H.B. 108 Minors in State Custody Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick here. This bill may look familiar because it was the exact same bill as last year that we passed out favorably in this committee and also in both chambers. Um, this is really just about creating a fund to help foster kids who've lost both of their parents. Um, last year it was scaled back and we're back again asking for that same 50%. Just as a quick reminder, uh, last year, 464 kids were affected by this $2.2 million. Uh, were taken away from them and used for the broad, uh, foster care fund. We're asking to set aside 50% of this to go into secured accounts that when they turn 18 and age out of care, it helps as a launchpad for them. I think it's a fiscally responsible thing to do if, if we don't support them when they age out, the the statistics are alarming. Um, one in four will be homeless at 18, 50% won't graduate from high school and 60% of them will see the inside of our prisons and jails. And so I think this is the right thing to do. And with that, that concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair.

Um, um, thank you Mr. Chair. This is a really important bill and I'm glad we're moving to as much as we get closer to full covering that piece and, um, you're doing gradually, which is, is smart as well. So, with that, I'll make a motion that we pass favorably HB 1 0 8 minors in state custody amendments to the center floor.

Is this on? Oh, thank you. Chair Hall. Thank you, colleagues. It's good to see you. You may recognize this bill. And the reason being is, uh, this is a second iteration of it. Uh, I'd like to remind you that you pass this unanimously here. Uh, it was passed unanimously in both committees and in both chambers. And we're not debating the policy necessarily here today, but what we're looking at is increasing the percentage that we're putting into these, these children's accounts. Let me just remind you what this policy is, is when a kid in foster care loses both of their parents, they receive what's called Social Security Survivor benefits. Um, in looking at the financials, we realized that one, four hundred and sixty four kids in the state of Utah are affected by this. And that we were collecting $2.2 million per year, and we were, we were using it to fund the foster care program. Uh, generally. Um, now, this, this bill last year that we passed HB 3 0 2, was to take a portion of that and put it into account so that when they age out of care, they can use it as a launching pad to help them with college or with their career, and go into a fund that helps them, um, hit the ground running. As they don't have a safety net, they've lost both of their parents. So you may ask the question, well, why are we going from 25 to 75%? Um, as we ran it last year, we looked at putting a hundred percent of that amount into these accounts for them, uh, based off of the fiscal note and trying to be fiscally responsible, we reduced that to 50% that then passed. But because of budgetary needs, that then was scaled back to 25%. And so, thinking through this and trying to be fiscally responsible, we're coming back again and, and asking for 75%. And, and the reason why this matters is too, is when a child in foster care has one living parent, that parent then pays child support to the state. Now, when that second parent passes away, the state then receives a windfall of two to five x of what they were receiving in child support. And the problem with that is the state should not benefit from that kid losing the second child, the second parent. And so what we're asking again, is just the portion of it, not the full a hundred percent. I think where this is at is actually where the policy should be, is that 75% should go into this fund, and 25% should help fund foster care for the full program. And so, um, I hope I have your support, and with that, I yield my time.

Maybe I saw DHHS here. I don't know if they're gonna speak to this, but the, I'm just curious on the fiscal note, if you could just walk me through that a little bit. Looks like there's a ongoing, Tanya, would, would you like to comment on the fiscal note?

Yes. Uh, good afternoon, Tanya. Myra. I'm the director for the Division of Child and Family Services. And so as far as the fiscal note, this, um, funding is currently coming in as a federal benefit and is being used to help support the, the children in care, their, um, the room and board, different things like that as far as their funding. And so this money is just intended to, uh, be able to support the state in continuing to provide that the, uh, room and board and services to the children, and then allows us to put that money into the conserved fund so that we can use that to support the children as they, um, are turning 18 and aging out of care.

Thank you. Thank you. I have a quick follow up on that. So are you, when you say children, are you saying all foster children or are you saying that child?

No, it is just limited to children that are receiving the federal benefits. And in this case, it's children that are receiving either the death benefits or benefits, uh, for disabilities. Okay. There's a couple of others that, that include, um, some veterans benefits and, um, railroad benefits as well. But the vast majority are those two. Um, those two benefits.

Well, those 400 children that you talked about, or 400 some off.

Okay. That's correct. Thank You. All

You, Madam Chair. Um, I am wondering, can you review again the current formula versus the proposed change in this in terms of, you know, percentages?

Yeah. So currently what we, what we passed was 50%, but due to budgetary needs, we had to scale that back to 25%. Um, so that is 25% of the $2.2 million on average that we are taking from these kids. Sorry, I don't know a better way to say it, but that's essentially what we're doing. Um, and so that's 25% of that $2.2 million. Um, that 25% is over $500,000 that is now being dispersed to those 400 plus kids. What we're asking now is to increase that to 75% of those funds that are coming from federal dollars. And the reason being is, again, as I I explained earlier, is when they have one living parent still alive, that parent pays the state child support. When that living parent passes, the state receives two to five x what they were receiving in child support. And so there's a windfall, there's a financial windfall that the state receives now from that child losing their second parent. And I believe that that money should be benefited to the individual, not to the state. We should not be making money off of a child losing a second parent. And so that's the, in the reason for the increase is 75%. Now, are there costs? Absolutely. And that's why I am not asking for a hundred percent. I, I want to be reasonable, I want to be thoughtful about how we're going about this. And so the idea is that we reserve 25% to go to the general fund to help out all services, but that, that 75% is something that goes to the child. Again, when they age outta care, one out of four are homeless. Day one 50% won't graduate from, from high school, 60% will see the inside of our jails and our prisons. And so this will cost more if we wait and we allow them to be a sta a statistic. And so the idea is that if we set them up for success, if they want to go to college, let's help them. If they want to get a good job, let's pay for training in a tech school. Let's do those things because one, it's their money, but two, it's our job as, as they're in our custody. So that's the idea, is that we're saving money upfront by investing in their future and later we're not paying for our prisons and other hospitals.

Okay. May I ask a follow up there? Yes. Um, so when they do get their money, or you know, when, when they're 18, I suppose, will they get all of it as a windfall or will it be like a trust where it's so much per month

Or? Yeah, that's a great question. So it's put into an account and there are only certain areas that they can spend that money on, which was intentional. And also they have to take financial literacy classes in order to get that. And so it's not just a, Hey, here's your money, have fun. Um, but that there's only certain areas, education is kind of the largest area where you can spend that money. But then also they have to actually go through a financial literacy class to understand how can I use this money? How can I kind of set myself up for success?

Okay. And then I have one more thing. Yeah, go ahead. Um, that money is given by SSI, I guess, right? Um, do they say that it's for their maintenance, that's why they, they send that money every month, right? Is to pay for their room and board and, but apparently it's way more than they would actually need. Is that, is that why it's such a large

Amount? Yeah, I couldn't answer exactly what it stated, if there's a statement that says where it should go. Um, but I guess my, my personal feelings and thoughts is that it should go to the kid specifically. And what we're seeing now is it's, it's not held specifically for this kid. The same kid who, who has both their parents in foster care is receiving the same care and who has a safety net and who has people to look after them. And, and my argument in this bill is that they should receive extra support. One, that's what this money is being sent for. And, uh, because they don't have a safety net.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you. So, uh, my question is kind of along representative the, the line, the line of thought of Representative Acton, and that is, um, every month there's either 25%, 50%, or 75, depending, I guess, what we end up doing of that benefit going into an account held by the state. And it's earning some sort of interest. Um, I don't know if it's invested by the treasurer or what we're doing there, but anyways, they get this lump sum after this training on financial literacy. You know, I, I would assume, since this is SSI, the amount is different for every child, but there's a low range and a high range, and you know, for a child that comes in when they're 10 years old, what is that going to be when they're 18, given the various numbers we're looking at?

Yeah, if you want to. Yeah. And just, just to clarify, there are two different types of benefits that are going into different accounts for this. So for the children with disabilities, that's going into an able, or in Utah, we call it a stable account, and that will follow them through adulthood. So those are kids that will be transitioning into the DSPD system as they age out. And that funding is just intended for them to, once they turn 18, for the representative payee to be able to use, to continue to support, um, the different needs that they may have as, as they, um, continue through that system for the death benefits for, um, for those youth, those do go into just a, a special trust account. And at the time that they're aging out of care, um, that will just go to them as a lump sum as they're aging out for them to be able to support, you know, purchasing cars, education, housing, different things like that. And so, um, while the, the ABLE account, and, and it does vary depending on, um, the disabilities of the child and as well as the, um, the death benefit also is adjusted based on, on the different formulas there. So it does vary by child.

Can you say on average, uh, the able account is different, so I'm not so concerned about that one, but the one where the, the death benefit where the child gets the lump sum when they turn 18 now, on average, how big are those accounts?

Oh, right now we have, um, so since July 1st of last year when this went into effect, um, the total conserved funds for all of the children, which was, um, 353 children was 379, um, thousand dollars. And I have the ABLE accounts, so we'll have to do some quick math on this because I have the reverse number, but 196,000 went into the ABLE accounts, and then the rest were into the, um, the regular, uh, the trust fund account that were the benefits, the death Benefits. Okay.

So it's not very much money, it's maybe a thousand dollars per child or something, correct, mm-hmm. And we're gonna triple it. So maybe it'll become 3000 per child. Is that fair?

I believe that's fair, yes. And when they're, they turn 18, maybe it's gonna be a little higher because your average is against across all ages. So when they're 18, maybe it'll be five to 10 lump sum fair, possibly.

Yes. Yep. Okay. Under pressure. I can't do math in my head, so I apologize for not, um, following that exactly. Well, I'm just guessing I'm not really doing math. I'm kind of trying to infer here just to kind of get an idea, so, okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Yeah, I was just wondering, does the, the 25% that, that stays with the state, is, is that enough to function as we currently are or is that going to take away from something like what are, what are the cuts that are gonna have to be happen for that to, to function properly?

That's a good question, and that's why the fiscal note is where it's at, is we would be backfilling that money that would then go to the children. So the services would remain the same. Um, nothing would change. And I intentionally did that originally. My heart was like, well, the state should pay for it. Let's take that money and just give it to the kids after looking at it. And, and trying to take a more thoughtful approach is we shouldn't take this money away and it's gonna hinder more kids from receiving the level of service that they've gotten. And so that's why I think the, the state should pay for that money that we have been redirecting.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, and I just have a couple of questions. So do you see this, um, like last year? Maybe you're gonna have to reduce later after this passes?

Possibly. I, I think probably in a year where we're trying to cut 5% across the board, um, definitely. And, and I sit as the vice chair of Social Services appropriations. There's a lot of pressure to make cuts. Uh, I actually have another bill that will fund this 10 times over. And so I've been thoughtful about, um, making sure that if I'm asking for money, but I have a cut, uh, that will, um, definitely backfill this. And so the hope is that we don't, um, but, um, I know the way that this works and definitely ready to, to scale back if needed.

Okay. And then I have one more question kind of piggybacking off of what Representative Abbott said. Just a clarifying question. So when the money goes into these accounts for the kids, is it you take all the lump sum of whatever's coming in and you take 25% and divide it equally between all the kids? Or does it depend on what their benefits were based on their parents?

Yeah, it's based on the benefit per kid. If it's railroad, military disability, um, or death benefit. So there's kind of different monies coming to different kids depending on their situation. Okay.

Okay. I just wondered with the, the, that was just an average of what you were saying was a thousand. Okay. But it could be 2000 for one and 500 for another. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. Members of the committee. My name is Mariah Hurst. I represent the Youth Providers Association as their executive director. And just from their point of view, this is good policy. This is a good direction to go. I think the biggest concern is that it would be an unfunded mandate and then that would leave the kids in care kind of an lurch and, and trying to fund the things that need to be funded and not have that. So the policy, there's a lot of support behind what the intention is. It's just the concern of what happens if it, if it goes through without money. So it's, it's good policy. Thank you so much for your work on it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make a motion that we favorably recommend this bill through the committee.

We just appreciate your support on this. And, and just to comment on, um, on the public comment, um, I, I would not push if we didn't have money for this. Um, so there, there would be no scenario where this would be an unfunded mandate. Uh, I would abandon this bill long before we would, uh, make jeopardize the rest of the foster care children. But with that said, this is probably one of the most vulnerable populations in our state. Um, and you've seen the statistics, and I think we can do the right thing thing to make sure that these kids don't become that next statistic that we do care for them. And so I'd appreciate your vote and support.

House Bill 1 0 8 Minors in State custody amendments by Representative Fiefia. This bill was heard in Health and Human Services with the vote of 11 0 3. Representative

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to circle Motion is in order.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Uh, this is a good bill. It's very familiar Mr. Speaker. Uh, as you probably remember, this bill came through last year and passed unanimously. This is exactly the same bill. Uh, what happened last year is due to budgetary needs, we reduced the funding, uh, to 25%. Now, if I can remind you, Mr. Speaker, what this spending, what these funds are is we have over 400 children in custody of the state, also known as foster kids who've lost both their parents. What we, um, were able to identify was $2.2 million of federal funds being redirected to fund the entire foster care program instead of going directly to these kids. Um, now my argument with this bill is that these funds should go directly to these children because it's based off of funds that were efforts and, uh, the work of their parents while they were still alive. These are military funds, these are railroad funds and also, uh, social Security survivor benefits. Um, now what we are doing with these funds is we are creating a fund for these kids that when they age out of care, this money goes into that fund and then can help them fund education, job training, or whatever is needed to help be a launchpad to the rest of their life. We know what the, the statistics are with these children who age out of care. One in four will go homeless the day they turn 18, half of them won't graduate from high school and 60% will see the inside of our jails and our prisons. And so this is not only the right thing to do, it's also the fiscally responsible thing to do by setting them up for success, we save money down the road in making sure that they have a successful future as they age out of care. And with that Mr. Speaker Pro temp, I'm open to any questions.

This is a good responsible way to make sure that we take care of the kids in our custody, uh, especially those who need it the most. And, uh, appreciate your guys' support.

and I, um, passed last year. Um, this will ensure that every child in state custody is screened for federal benefits such as social security or veterans to make sure that no eligible child leaves money unclaimed. And it requires the benefits, uh, to be placed in a protected child specific account like an able account, uh, when, uh, um, able and imposes strict fiduciary duties on the department to manage funds in the child's best interest. And this makes a policy shift by reducing the amount of benefits that the state may use for maintenance costs from 75% down to 25%, preserving significantly more of the for the child's long-term future. And Mr. President pro tem, um, last year I explained a lot of kids in state custody. Um, if their parents are deceased or their father's deceased or et cetera, they may be getting $2,500 a month that the state's just been using. Whereas if the father was alive, they may have only been getting $500 a month and the state's kind of been using that windfall just, um, to operate their child welfare program. What we did last year was we said 25% of that money needs to be set aside so when this child turns 18, they can use that for college or down payment on a house or something like that. So this is increasing that threshold to try to help these kids reduce the windfall to the state and help these kids have a, a little bit of a nest, uh, egg to, to start their lives when they age out of, uh, child custody. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions,

Thank you Mr. President ProAm, the sponsors agree to yield. Yes. Uh, question is if, if we, how do we come up with three quarters of a million dollars? How's the fiscal note? If you could address that, why does it cost so much to continue to administer the same program but just different effects?

Because the state has, um, always seized all of these funds. So in my example, if social security is paying 2,500, but if the father was still alive and he would've only paid 500 in child support, the state's getting now the 2,500 because the father's dead. And my hypothetical, the state's always just taken all that money and said, ha ha ha, we got an extra $2,000 a month and they've spent it. Now we're telling the state, you can't take that windfall and spend it all. You're gonna have to, to put some of that windfall into an account that the child can use for college or a house when they're 18. And because we're taking that money away from the agency where they've always kept that windfall, that creates the fiscal note.

Thank you. This does have a significant fiscal note, so if it passes it will need to be tabled on third. But I would move that house Bill 1 0 8 be read for a third time.

President Prote To motion that we table on third for physical impact house bill 1 0 8. The motion is to table on third house bill 1 0 8.

to manage funds in the child's best interest. And then it reduces the amount of benefits that the state may use for maintenance costs, um, preserving more of the benefits for the child's long-term future. Uh, with that I'll yield to any questions.

Um, I believe there's amendment online, uh, technical amendment that I'd like to Move. Be good. Since we're on, we're gonna suspend the rules to pass. I think it'd be good to put the amendment on or we'll probably be reconsidering our actions again. So let's go ahead and get that on. Sure.

So, um, as allowed by the Utah Constitution, I move that we suspend the rules.

I'm just, is there amendment online? House amendment one, does that need to be in the Senate name? Okay. Amendment two is in my name, Amendment two. I'm trying to find amendment two online.

In fact, I don't even see a house Amendment. I'll go ahead and circle and get that

Thank you Mr. President. I presented this about a half hour ago. I thought there was amendment but there's not. But it creates a comprehensive framework to identify, protect, and responsibly manage federal benefits that belong to children in state custody. Um, so tacking on my previous, uh, presentation, I'll yield to any questions Again. We heard the bill a few minutes ago or half an hour ago. Seeing no questions on the bill. Gonna go to you for action. Thank you. I moved that, uh, house bill 1 0 8 pass under suspension of the rules.

Senator Vickers. Baldy Aye. Lewin Aye. Brammer Bus Comore. Escamilla Fillmore Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins. Ipson. Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Mu Owens pitcher Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Aye. Vickers Weiler Aye. Wilson Winterton, president Adams Aye. House

Senator Weiler. Mr. President, I hope, uh, you're not tired of me yet. I'll keep it short. Um, this bill aligns penalties