC health and safety benchmarks. Given this, we respectfully request the committee to adopt the amendment that will be presented today in order to preserve all core licensing requirements, offering schools different avenues to verify their compliance. Thank you so much for the consideration and the feedback on this bill. Learning Care looks forward to working with the committee and ensure all Colorado families

All right, am I on? Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jana Seissner. I serve as the Chief Financial Officer for Douglas County School District, and I'm honored to have the before and after school program as a part of my team and appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I'd like to share with you something you may not realize in our schools. The bell changes everything. A teacher who fully qualified to work with your children all day background checked fingerprinted trusted suddenly becomes unqualified the moment that bell rings The exact same adult, exact same building, exact same students, and they must start an entirely new qualification process because the school day has ended. A few more examples. All day long, a fourth grader knows where the restroom is and can go independently. But when the bell rings, suddenly they must be escorted and supervised. The beloved chocolate milk at snack time? Not anymore. The bell rang. Want to take students to the cafeteria for an art project? Same space was perfectly acceptable during the school day, but is suddenly off limits. Now we can only use a different, pre-approved room off in the gym because the rules changed when the bell rang. Nothing about the building changed. nothing about the students change, and nothing about the adults caring for them has changed, but the rules did because the bell rang. And with them sometimes goes common sense. These kinds of requirements create unnecessary barriers for schools, caring for families and children. They add complexity without improving safety. We appreciate your work on this bill because it restores some very important things. The ability for schools to use sound judgment, focus on what truly matters, the safety, care, and well-being of our students. Because the truth is, the needs of the kids don't change when that bell rings. Thank you for your time and considering this important step towards bringing common sense back to how we support our students. Thank you.

Good morning, Representative Lukens and members of the community. My name is Lisa Hart and I am the Executive Director of Business Services for Adams 12 Five Star Schools and I am here today to speak in support of HB 1282. In my role I oversee the business and operational functions that allow our schools to run safely and efficiently and prior to my role I spent 28 of my 30 years in Adams 12 working directly in and with our after school programs. Currently our school-based child care programs are caught between two sets of regulations. Those are the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado Department of Early Childhood. This regulatory double standard doesn't just create confusion, it creates significant administrative and financial burden in our district. I can assure you that we have systems and structures in place that are very different from the Child Care Center. Policies on policies, a legal department that ensures we meet all federal regulations, we are well equipped to serve students in a safe, secure, and compliant way. We support this bill because it focuses on common sense efficiencies that allow us to reinvest district resources back into our students in two ways. One, it's a removal of fees. Currently, we are charged fees just to appeal violations that we believe were incorrectly issues. Waiving these stringency fees is a critical step in ensuring public funds are used for education, not redundant administrative costs. Some of these costs are as a result of inconsistency in interpretation and the way that these rules are applied. It's important to our families that they receive high quality care and we file these waivers due to the way that some of these rules are applied. It creates confusion and a burden for our programs and that is why we believe that these waivers are important. We understand that there could be additional fiscal note. However, we feel that some of these waivers when we apply for them really should not be going in front of CDEC and therefore really it a redundancy and really it an efficiency that should not have risen to that level in the first place The second part of that is alignment of expertise This bill allows us to use certified playground inspectors and to verify the safety of our playground facilities This eliminates the safety catch-22 where professional experts and licensing specialists use different protocols to measure the same surfacing. While we originally hoped to solve even more of these duplicative hurdles, we view HB 1282 as a vital small step in the right direction. It opens the door for a more streamlined, effective relationship between our district and state regulators. I urge your support for this measure. Thank you for your time.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Denise Nichols. And I don't mind just pulling it closer to you. Thank you. I have proudly served Douglas County School District for 30 years. I have also helped develop quality standards for the Colorado After School Partnership, and our district was the first to receive organization accreditation from the council on accreditation. I share this because maintaining high quality standards and out-of-school time programs is a priority. I am here today in strong support of House Bill 26-1282. School districts are committed to providing safe, enriching programs for students. However, these programs are currently being constrained by duplicative and conflicting regulations from both the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado Department of Early Childhood. These overlapping rules do not improve safety or quality. They create barriers. For example, during the school day, a licensed teacher may supervise 25 students who can independently use the restroom, play on improved equipment, and eat school-approved provided meals. But after school, the same teacher must be re-fingerprinted, re-trained, and only supervise 15 students. Students must be escorted to the restroom, often pulling multiple children away from activities to maintain child-adult ratios. This directly reduces the quality of programming. Staff must stop activities limiting enrichment and meaningful connections with students and families. Consider a 12-year-old, an age when independence and leadership are developing. Instead of fostering those skills, we are limiting her independence and taking staff away from the opportunities that support her growth. At the same time, spaces and resources deemed safe during the school day are suddenly considered unsafe safe after school these inconsistencies do not make sense and create unnecessary financial burdens for districts and families House bill 261282 offers a common sense solution by removing duplicative requirements and allowing schools to focus on what matters most high quality care and education for our students I urge you to support this bill and thank you for your time thank you welcome thank you my name is Carrie LockerMeyer I am the director for the peak and base programs in Adams 12 and have been in that area for around 30, just over 30 years now. I'm here to testify today on HB 1282. I want to thank the Madam Chair and the committee members as well as we start today. When we began the process, our goal was to significantly streamline licensing requirements for school district operated programs. to better reflect the unique environment of a public school system and this school district. While the bill before you today is far from everything we initially sought it represents a meaningful small step forward and a much larger ongoing conversation Before I go any further I want to extend a sincere thank you to Rep. Phillips and Goldstein for their help and support, the Early Childhood Consortium, and the Colorado Children's Campaign. Their contributions have been vital for the children's campaign specifically. It is important to acknowledge that they came from a place of yes from the very beginning, working tirelessly to find common ground in a complex regulatory landscape. It is important to understand that we sought to have Colorado Department of Early Childhood, which has a strong focus on the ECE age groups, not specifically school age, recognize the high standards already established in public school districts governed by the Colorado Department of Education, our Board of Education, federal laws, our district program policies and procedures, and our actual program procedures and policies. This recognition would move to ending duplication, stopping duplicate training, and inspections for facilities that are already certified safe to serve students each and every day. Common sense safety practices that can align rules for things like playground equipment, school nutrition, so that school day doesn't suddenly become noncompliant the moment the afterschool program begins. And financial impacts and mandates. Unlike private licensed facilities, public school districts are uniquely governed by federal laws like the McKinney-Vento Act. This requires districts to waive fees and provide specialized support to students in foster and homeless and student supports. These services cost us well over $30,000 to $50,000 per year. Additionally, we pay indirect costs of upwards to $500,000 a year to support expenses for those school districts. So we are subject to fees in a similar fashion than private. The broader goal remains important. We see this legislation as a necessary foundation for addressing duplications and operational inconsistencies across our school district programs they operate. We look forward to continuing the work with the department to ensure school age programs can operate efficiently without compromising quality or safety for students while using common sense practices. House Bill 1282 is a start. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment 011. Second.

Are there any questions on L11? Are there any objections to L11? Seeing none, L11 is adopted. Bill sponsors any more amendments?

Do you have any more amendments?

Okay. Bill, any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Closing comments, Rep. Phillips.

Yep, Goldstein.

Closing comments from the committee. Rep. Garcia Sander.

And the proper motion is to the Appropriations Committee. Rep. Phillips.

I'll second it. What? I'll second it.

Representatives Bacon?

Bradfield?

Flannell?

Garcia-Sander?

Gilchrist?

Hamrick?

Hartzook?

Johnson?

Phillips?

Stuart Kaye?

Story?

Martinez?

Madam Chair?

Congratulations.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. I apologize for my voice. Thank you for the opportunity to present Health Bill 26-13-21. This bill represents a common sense refinement of the Social Security, the School Security Disbursement Program, to ensure that state resources are directed toward the most impactful, comprehensive, and accessible safety resources for our Colorado schools. The School Security Disbursement Program was created to bolster the safety of our educational environments. However, as the program has evolved, we have identified a need to more clearly define the types of organizations that receive these public funds. Currently, the program allows for disbursements to entities that may have a narrow focus or, in some areas, may still require local providers to shoulder the costs. When public grant money is used to sustain a facility or program, that resource should be a public good, accessible to our educators and first responders without financial barriers. Rep Stewart.

Questions for our bill sponsors. Rip Johnson.

Rep. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Johnson, for the questions and the ongoing discussion. I hear you, but I will say that there are multiple organizations who have received these grant dollars in the past, and all of them have supported rural schools. The organization that provides these services at no cost has actually paid for the travel costs of folks from rural districts, the hotel costs to come down. Because, again, there are limited resources, especially in our rural districts. And we want to make sure that folks are able to access the essential training that they need. And so I will just say that, like, many, many counties all throughout our state have been served by the organizations who have received these grants in the past. not just a single one.

Rep Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. Yes, like I said, these conversations are ongoing. We are happy to continue these discussions around clarifying how the funds may be used. But I will just say, as a person who has spent a really significant portion of my career working in nonprofits, in operations. Every single grant goes to support your mission, regardless of whether or not it's a programmatic grant that is specifically for a singular program. There are fringe costs, overhead and admin costs that go to support whatever the sole mission of the organization is. So as much as we can say these funds may not go to X, Y, and Z, Just the simple fact that those funds are going to an organization that does, as their main mission, support, you know, programs that we think are antithetical to this particular school safety grant. Like, it's just inarguable that those funds go to those organizations to fund those programs.

This is the committee's discussion. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleague. On this side of the bench, I appreciate it. And I appreciate the accounting and education. You could just say all of North. Okay. No, so pointing out that, you know, so there is a group faster that utilizes the grants that would be based on the way this bill is written. They would not be able to use these grants anymore. And they help to install safe practices and training for our teachers. So they are the first response in schools. And how do we end up, you know, promoting our communities and making sure. And they also offer free law enforcement training. so it does help get you know more law enforcement out in rural colorado where we have a desert of not having enough of them but it also helps with how do we promote you know our other first responders they do work with emts and paramedics they work again like i said with teachers and custodial staff and other school administrative helping to best support students with what little resources we have to make sure we are ensuring public safety out in areas that don't have the benefits of all the resources that other areas like urban have. So, thank you. So they train otherwise not traditional first responders on how to be first responders. And does that include then with weapons? Johnson. It does. So it does. It does with the tools of that. It does separate though. I mean, for these, these teachers to be enrolled in this program, they have to have their own firearm. They have to have their own concealed carry. They have to do so many things before they're admitted in the program. It's helping them best identify potentially dangerous situations, how to best respond to potentially dangerous, best adequate of do we flee? Do we run? What do we do? What is the best in the scenario? And how do we adapt them to better respond within seconds when law enforcement hopefully is a couple minutes away, but in my districts, it could be half hour, 40 minutes away.

I'm sure there's an operational piece for the state with issuing grants in August. But the first thing it does is name the type of organizations that are eligible the work that they do, which now will include violence prevention and behavioral health, which is more than just incident response. And then the bottom part, sub five, talks about an operational expectation for an organization that gets a grant. So I think I'd just like to understand then. I mean, there was a question on flexibilities. But how would you then articulate what you now believe the purpose of this grant is to do and with whom by way of profile of organizations? Does that make sense? Okay.

to lines 13 and 14. I think you also heard from our colleague that training in arming teachers is something that goes on with some of these organizations, which can be quite well encompassed in the current definition that's in statute, which is just school safety incident response. It's not incredibly well-defined. That can be exactly what the aforementioned conversation was about. And to Representative Hamrick's point, we know that behavioral health support and violence prevention are also incredibly critical, holistic pieces to preventing these incidents from happening in our schools in the first place. Um, I, I, my, um, my, my spouse is a survivor of the Columbine shooting, which precipitated one of the organizations that does all of these trainings here in Colorado. Um, and, um, oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. No, it's okay. I'll pull it together. and this is just like this is happening over and over again in Colorado we cannot simply rely on incidence response we have to invest in programs that are actually working on prevention and so to be investing in organizations that provide comprehensive violence prevention and incident response is incredibly critical because we just, there was another one this year

So my husband worked at a very rural school where the closest law enforcement was an hour and a half away. And so he said, yes, please, can I have my office manager and superintendent be armed staff? That I mean immediate I familiar with the program that does some of that training and the people that go through that training must be nearly their certification is passed post So they are getting training like law enforcement does get plus beyond that for their firearm safety and shooting. I guess a question that I have for you about this, the bill says that the grants can be going to eligible nonprofit organizations that provide training for school safety, incident response, violence prevention, and behavioral health. Later, it says that it's an and, so this entity needs to provide all three, school safety incident response, violence prevention, and behavioral health at no charge. And that just seems like there are lots of organizations that do safety incident response or violence prevention or behavioral health support. But if you're asking nonprofits to provide all three, it's getting out of those niches. Is that getting down to naming a single or a duo organization that actually does provide all three? And if that's the case, does that limit the grant applicant pool? It seems like there will be far fewer organizations, which is I think what the representative from northeastern Colorado was talking about is, you know, not picking winners and losers, but is this bill setting it up that only a few or one or two organizations actually do get this grant money? And also, I've got to put it on record that in the state of Colorado, any school that has armed staff that has a sign out in front that says, notice our school has armed staff, or I think it says may have armed staff on the campus, none of those schools have had a school shooting. So I just want that to be on the record.

So just clarifying, so this is narrowing down that pool even more to fewer organizations that will be able to apply for the grant?

Rep Hartzell. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks, sponsors. So I got some questions. You stated that some of the things that have happened in the past are untithical. You state that in here it says you want violence prevention, behavioral health, amongst several other things. Would we not assume that if we want to prevent something if we want to do all of the things outlined that instead of narrowing this down to where we were picking one maybe two we should be broadening it to maximize the businesses both profit and non then accomplish any mission that meets the needs of schools throughout the state. Why are we going down to one option for the entire state of 6.2 million people and all the schools involved? Why are we not broadening it? Why are we making it more narrow?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It cannot be broadening if you're specifying that it must do everything and one entity must do all of it. You are now limiting businesses. If that's not written in their business statement, I ran a business. I know how to write mission statements. I know how to write business statements. If your business statement doesn't include everything that's identified in the bill, that by definition is limiting it. We are now limiting the number of businesses, nonprofits, entities that can compete. We are not broadening. You've added definitions, but you've limited the scope by saying they all must include this. That does not achieve maximum participation in getting out there. That limits the pool of who you can put an RFP to.

Rep Hartzik. If the dispersing agency, Department of Public Safety, if they're supposed to look over these things, but you and I are tying their hands and limiting them to saying it has to include all of this, how on earth does that make maximum use of the money that's out there? I concur. We have limited dollars. So why not let the dispersing agency pick via an RFP process who can best satisfy piece A, piece B, piece C, and piece D versus everybody going, nope, you either take all of it or you take none of it. That is not a wise use of limited dollars.

Yeah, the question was, is how do you explain limiting going down to one option when the dispersing agency now has a multitude of ways to go? The RFP process sells that. So how are you saying by only going to maximize those dollars through satisfying every requirement? That is, how do you justify that? Rep Stewart.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, sponsors, I really do get the intent. I just feel like it's highly inappropriate when we have one nonprofit writing a bill that's going to limit another nonprofit from having access to this and limiting the competition. when all we talk about in this building when we're trying to protect students is more access, more access. How do we get more resources? And what works best from one, you know, one non-organization does not work sometimes, you know, in all of our communities. Just like the other organization does not work in all our communities And we need to make sure we fitting what best for our school districts I have 34 school districts and not all 34 of those operate the same and we have highly contentious meetings all the time actually when I meet with them saying well this school district in this county wants this but your other two school districts want this but we're over here wanting this and in our state when we're trying to keep students safe should we not be opening and you know it's been hit all the time you know these three things that you have to hit A, B, and C but that's also disingenuous then when you're trying to have some group come in that says we want to focus on behavioral health but we don't have the prevention side so now we're going to say well we need more behavioral health access and preventative access if they don't hit the other sides they also don't get this and so it feels like when we're trying to spread something so thin trying to help i mean would you not say that someone who is a jack in one trade is the best at promoting that and as soon as we make someone a jack in all trades they're no longer a jack. They're just there trying to touch base on everything without optimizing their expertise in one of the three sectors. Would you not agree that we should be hitting all three of these the best we can as opposed to saying if you don't hit the three, we're just not going to let you help

And the intent of this bill is to clearly define the evidence-based and holistic expertise that we're looking for in order to provide services under this one single grant in Colorado.

Okay, so for the record, I see head nods from the bill sponsors. Anything to add on? Okay, Rep. K. Stewart.

Rep. Garcia-Sander, do you have a response?

I think that Rep. Johnson also wanted to add on to that response.

questions, I have Rep Johnson, Rep Gilchrist, and Rep Story, and then we will move to the witness

Okay, Rip Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to turn this into a question, but I think also important to address because I know it was stated for the record regarding arming teachers and the evidence of that in safety in schools that there is no reliable evidence that arming teachers deter school shootings or reduces their severity. The U.S. Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan research service that helps educate members of Congress, found that the lack of rigorous evidence regarding effectiveness of our main teachers. So I think incredibly important that that's on the record, that there's no evidence to show that those types of programs are helpful. I think also, and agree with Amal Bacon in her statement, that it is the purview of the legislature to make sure that when we have grant programs that they are invested in evidence-based programs. So I think maybe I would just turn that into a question to the sponsors, that I have appreciated that your goal with this is to make sure that we're investing in evidence-based programs. Is that correct?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. Yes. I have a story.

So, you know, my understanding from looking at the bill is we're talking about grant funding from the Department of Public Safety, and that seems to be correct, nods from the sponsors. And as has already been mentioned, funds are limited. We all know funding is limited in everything we do right now, extremely limited. And I would imagine that if with this bill with the Department of Public Safety and the particular grants that would come through the Department of Public Safety focused on these elements that are specified in the summary to provide school safety incident response, violence prevention, behavioral health training, and expertise at no cost to local education providers, and it goes on. that if there are entities that are desired in terms of others who provide services, but they don't necessarily provide behavioral health training, which was mentioned as an example, but cover some of the other elements, then it is totally fine to acquire services from these other entities. It just won't be necessarily grant funding from the Department of Public Safety. And I imagine there are scores of grants out there with some searching to find entities that could be covered by grant monies coming from other sources. So we're talking about Department of Public Safety with tax dollars focused on this type of grant to provide these types of services. And one grant is not going to be everything for everybody, just like any other thing we do that has grant money associated with it. like grants are specified to be allocated based on certain criteria, and that's exactly what this bill is doing. And so I also, you know, I don't have a question, but it's just part of the conversation, that we can't expect a single grant from the Department of Public Safety to meet the needs of all school districts across the state when needs are varied. there will be other grants available out there that one people, entities might need to search for.

Perfect. Can you hear me now?

Well, thanks so much for having me. So my name is Charlie North. I am the grants manager that oversees these grants within the Office of School Safety within the Colorado Department of Public Safety. And so we are here to oppose this grant specifically for the language for this amendment. My apologies. Simply because it is very restrictive. And we believe that as a state entity, we have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that we are officially and effectively utilizing the grant dollars. As you guys know in July 2023 the Office of School Safety was created It expanded the Colorado School Safety Resource Center which offers free resources to all schools across Colorado in helping them through preventative measures, training, threat assessment, so on and so forth. And then it also created the Crisis Response Unit within the Office of School Safety. What that unit does is they go out and do proactive and preventative training as well as assist with crisis after the crisis has occurred with responses. In that case, we are opposing this bill simply because it now will pay for the services that Office of School Safety does for free across the state as it relates to the behavioral health portion. the office of school safety services the entire state for free and so we're asking to we're opposing this bill simply because essentially the office of school safety provides these services and so what we would like to do is partner with the non-profits where they can bridge that gap and the office of school safety does not offer law enforcement training in incident response And so we would partner and contract with nonprofits who apply for this grant for them to provide incident safety, school safety incident response. I will mention that we are talking about the school safety disbursement grant. And so the school safety disbursement grant, essentially we're going to fund schools first. That is our broadest grant. Every school district, Boise's charter school, across the state can apply for the school security disbursement grant program and are funded. We always, every year that we've had this grant, have over 65% in request for grant funds than the grant money that we have to give. So we do prioritize school districts to get these funds. There has only been one nonprofit that has been awarded to fund their nonprofit traditional activities, and they were awarded less than 3% of the grant amount for that year, which was $16 million.

Thank you so much. My name is Daniel Finnelson. I'm the Director of Operations for the Colorado State Shooting Association, and I'm also a school shooting survivor. When a shooter came to my campus, I heard the doors go into lockdown, the deadbolt set into place, the sirens ring, I heard the gunshots, and I stood next to the door. I was in a biology lab. We were taking a final with a scalpel, again in a biology lab, and my pocket knife. And I realized that I was bringing a knife to a gunfight, and if that shooter picked my room, I would die. Now, I know I was saved and am saved by the loving grace of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, but I didn't know if that was true for my classmates, my teacher, or the TA who had handed me to the scalpel to stand next to the door. My goal, if that shooter picked my room, was to wrap around the barrel of the firearm, drop to the ground, and try to get the knives into his chest in the process. we need to have armed school staff in order to be able to protect students so that people don't have to experience the fear and the trauma that I went through people should not have to experience losing a friend like I did or seeing their friends taken away ambulances. What this bill does is it makes it more difficult for the best solution that we have to school shootings from going forward. And if our goal, if the goal of this legislature and the goal of every Coloradan, as it should be, is to protect students so that people don't have my kind of story, then we need to make sure that this bill does not go through, at least in its current form. I am all about behavioral health and mental health being applied and given resources given to students and to others. But that's not the purpose of a school safety grant. A school safety grant is to make the school safer. And we've seen here in Colorado and across the nation that these kinds of grants or these kinds of programs were armed school staff are allowed to be present. and their presence is known, that it does dissuade individuals from picking those schools to enact violence. Evil will exist regardless of what we do. The question is if we're going to prevent it from going after our students. The facts remain that no school in the state of Colorado that has an armed school staff presence and is made known has had a school shooting. Let me say that again. No, zero, none of the schools that have armed school staff have had school shootings here in the state. And we've even seen it take effect in other states. We look at the Nashville shooting against the Christian school that was there and the manifesto from that shooter, whose name I will never mention, just like I will never mention the name of the school shooter at my school. They deserve no notoriety. But that manifesto, they were picking which schools to target, and they specifically said that they would not choose schools that had armed school staff. We saw the same thing in Manapela school with the Catholic school shooting there. If we have a solution that's working and it's protecting people, why are we trying to change that solution now? I'm open to any questions, and feel free to ask me any questions about my story. It's one that needs to be shared and not replicated.

Does the school security disbursement program allow for arming teachers? So no grant that we have in the Office of School Safety allows for arming teachers. We have not funded any nonprofit to arm teachers only to train local law enforcement.

No, the intent of this program was to secure our schools across our state. It was realized that a lot of our schools, specifically rural, some metro schools, didn't have the basic necessities, things as simple as locks. Just recently in our last round, we had a school asking for proper locks to lock their doors to make sure individuals who should not be entering the school or exiting the school can do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is also for Department of Public Safety. I have two. My first is, can you clarify how grantees are chosen and how the grant use is tracked? Essentially, can any grant money go toward admin costs or similar? Ms. North.

Rep. Johnson, follow up. Thank you, Madam Chair. And then just a follow up. Can you clarify what OSS is doing for behavioral health and violence prevention and why we need nonprofits to focus on training law enforcement incident response?

Rep. Garcia-Sander.

The department is currently not seeking any amendments as the bill is written. It is written to include nonprofits and it has very specific language on the requirements for nonprofits, which is a lot broader. than the language that's being introduced today. And I will say, I will remind the committee that we did have one nonprofit that applied to fund their nonprofit activities under the prior language.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. North, you've heard prior testimony talking about expanding the mission. So it says in here, violence prevents behavior health. you've already addressed some of the things that you do. Can you please explain from your perspective and the Department of Public Safety's perspective, what are you already doing that is not they saying it not covered because they saying that some of that stuff antithetical so where is it that you and your expertise and your whole department of public safety see something that's missing that if you're already covering violence prevention and those things is there a gap in there what what is it that we're missing here

AML Bacon. Thank you. I'm confused. I thought I heard you say from an organization's nonprofit activity. And so can I just read back the eligible organizations for this grant are nonprofits as defined under 501c3, the federal tax code. And so when you say nonprofit activity, what do you mean? Are you supporting organizations that have that, you know, I have, I have like worked for an organization that has C3 and C4 work, for example. So what do you mean by when you say nonprofit activity and when you say nonprofits? Because it's my understanding that the only eligible entities for this grant, according to definition, are local education providers or eligible nonprofit organizations, which are defined by having C3 status.

AML Bacon, follow-up? Are you saying that these additions broaden it past nonprofits?

May we?

Because I think my question, I heard you say nonprofit activity. And so I guess I'm just questioning, do you anticipate then that there might be organizations or entities that have other business other than non-profit? You know, that's what it sounded like because I'm like, I don't hear how any of these things are not non-profit. So when I said non-profit activities, there are two schools that were awarded in fiscal year 24 that also have non-profits.

Correct. That was disclosed. And it wasn't like a foundation. I mean, I don't. OK, maybe that's another question. because why schools have those in that you saying the way that this is already written is regardless of if it a school If the school has its own C3 a C3 would be eligible If they are able to have that

Rep Story.

And then they passed the excise tax. And so if we were to fund it this year, which we have not been able to, it would have been up to a million dollars based on the monies that came in from the excise tax. But we have not received anything, so we have not funded that grant for this current fiscal year.

So the creation of the Office of School Safety, the School Safety Disbursement Grant Program was written into that legislation for that year. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is for Mr. Fenelson. Do you think that focusing on training law requirements or I'm sorry, training law enforcement and armed staff is a better use of these grants than the proposed changes? Mr. Fenelson.

Amel Bacon. I'm sorry. Thank you. And for what it's worth, law enforcement in schools might as well be armed staff. And we have evidence of school shootings happening where there are armed people in buildings. But this is what my issue is, and I'm sorry for my frustration. I don't know what the argument is, because if you want to support this organization because they train arming teachers, that is a problem because that is not why this organization has issued grants. And I don't know what it is that we're trying to make by way of an argument to separate this. Are we saying that we want to support this organization because they train to arm teachers? And if that's the case, they should not be eligible for this grant, let alone that their money is not being used per the purposes of the grant as articulated by the agency. And so if this organization is using money to do that, that is in violation of what they have been issued dollars for. And our agency specifically said we do not give them money to do that. And in fact, they can't use our money to do that. So I don't understand what the argument is. And I'm frustrated by it. And if we are going, I'm not finished. I'm sorry. Thank you. I would love to hear your response. But I think that's what my question is for the witness. What is it that we are advocating for here in relationship to this grant, given the boundaries I just articulated? If you are interested in funding organizations to do what you're saying, I'm wondering if you could just state that. Because if that is the case, we might have to look for a different grant.

Mr. Fenelson, sure.

And I think my point with violence prevention is what we've seen is working in violence prevention is deterrence, because when people understand that there is either a well-trained law enforcement program to be able to respond to the incident of a school shooting or of some other mass tragedy at a school, like we just saw the individual drive a car, a vehicle through the hallways of a synagogue and was able to be prevented to carrying out further atrocities. because there was an armed response. That armed response is not just a deterrent, but it is also able to prevent those tragedies from continuing on. And so when we're talking about this grant, whether it goes to, as I believe I heard earlier, hardening schools with different locks, different programs to make sure the school is stronger, and also for law enforcement, It's it's all part of an ecosystem that makes the school more difficult to attack. And if those systems were in place in the school that I was at then maybe the shooter would have not either chosen not to attack my school or would have chosen not to attack any school because his ability to commit harm to commit violence would have been greatly reduced And so we need it a multifaceted solution that this grant is part of the solution of And so my group, the Colorado State Shooting Association, we do raise funds for groups that do train armed school staff. And we do that completely outside of the government entity. But I also understand that there's government programs that can go in and help make sure that law enforcement are prepared to respond to those instances, that those schools are more difficult to attack. And it's not a one solution fixes everything. It's everybody working together. And what this grant does is appeals off resources for making schools safer in the exact way that we see is working when the mental health side of that, of the new grant regulations are already covered by the government and are already being provided to the schools. And so all this is doing the shifting focus away to something that's already being fixed and making our schools more vulnerable. And that representative bacon is where the argument lies, that we are shifting the resources away from making schools safer in a way that's actually working and shifting them to an area that the resources are already there and putting money into a system that's already being provided or service that's already being provided by the government to the schools.

My name is Shauna Fritzler. I'm the Executive Director of the D'Angelo Center Foundation. We're here to support HB 1321. I want to make it clear that this bill does not guarantee funds for our nonprofit or any other. The state has the ability to offer grants for any portion of the work we do or none. The reason we feel so strongly about this bill is that any nonprofit working in the area of school safety must have comprehensive knowledge supporting prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. This includes expertise in behavioral health. To single out only response only allows silos to be built in which everyone involved forgets to coordinate with the others to save lives and minimize trauma. Ensuring behavioral health components are part of response training allows the responders to be made aware of the impacts they will encounter. When we designed the DeAngelo Center we sought to replicate the environment of an actual school, simulating the sights, smells, and sounds of the responders will experience in a school. It's crucial to put them into the frame of mind understanding that there are students, children, and educators present in school. Each responder has a different task but must know how to work with the others, including school staff and those victims present in the building. Ensuring de-escalation occurs in an attempt to lower the trauma impacts, trauma impacts to everyone involved are of extreme importance. Our subject matter experts and team have extreme experience and have responded to nearly every tragedy Colorado has experienced. Unfortunately, there have been several. They have assisted in other states as they experience school shooting tragedies. They also have experience preventing these tragedies right here in Colorado School safety is now a billion a year business Any nonprofit serving in this field must collaborate with law enforcement school districts educators school safety staff families and students I come to you as a certified suicide prevention trainer and executive director of the foundation. I will present to you letters from Frank DeAngelis, principal of Columbine, a school resource officer, a police department deputy chief, a career educator and principal, a police and public safety psychologist, an attorney, and an educator, mother, and Columbine survivor. I also come to you with a list of over 200 agencies and school districts, including rural, for which we have provided training and support. I urge you to recognize the need for comprehensive understanding, experience, knowledge, education, and care with this very important work. This is how we keep our children and education staff safe. but it's also how we ensure our responders are not subjected to needless trauma and make it home to their own families. This avoids generational trauma that we already have in Colorado. It is our job to recognize those lessons learned from past tragedies such as Columbine and build the environment we want for our children and future. Please support this bill. Thank you.

A little bit nervous here. I haven't spoken in front of you guys in a while. My name is AJ DeAndrea. I am a retired deputy chief with the Arvada Police Department. Did 30 years there. Of my 30 years, 16 were spent on the Jefferson County Regional SWAT team. I was the element team leader on the first sweep to the center part of the building at Columbine High School. I had my second school shooting September 27, 2006 at Platte Canyon High School in Park County, where I was about three feet from a little girl named Emily Keys, and she was shot. We subsequently dealt with the suspect. My third school shooting was December 9, 2007, at the Youth with a Mission Missionary School at 63rd and Yank in Arvada, Colorado, where I personally carried out a young girl named Tiffany Johnson, who was shot 11 times. Went back in the building, carried out a young man named Philip Krause, who was shot one time in the liver. Had them en route to the hospital within 10 minutes. Unfortunately, both of them succumbed to their injuries. And so I speak for you from that perspective. Since my retirement, I run a small company, Centereo Training and Consulting, and literally travel the world, trying to deal with this issue of active shootings and trying to keep our students safe. The State Department sent me over to Serbia after they had their school shooting. And I will tell you that there are common threads. That if we want to be serious about this problem, there are common threads that we need to focus on. With finite money that we're looking at here with the state, I get it, right? We have to decide where that money goes. And we do spend a lot of time on incident response, and we have to. But there's other things that are proven that show that we can help stop these. We're never going to stop them all. It just, as the other man up here, and I forgot his name, I'm sorry, said there is evil in the world. But a more comprehensive way of looking at these things with finite money where we send that. Basically eight pillars that we look at. Climate and culture, behavioral threat assessment, decision making, target hardening, tactics, training, event management, and post-event management. We don't have the money to touch all of those. But if we can touch on a few more of those as we're moving forward, we have a better chance of stopping them before they kick off. And again, we spend so much. time focused on the incident response that we miss the opportunities to stop these before they happen. Now, Colorado, we have been successful with some of our programs. Safe to Tell has been an amazing thing. We've got some success stories. But one of the common threads I see is we relearn the same lessons over and over again as I travel the country, literally travel the world. We need to prevent that. And when we look at the bill, two things, I've got 10 seconds that are important to me. The behavioral aspect so that we can stop these, prevent them before they happen. And then the timing of the grant money needs to come sooner. We lost months last year to train our school resource officers, our schools, because the money wasn't released soon enough. Sorry for going over. Thank you. And we're sorry to hear about all of those tragic

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll now move on to our question phase.

Thank you.

Do you have an idea of percentage?

not just grant funding. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So by those numbers, would it be safe to assume that most of your funds for your organization, the majority, or the most of them come from the Colorado Department of Public Safety or state grants like the such? Ms. Fritzler. Depending on the year. Sometimes it has been state in past years, So we've been around legally since the end of 2018.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last question then. Just government grants then, state and federal. Do you say that's where the majority of the funding source to keep your organization alive comes from? Who's that directed to? Either of the two with the group.

Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was in my first couple of years of teaching when Columbine happened, and as a classroom teacher, became a principal, a district administrator, and so I really appreciate, you know, it used to be the I Love You Guys Foundation. I think that got kind of folded into the DeAngelis. I'm not sure if it's still separate, but I know that you guys have done a lot of work in the same area, and it's evolved a lot over the last 30 years as far as what the foundations are providing in support for our schools. So thank you. I appreciate that a lot. I am curious, do you see we've had, you've been in the room, you've heard some conversation around the intent of this grant to kind of funnel the grant funds to nonprofits that provide the school safety incident response, the violence prevention, and behavioral health, all three components, which could exclude any of the niche entities that provide one or two of those but not a third. I'm just curious, do you see what the DeAngelo Center does, or I'm inferring that your entity would be a recipient of this grant. Do you see it as being in opposition to any of the other groups or in tandem with the other groups? I guess I'm just curious in the big picture of things. We all want to do everything that we can to support school safety. And I guess I still kind of hung up on the and part of this bill being exclusive to an entity that offers all three and what that looks like versus excluding any of the other niche areas that might be supportive

Brett Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Dr. Nicoletti. Dr. Nicoletti, thank you for being here. I've actually been through your training, and I'm an expert witness. state and federal for juveniles that are being charged as adults. So my question is about the current grant money. I heard you talk about threat assessment, and so I'm wondering if the – can you talk about the threat assessment process and is it effective? And since you're receiving grant money for the threat assessment process, then what are some of the things that you are continuing to work on? Is it Mr. Nicoletti or Dr. Nicoletti?

Just a follow-up to with Ms. Fritzler. I just wanted to, I guess, clarify so does the DeAngelis Center also work with some of the entities that I guess faster was mentioned but other other entities that are running programs do you work in tandem with them do you collaborate with them specifically on providing like the school safety incident response component or do you have your own component of that and go ahead miss Fritzler Thank you. So AJ DeHantria is who I turned to for that. So he was deputy chief in Nevada. He has responded to so many tragedies. He only listed a few of them. He's very modest about that. But he also brings in other law enforcement officers. So through his training company, he is my subject matter expert for that.

Reb Hartzell. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you panel So I curious Earlier we had testimony from Denver Department of Public Service Public safety, good Lord. I know, I'm getting as bad as you. That's what I was thinking of. We're an education. So specifically in the bill it talks about incident response, violence prevention, behavioral health training. I've heard a lot of mention of threat assessment. I've heard no mention of building resiliency. And here's my plug, 26 years in the Army, multiple deployments. My wife's a surgeon. Promise you I've seen a lot of trauma, both overseas, both stateside. So if we're talking threat assessment, which isn't in the legislation, we're not talking about resiliency, which is not in the legislation. We're talking about these three things. When all is said and done, because my argument has been we should be broadening this, and it seems to me more we're getting more and more narrow based upon what's in here how many non-profits are going to be eligible to do what we're talking about in here let me mr nicoletti

Mr. D'Andrea. Yeah. And so we talk about threat prevention.

Yes, and that will get into social mobiles and all the other things we've argued about in here. But my question was, based on everything that we're looking at and the things you've talked about and the things I'm arguing about broadening versus this seems to be narrowing, how many nonprofits are eligible under this criteria? Mr. D'Andrea?

Good story. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of you for being here.

You know, thank you. Ms. Fritzler.

Rep Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for that. I've captured that in the values subjects. But what I'm talking about is the individuals that come for training. Like early on, as I remember, it was the SROs in Jeffco. And it's moved on from there. So can you share with the committee the entities that have come to train and how that has evolved over time? Mr. D'Andrea.

Can I respond to that also? I think actually all three of you raised your hand to add on. So we'll actually start. I saw Mr. Bell's hand first, and then we'll move down.

Mr. Nicoletti.

Ms. Fritzler.

Yes, we all have the packets. Okay, we are 14 minutes over time. I had Rep Bradfield as one more question, and also since Rep Bradfield is the only person so far who has not asked a question. So, Rep Bradfield, you'll be our last question, and then we will move on.

in colorado that do similar to what you folks do miss fritzler uh i would say that i know that

okay thank you so much we appreciate your testimony I also learned a lot and just wanted to say thank you so much for the important work that you do okay we will transition do do we have any one else in the room or online who wishes to testify seeing none the testimony phase is closed bill sponsors come on up Bill sponsors, do you have any amendments? Oh, okay. Rep Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I cannot move this amendment, but I will tell you that we are adding a safety clause because it is really, really critical that these changes in this grant is able to be dispersed before school starts.

Are there any questions about L1? Rep. Johnson.

is it because we're worried about potential petitions happening

Rep. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. No, it's because the grants need to be disbursed before August 1st. It's just timing.

I would love to. I move amendment L-001 to House Bill 26-13-21. Second.

Are there any other questions on L-1? Yeah.

Rep. Stewart.

No, I don't know. Rep. Johnson.

So I guess my question is, if we haven't talked to the agency dispersing these grants, where are you concerned then if it hadn't been brought up until now that these grant timelines are going to come into effect?

Are there any objections to L1? There is an objection to L1.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

L1 is adopted on a vote of 8 to 5. Are there any other amendments from the bill sponsors Are there any amendments from the committee There is an amendment from the committee Why don we hand out the amendment first and then we will hear more about the amendment Oh, there's a few amendments from the committee. Okay, so are these all being brought by Rep. Johnson? Rep. Johnson, would you like to explain each amendment one by one, or would you like to explain them as a whole?

Okay, so can we start with L2?

Is there a second? Second. Second.

Rep. Johnson, can you please explain L2?

Are there any questions about L2? I have a question. So if we did strike and and substitute or,

Okay.

Yes, Madam Chair. To show really why we need to move this or to having the separate of it is intentionally that we don't want the way the bill is written, only one entity would be able to qualify under this. And in a time that we need to make sure that we're doing student safety, we need more entities at the table to offer these resources. So it was, as we were moving forth, we did have L001, then found L003 drafting purposes for this amendment, because I know some of our colleagues hate when we wait on amendments, that we wanted to make sure we got both of them in one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess just for process-wise, though, so say if Amendment L2 fails, then, and then, hypothetically amendment L3 passes, wouldn't that be an asked and answered question then?

Rep Hamrick, was your hand up?

Okay, there's an objection to Amendment L2. Are there any other questions on L2? And there has been an objection, so let's go ahead and take the vote on L2.

L3, Rep. Johnson Thank you, Madam Chair

Seconded by Rep. Johnson I'm sorry, seconded by Rep. Bradfield

the vote was I think I said it right Okay, so it failed 5-8 Okay Okay, so L3 has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions on L3? I said questions. Are there any questions to L3? Are there any objections to L3? There is an objection. Objection. Objection. Okay, there's multiple objections. And Mr. Beck, please call the vote.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Pass.

No.

Yes.

Johnson?

Phillips?

Stuart Kay?

Story?

Gilchrist?

Sorry for the confusion. Martinez?

Madam Chair?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L004 to House Bill 1321. Is there a second?

Rep. Johnson, tell us about L4.

Most reputable training programs charge modest fees to cover costs such as instructors, facilities, equipment, insurance. This language would exclude a number of high-quality training programs that operate on a cost-recovery basis. school districts and local governments already evaluate cost and quality when selecting training providers and this restriction is unnecessary and would reduce options for our schools when seeking effective training so we just ask that yes vote so we can make sure we're still trying to keep as many resources in the state when it comes to keeping our schools and schools students safe Emil Bacon

So I object to the amendment because we want this training to be available to all regardless of ability to pay. Okay. Thank you for that

to add? A question from AML Bacon. Thank you. Is it your understanding to the amendment sponsor that even though the programs could be offered at no charge, that it doesn't mean the organization couldn't collect fees or reimbursement elsewhere to be able to provide this training?

Any other questions on L4? There is an objection to L4, so Mr. Beck, please call the vote.

Pass.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

no L4 fails on a vote of 528 are there any other amendments from the committee seeing none the amendment phase is closed closing comments who would like to start Rep Hamrick

on house bill 26 13 21 is amended rep stewart thank you madam chair and thank you so much to the committee and the folks who came to testify today. I will just be incredibly brief. I think with our limited dollars, we need to make sure that we're investing in holistic, comprehensive programs that we know are evidence-based. And we want to also make sure that we're being philosophically consistent when we say that mental health needs to be a focus of gun violence prevention. I would ask for an aye vote. Rep Hamrick, the proper motion is to the

Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second. Seconded by Rep. Kay Stewart. Are there closing comments from the committee? It will help us out if everyone just raises their hands that does have a closing comment, so I can write this down. Or so Rebecca can write it down. We will start with

district especially rep flannell thank you madam chair i agree with my colleague i think that we have heard half truths today uh it's apparent that some of these other organizations that were named um don't offer the all three of the the things that were um written within this bill and I think that that gives a monopoly on the the organization that is able to do that and I think that that's a huge discredit or I'm sorry a huge disservice that for the children I think that there are some fantastic organizations out there that are being paid for by privately by people out there that through gifts and grants And I think that by limiting by this bill is limiting that ability for these people to go through those trainings And I will definitely be a solid no today. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I'm still stuck on the narrow restrictive language. The Colorado Department of Public Safety, you know, they said this is very in our language. And to me, that just narrows the list of recipients who can apply for this grant. And we heard somebody say nothing says no one else can add these components to cover all three entities. But right now, it just seems like this is specifically written to benefit one single entity for this grant money. And I just don't see that as being serving all the people in Colorado, serving the greatest good. It's very, very narrow, almost tailored to one entity, and I just don't see that as good government. So I'll be a no today on this.

Thank you to the sponsors, and thank you for the conversations we kind of had offline and in the hallway. I just want to say that I do hope we can continue talking a little bit. There are some things on the last amendment. perhaps we can say we prefer or prioritize organizations that offer it for free to put operational requirements into a grant is a little iffy to me, and I'd like to understand if we do that elsewhere. I do also think, though, that the way that you've talked about violence, especially after today, and behavioral health, even though there might be a world that we live in today where maybe only one organization does this, There's nothing about this bill that precludes any organization from growing into this space. And I think particularly after what we heard today, I wouldn't even be surprised if any organization that trains law enforcement doesn't actually also talk about prevention and behavioral health. It does mean something. I have been to a few of these, not only here in the state. I've been to many in Florida. I am from Parkland, Florida, and we have had this conversation in regards to the motivations of a shooter, unfortunately, to figure out how to minimize damage. And that is a behavioral health angle. Threat assessment includes that. And so at the very least, what I heard today is I don't believe violence and prevention, violence prevention, the way that you framed it along with behavioral health, is actually outside of the scope of incident response. And maybe there is another way to phrase it then. if that is the case. Also, and I want to go back to what I said a moment ago, there's nothing about this that doesn't preclude an organization from articulating these things and growing into it. And so to say that this is only for one organization would also mean to admit that the other organizations don't do it and don't want to do it. And that's on them, in my opinion. And so I do hope that in the continuity of this conversation generally, I do want to, and this is my request maybe of DPS along with CDE, I don't believe there is only one grant for incident response across the multiple agencies. And in fact, we do have this issue. I love us. I love the state of Colorado. But sometimes five agencies do the same thing. Sometimes it might be two. I generally want to understand all the grants that are out there for quote unquote school safety because I know there more than three and I know that And so if we are talking about these silos I would like to have a better understanding of what that is because the subject matter has been developing in a particular direction. And at the end of the day, I think all of us, regardless of who we represent and what side of the aisle, want to help schools be safe. And if we are delineating through different type of strategies or whatnot, we need to know that and perhaps do some cleanup in our grants. And I don't, so I think both of these things can happen. I can support this today and also recognize that's something we might need to do. We created the whole Office of School Safety to deal with it. And so we need to understand what's going on in CDE, DPS, and maybe even outside of the Office of School Safety, because I'm curious if, you know, the Criminal Justice Department, now I'm talking judiciary, because I know all the departments there. The last thing I will say is if we are going to have the conversation about who is trained to respond, I think we need to have honest conversations about that and not necessarily bury them here. But for what it's worth, after this conversation, I now do have questions for the department on how we are vetting as well as how we are doing the accounting to be sure dollars aren't going outside of where we want them to go. And I don't care which organization that is. Another one can pop up tomorrow that does these things. And when you pull up the website, and it's specifically about the one thing that we're talking about here, that does worry me. And so if you would be willing to have continued conversations by way of priority or preferencing versus barring, and if we can have a conversation across the grants, and think about the way that we are talking about incident response, I think it is okay to talk about that in 2026, given, unfortunately, all what this state has gone through, so that we can all get to the collective goal. So thank you very much for the conversation today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, bill sponsors. I was wondering whether I should say anything, especially, you know, the lived experience I bring into the legislature. A lot of it is around the fact that I'm a mother and I still have children in school. you know today was very profound and I'd like to thank everyone that came to testify but you know especially Mr. DeAndrea and that experience to bring that into this room and to share with us what he's been doing for almost the last 30 years we're talking 30 years here I honestly am quite speechless. So I appreciate this change and will be a strong yes, and I appreciate all of you here today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the bill sponsors for bringing this. I think it's critically important, and I appreciate that you are looking at in this bill a comprehensive approach to school safety, prevention, preparedness, and response trainings, including behavioral health as an element, which is so important. It was stated over and over again by witnesses. I really appreciate that it is focused on nonprofits, So we're not sending our minimal tax dollars from the Department of Public Safety to an entity that is a for-profit entity. But it's also a nonprofit that doesn't charge. Because in what world does it make sense to give grant money to an entity that's a nonprofit, and then the nonprofit charges the participants to participate in their training? So they're getting paid on both sides, and that seems problematic to me. I also appreciate that, you know, it is open. The entity, the recipient, has the capacity or could have the capacity to provide services potentially across the state of Colorado. One entity that was providing testimony today does that. And they provide services by also offering, they stated, for travel and accommodations in some circumstances. So there's opportunities for people, entities across the state to reserve services. So I don't think people are unnecessarily being left out or cut out of the opportunity to receive this training the way the bill is structured. So I'm really grateful for this coming forward. I appreciate the work that's gone into it and the witnesses that provided testimony today, and I am definitely an enthusiastic yes.

however all of those emails ask me to work to support behavioral health services especially amongst our youth and especially in our schools and from my perspective this bill supports prevention through behavioral health which is why i am going to be a strong yes

Madam Chair? Yes. Your bill passes on a vote of 825, and you are on your way to the Committee of the Whole. And with that, the Education Committee is adjourned. .