House Standing Committee on Human Services & Homelessness

Good morning. Welcome to the Human Services and Homelessness Committee hearing. Tuesday, February 420259:30am in conference room 329. I'm Lisa Martin. I'd like to note the presence of my colleagues Denna Takonuchi and Sue Keohukapu Liloi. And we expect others to trickle in.

I also wanted to do a shout out to the Committee Clerk for Human Services. Happy birthday, Michelle. And we'll just get started. Our first measure is HB 702 relating to human services. It appropriates funds to increase funding for Medicaid in home services condition on the DHS obtaining the federal matching funds.

And I'd also like to note the presence of my Vice Chair, Representative Goals. And first up we have to testify the Department of Human Services.

The Department of Human Services stands on their written testimony.

Thank you very much. All right, next up we have Daintree Bartoldis from the State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Thank you. This is going to be fast. We have next up in person, Executive Office on Aging. Caroline. Thank you very much. Lastly in person do we have Kaylee Swan here, an individual. Okay, Kylie. Sorry.

Good morning chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kylie Swan. I'm a strong supporter of this HB 702 because people with disabilities needs more funds to pay their Medicare-Medicare expenses with their Medicaid payment. Thank you for listening to my testimonies. Envelop if you have any question you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming to testify. We also had two individuals with written testimony in support. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? No, I also don't have any questions. But thank you for being here and I did read your testimony. I appreciate that.

Next we have HB 1477 which clarifies that the monthly needs allowance afforded to individuals living in certain long term care facilities is not intended to replace or affect funds received as a state supplemental payment for domiciliary care and shall be supplemental to any funds provided to a recipient as a state supplement.

So this is a fix to a mistake we made last session that failed to raise the ceiling of a particular Fund enough. We didn't realize that it was all one Fund. We thought it was two separate funds or I thought it was two separate funds. So this is a fix to that.

And would in addition to raising the ceiling. Ceiling the $25 to make good on what we intended last session, would additionally raise the ceiling another $20 which is a new benefit. And first up, we have the Department of Human Services, Aloha Chair, Vice Chair.

And Members of the Committee. I'm Daisy Hartsfield, the Social Services Division Administrator.

On behalf of Director Yamani, the Department did submit testimony.

Daisy, if you're going to speak a little bit, can you come to the microphone? Thanks.

Sorry. Thanks, Chair. The Department did submit testimony in support of this Bill with suggested amendments, and we provided comments as well. And if there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to try and answer them as best as possible. Thank you very much.

Okay. And then we also had written testimony in support from one individual. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? zero, yes, please.

Dean Chavartos, Hawaii State Council Executive Director. We just want to thank you for recognizing this and making the correction. We're in strong support of it and thank you again.

Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay, I read the DH testimony and we will amend accordingly. Thank you. All right, next measure is HB713 relating to a rate study for home health services.

So unlike the previous measure, which was in home care like bathing and chores and things like that, this is more medical care provided in the home. So it appropriates funding for the Department of Human Services to do a rate study. And first up, we have the Department of Human Services. Thank you very much.

Next up, we have in support the Hawaii Health Care, the Health Care Association of Hawaii.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of this measure. We, as the Healthcare Association of Hawaii, represent Medicare certified home health agencies.

And as the Chair noted, these home health agencies are providing more complex, higher level medical services that's like wound management, IV medications and therapies within the comfort of a patient's own home. What's also important is that those services help to keep people out of higher cost settings.

So the hospital or the nursing home, someone can instead go into their own home and receive those higher level services. The costs for our home health services are increasing, especially for labor. And unfortunately, Medicaid reimbursements have not kept up.

We did a survey of our Members in October of this past year and we found that our agencies are losing over $1,000 on each Medicaid patient. And what that inevitably results in is them having to subsidize right, more of the cost of caring for these patients.

And what we're concerned about is that as those, the need for those subsidies increases, our agencies are taking on fewer and fewer Medicaid patients. So we do think that this is an access issue. We're very supportive of the rate study to look at the true costs of care.

I will note the Medicaid MedQuest amendments noting that the appropriation amount is closer to $250,000. And we do think that's an appropriate amount. So. So thank you again for hearing this measure. And if you have any questions, I'm available. Thanks. Thank you very much, Paige.

Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions of our testifiers? No. Okay, thank you very much. Then we'll move on to our next Measure, which is HB 646, which requires the Department of Human Services to automatically enroll or authorize the Social Security Administration to automatically enroll in the state's Medicaid program.

Any individual in the state who receives federal supplemental security Income benefits and requires a report to the Legislature. First up, we have the Department of Human Services. Thank you very much. We also have in support Daintry Bartoldus from the State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Thank you, Chair Daintry Bartoldus, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Development of Disabilities. We stand in support of this measure, but we do defer to DHS for the legalities of it. But it sounds like a really great idea and we thought it was very supportive of our individuals. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions? Go ahead.

Thank you. Ms. Bartoldus, if you don't mind coming forward. I guess over the holidays we had attended a disability council forum and one conversation that we had was this idea of either getting to like a universal forum and.

Or reducing the barriers so that individuals with disabilities would kind of just fill out a form one time and then that would be an opportunity for them to access services. If I'm reading this bill correctly, that's exactly what we're trying to get to. Right? Just a one time form and open doors for services.

We're in extremely strong support. Thank you for bringing that up. And yes, we are. Yes, we are in very strong support of this. That single access is so important. We could put in a form, it could populate wherever it can. We're just didn't want questions regarding the legalities because we don't know that. But you're absolutely right.

Our guys, it's very difficult to go on and answer different questions different ways in different formats that are presented out there. We spend hours coming in helping. Helping people when they come in to go through different types of forms. So you are 100% correct. We would love this if this could.

Be done and it could be populated out to any other supports that our guys need. Thank you very much.

And then a follow up question. We have a suite of bills here on this agenda that really is trying to integrate some of that universal forms and or a rate study so that we can pay our workers.

It sounds like this bill along with some of the others really complement each other and really start to reduce barriers for our disability community. Is that a safe assessment of what we have on the agenda today?

Yes, that's what we've seen as when we're sitting through now we did not provide testimony on everything because it goes in kind of deep.

But we are very pleased with the bills that are coming out and seeing how that is trying to be more accessible and being able to actually support individuals that they don't have to keep going to different doors and everything. Just really a one stop shop kind of thing where everything can really be populated and helping them. Great.

Thank you for that. Thank you. Chair Yoki noting the presence of Representative Alcos. Does anybody else have any questions? I have a question for DHS. So I know, I see in your testimony you note that we might have slightly different standards for eligibility. And I am assuming that our standards are more expansive.

That is what we are. Gina Moore Peterson MedQuest Administrator at Department of Human Services that is what we are researching becoming this state a 209. I have to look it up a 209B state which means that the state has the flexibility to Institute different regulations. In our research these were done in the 1980s and 1990s.

And so we see that they've been assessed as to it's like oh, let's move to this other kind of authority. And each time there's been a decision at that time to keep with whatever the standards were. And the last time that was done appears to be in the early 2000s.

But still trying to research it appears that some may be more restrictive and some may be more flexible. And that's exactly what we're trying to figure out is what is because in the meantime Social Security Administration has also changed their standards, etc. So we're very interested in streamlining.

We want the best for the best process and the best way to serve the community. And so that's why we just ask for a bit more time to research.

So I guess my feeling is if this provides services to a wider group of people, that doesn't bother me at all. If it any way restricts it, it Wouldn't. My understanding is this would not restrict it. This would automatically provide the Medicaid for anybody who, you know, qualifies for Social Security.

But in addition, we could not, through this automated process, but we could additionally continue to sign people up in our state through any other eligibility standards that might be more expansive. Is that right?

That. Is that. That precise point that you're making right now? That is also our understanding. Again, we don't want to put any process in place in which, for example, those areas that we believe are more expansive, we don't want to then close that off for individuals.

So we are doing the complete pros and cons of all of these things to make sure that. The point that you made, that we would be able to sign people up for Medicaid using the broader standards where we have them. Definitely do that.

I will note that if it does, if it does cover more people, that is an additional cost. And so we would also be trying to come up with that estimate.

Okay, and what is the time frame for figuring this out? Is it within this session so that by the end? zero, yes, we're okay.

We were trying to get it by today, but we didn't quite manage that.

So I think this is a great idea, which is why I, you know, signed on to it. But we'll keep it moving forward. And in a later Committee, if you find out there is a problem or there is a cost, then we could try to address that and get the cost in the budget or something like that.

Yeah, we'll definitely bring it back. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Are there any questions, Members? Nope. Then moving on to our next measure, HB 1099, an emergency appropriation to the Department of Human Services. This is because we were assessed a penalty by the USDA Food and Nutrition Services for the time it takes to respond to our SNAP beneficiaries.

This is asking for 50% of the penalty to be reinvested in the program, in the software to do a better job, and which, if successful, may result in the state not being required to pay the remaining 50% of the penalty. And first up, we have the DHS in person.

Good morning, Chair Merchant, Vice Chair Olds and Members. My name is Scott Morishige. I'm the administrator of the Benefit, Employment. And Support Services Division of dhs. On behalf of Director Yamane, the Department strongly supports this Administration measure. Also defers the Department of Budget and Finance, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have on Zoom Catholic Charities Hawaii Is Betty Lou with us?

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities, Hawaii. We are service providers and we know. The struggles that our clients are having to gain access. But we also know that DHS is really struggling to try to meet this.

We recently had a Snapchat meeting with the Department and they presented their whole plan. And we feel that this particular piece that would prevent or would move forward the automation of certain eligibility worker tasks would really be a great asset and would be one of the keys to. Help you to streamline and improve that.

Access to the benefits for our clients. So we thank you very much for hearing this Bill. We strongly support it. Thank you.

Thank you. We also had in writing testimony in support from the Department of Budget and Finance, from Hawaii Farmers Union and from Hawaii Appleseed. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come up. We have Hawaii Appleseed in person.

LOHA Chair, sorry for the late testimony. Nate Hicks with Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Zero, sorry.

Yeah. We are in support of this measure. Echoing what they were saying earlier. SNAP Department needs their help. We can avoid. This is a use it or lose it situation. We can avoid paying 5 million in penalties by investing in our own system. So why not move the money within our own Department and also want to echo.

SNAP is a lifeline for so many of our residents. Over 100,000 people are enrolled in SNAP benefits and we receive over $600 million annually in federal benefits to our people. But there are still significant struggles and so this investment needs to be only one part of the larger piece.

In trying to make sure our SNAP staff and systems are up to date, we've seen a significant surge in demand for SNAP benefits without an equivalent increase in investment in our Department to make sure that the SNAP accessibility is where it needs to be.

As Betty Lou Larson had said, the clients are having extreme difficulties and we can take the opportunity to really make our system much more robust. Right. If we increase our staffing levels, we can get maybe a 10 to 1 return on investment.

We have about 40% of our SNAP eligible population currently not enrolled because of the difficulties they face. And so we can spend more money on staff, make the process a lot easier bringing $100 million or more in federal benefits to the people who are hungry. Right now, one in three households in in Hawaii are facing food insecurity.

And if we invest in SNAP Department, we can make sure that that number is a lot lower. Mahalo. I appreciate your support for this. Thank you.

Thank you for Being here today, is anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any questions? Okay, I also don't have any questions. So we will move on to our next measure, HB1079 relating to trauma informed care.

It directs the Office of Wellness and Resilience to collaborate with the Department of Human Services to design, administer, and implement a program of trauma-informed organizational assessments and training curriculum for Child Welfare Services branch staff and it appropriates funds. We have here to testify, Tia Hartsock from the Office of Wellness and Resilience.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for hearing this bill and the opportunity to testify. We stand in support of the bill and I also wanted to kind of highlight the Malama 'Ohana Working Group recommendations report that was submitted to the Legislature a couple few weeks ago, calls for specifically strengthening and creating a trauma-informed Child Welfare system. We feel as if this training could assist in that process.

The trauma-informed care organizational assessment is a robust assessment of the depart--of the Child Welfare Services Division. These types of assessments have been occurring across the country and so there are specific tools that have been specific--that have been developed for these types of programs.

The training and the assessment will look at evaluating the strengths and areas of improvement for the Child Welfare Services Division and make sure that the trauma-informed approach is well supported. It will also look very specifically at providing support around trauma-informed supervision and training around that.

For supervisors, there will be--there's a proposed element of a Train-the-Trainer so that this is sustainable, that they're not depending on other divisions but they have the expertise in their own department and division.

And then we're--lastly, was very specifically written in the Malama 'Ohana Working Group to address and support staff around burnout, the secondary traumatic stress that they experience, and the vicarious trauma that they experience in these positions, and so the trainings proposed would be specifically directed and developed to address those pieces as well. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Department of Human Services.

Good morning. The department supports the bill and stands by its written testimony.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the Malama 'Ohana Working Group, Laurie Tochiki on--oh, in person.

I stand on our written testimony.

Thank you for being here, Laurie. And we have on Zoom, Hawaii Youth Services Network.

Aloha, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Judith Clark, Executive Director of Hawaii Youth Services Network, and we're in strong support of this bill. I serve as a member of the Hawaii Trauma-Informed Care Task Force. Over the last three years, the task force has developed a plan and strategies that will incorporate trauma-informed approaches to services provided to children, youth, and families, and this bill with the trauma-informed organizational assessment and training for DHS staff furthers that plan and work makes us closer to a trauma-informed state.

We need to recognize that children and youth who are placed in foster care have been traumatized both by the conditions at home and by being separated by their families and siblings. DHS currently has a 37% vacancy rate in Child Welfare Services. I believe that implementing this bill can help us address that worker shortage. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Judy. We have--is Nareen Cole here? Okay. We also had testimony in support from Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks, from the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, from the Trauma-Informed Restorative Justice Consultant, Early Childhood Action Strategy, EPIC 'Ohana and HI H.O.P.E.S. Initiative, and from four individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions of our testifiers? Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Tia, if you don't mind coming? Thank you so much for--Director, if you don't mind. Absolutely in support of this. As a policymaker, there's all this great work and the implementation of it, but there's also work that needs to happen around policy, and I was just wondering--not putting more on your plate in any way--understand the five points that came out of the working group.

When will we be able to see some of the adjustments that need to happen not only with the trauma-informed care and the Train-the-Trainer part, but also work that we could do like within Department of Education or Department of Health, just kind of maybe forecasting what that might look like?

In terms of policies around training for those departments? So I'm going to backstep just one second for--within Department of Human Services. They have been looking at their policies and have engaged proactively with our office to have those conversations.

So those conversations are occurring now around, you know, looking at their policies and procedures to make sure that we, you know, collaboratively work together and create reviews and revisions as needed. For the other departments, there are efforts that we've engaged with specifically with Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We're just in the midst of doing a large training effort starting in about 20 days for their new recruits. We're also, we've also been engaged with Department of Health to do trainings, specifically trauma-informed care trainings in collaboration with them around the Maui Response, and then Department of Education, we've--I'm trying to think of, we have a specific MOA, but I don't, I don't think we have an MOA with them right now.

They've done an immense amount of work in Department of Education around trauma-informed care implementation across the schools, but in my previous life did quite a little bit of training for some very specific schools with, with the school projects that they have running currently.

Great. And I appreciate all the work. I just, I'm trying to look ahead, like I don't want you guys to run into roadblocks because there's policies that's kind of stopping you guys short of really improving the health and well-being of the next generation and maybe look forward to some follow-up later, maybe next legislative session and other areas that we can work on to kind of lower the barriers so that we can continue to do this great work.

We do have, last February, actually coming up a year, Governor Green created an executive order for our office to be working collaboratively with the department. So there is an existing executive order declaring Hawaii a trauma-informed state and there's very specific outlined functions and objectives of our office to work with the other state departments, and so that is one mechanism and tool that we're utilizing at this point to be actively engaging with the departments. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for the questions.

Great. Thanks, Tia. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Are there any other questions of our testifiers? Seeing none. We will move on to our next measure, which is HB 239.

It amends the definition of child abuse or neglect by clarifying that the failure to provide certain needs of a child constitute child abuse or neglect only if the person is not financially able to provide or fails to do so when they are offered means to do so, means to provide that those for the needs of the child.

And first up, we have the Department of Human Services with comments.

Good morning again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daisy Hartsfield, Social Services Division Administrator. On behalf of Director Yamani and the Department of Human Services, the Department did submit testimony providing comments.

And I want to make clear that we do appreciate the intent of this Bill, but as currently worded, we do have concerns that this would broaden situations where confirmations of child abuse and neglect would result. And I do not believe that is the intent of this Bill.

The other concern is that for families in poverty, if they're not involved with child welfare, what would be the safety net so that they would have an avenue to access the services needed to stabilize their situation. So those are the two main concerns that we have regarding this Bill as currently worded.

But we do appreciate the intent and we do believe this provides a good opportunity for us in Child Welfare Services to begin this discussion on how to better serve our families in poverty. So mahalo. Thank you very much, Daisy.

Next up we have the office of Wellness and Resilience. Thank you very much. We have in opposition the Department of the Prosecuting attorney, City and County of Honolulu.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting attorney City and County of Honolulu. We don't dispute the principle that no one should be that poverty does not equate with child abuse. Our concern here is that this modifies the reporting requirement.

And when we deal with the most vicious class of criminals that we deal with people who torture children, it's important that we have the trip wires in place. Oftentimes these children are isolated from teachers, from pediatricians, from neighbors. And so a child protective services worker is the 1.0 of contact.

And we need to ensure that that mandatory requirement is out there so that the police can investigate, so that pediatricians can evaluate. It's very important in these cases that we get this information. And without that information, these children will continue to suffer.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here today. Next up we have is she reached out and she is unable to be here today. But we have in support testimony from Hawaii Children's Action Network Speak and prevent Child Abuse Hawaii. Dana Matsunami from the National Center for Youth Law in support.

Good morning Chair Martin, Vice Chair Olds, Members of the Committee. My name is Dana Matsunami. I am an attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. I live here in Hawaii and I work on issues related to child welfare in our state.

On behalf of the National Center for Youth Law, I'm testifying in support of House Bill 239 which ensures that no family in Hawaii will be ensnared in child welfare proceedings due solely to financial hardship. Financial hardship does not mean that a child is unsafe, unloved or that their parent lacks the capacity to care for them.

Placing children in the custody of the state foster system because parents cannot provide for their children due to poverty and then compensating their foster caregiver for their care is an inappropriate and ineffective response to the stated problem. There is a robust body of research showing that removal and placement in the child welfare system is traumatic.

Children who are forcibly separated from their families experience long term emotional and psychological harm caused by attachment instability, fear and grief.

I've also heard loud and clear in community meetings and listening sessions with current and former foster youth that they still years later experience a fight, flight or freeze response when they hear an unfamiliar car coming down their driveway. When they see a car with a state emblem on it, that reminds them of their experience of removal.

Removing children from their parents and communities disrupts the natural supports that children need to thrive and it does not solve the long term problem of poverty. In fact, research suggests that due to the instability and trauma of system involvement, 31 to 46% of youth exiting foster care will experience homelessness by the age of 26.

Research has shown that an effective response to poverty related neglect is to ensure that families have access to the resources that they need, free from surveillance and conditions. In other words, the best way to protect children is to support families.

The National Center for Youth Law is in support of House Bill 239 as an essential step towards ensuring Hawaii is responsive to families needs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much and thanks for being here today. Next we have Lori Tochiki as an individual.

Good morning, I'm Lori Tochiki. I'm testifying as an individual citizen but from my role as co chair of the Malama Ohana Working Group. And as you know, we did prepare a comprehensive report based upon listening throughout the community. And I appreciate the comments too about how our work really does ask us to look at the entire system.

And this particular Bill is a part of our recommendations, but it's only a part. And I appreciate, and I really, it really grieves me that we would say that unless a child has the services, through Child Welfare Services, the Department, there's no other safety net.

And that actually is something that we talk about a lot in our report that we have to look as well at that safety net. We need the mandatory supporting that comes with the report.

And this particular Bill is well researched and it lines up with national policy, federal policy, it lines us up with the mandates of the Federal Government as well. But it is only one part and we do need the whole picture. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Next up we have on Zoom, do we have the Attorney General? Okay, the Attorney General is not on. zero, they're in person. That's why I'm like. That's so surprising because they worked so hard on this.

Yes. Good morning Chair Martin and Members of the Committee. My name is Lynn Yeomans, I'm a deputy Attorney General and we submitted comments on this Bill and we appreciate the opportunity to, to give comments and a requested amendment to the Bill to address some of the concerns that were raised. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thanks for your work on this. Next up, we have on Zoom, Judith Clark from the Hawai'I Youth Services Network.

Aloha. I'm Judith Clark, Hawaii Youth Services Network's Executive Director, and we are in support of this Bill. Most low income and asset constrained families do their best to provide a safe, healthy and nurturing environment for their children. Children, their lack of resources does not mean that they are abusive or neglectful. Poverty does not equal child neglect.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We also had in support written testimony from the Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform, Catholic Charities, Hawaii Ho'o Ikaika Partnership, and eight individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? zero, can we hold off on Zoom? And there's somebody in person first. Please come up and introduce yourself for the record.

Aloha, chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Angelina Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. My apologies. I submitted testimony late, which is why it's not part of your packet. On behalf of our 16 organizations and 25 Member programs throughout the state, I do support this measure.

I can only think about all the survivors of domestic violence who have experienced financial abuse and are put into situations where they are experiencing poverty, and the poverty that they experience in the children's that their children are in is a reflection of their abusive situation.

And we're holding survivors again and again and again accountable for the actions of their abusers and not giving them the needs and resources that they need to really address their entire life and family situation. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And then we'll go to zoom. Who is it on zoom?

Go ahead, Abigail. Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair and. Members of this Committee. My name is Abigail Poorman and I'm. A student at Kalaheo High School. And I strongly support HB239. I think that amending the definition of child abuse and neglect will help the children in dire need. The children of Hawaii are our future.

So protecting them should be our top priority. Thank you for letting me testify and. I hope that you support this Bill.

Thank you very much. It's always nice to have a Mustang in our house, my Alma mater. All right, anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions for testifiers? So I have some questions, and they are.

I want to make sure that people saw the testimony from the AG's office because it will be asking about your feeling, whether that addresses your concern. So I'm just going to read it. It's not Very long and then I will ask to see how people feel about it. So it's changing the wording on changing the definition.

And I do want to note that currently our state does not take children away only because they are poor. There is some usually something else going on that makes the home unsafe. Substance abuse, you know, domestic violence, something going on.

But we certainly would like like to be clear that that's the case and make people feel comfortable that they can ask for financial help and get on services and either keep or get their kids back quickly so when they address the situation.

So the recommendation from the AG's office was to change D to when the child is not provided in a timely manner with adequate food, clothing, shelter, psychological care, physical care, medical care or supervision.

And the reason the person responsible for providing those things fails, refuses or is unable to do so is not due solely to the lack of the person's financial means. And so I wanted to ask DHS first to come up and tell us if that addresses your concerns.

We don't want your hands to be tied and to leave a child in a situation of terrible neglect while you gather data.

Correct. Understood. And as currently worded, if the situation meets this definition, then child welfare would confirm that there exists some type of child abuse and or neglect. Our concern is if this is the definition that will become law. It's not clear on what a timely manner would be.

Is it a day, is it a week, is it 30 days? That's not clear. And we could definitely still create policies, but if it's in statute it would make it more specific. And the other, did you have a.

Recommendation for different wording around timely manner?

I don't have at this time, but that is something that maybe for the.

Next hearing you could think about what you would prefer.

Definitely. And the other issue still of concern is there are situations where parents don't pay child support or they're late with paying child support. Are they going to fall into this definition? So that's something that needs to be considered as well.

And finally, I hate to use the word safety net, but Child Welfare Services is one of the avenues where a government entity can come into a family's life to assess whether or not there are safety issues in a family.

And if CWs were to come in and does not confirm that there is a safety risk at that point in time, there's no backup plan that would provide the family services that may have been identified or needed for them to strengthen their family.

Like once CWS is out, we can't force A family, hey, go apply for benefits here or go here to get additional support. And so that's the concern is if CWS is out, there's nothing that would kind of encourage this family other than their own free will to go and seek out those services.

So those are the main concerns that the Department has at this time. I hope that answered your question.

Right. I guess to me, if somebody is refusing or unable to provide for the child and they are not interested because of lack of means and they're not interested in getting services, then it would be beyond just a lack of services. It would be a lack of will to provide for the child.

So if they are at that moment not interested in working with the. The person from CPS to sign up at that time for services, make an appointment to get access to help, then wouldn't you be able to determine that it's not just financial means, it's lack of desire to address the problem?

Let me backtrack. So I guess if that's the situation, we would confirm that there is harm because they're not willing and able to.

And I would think that there would be harm that would be appropriate.

Correct. But what I was talking about was in situations where it wouldn't rise to that level, but there still may be a safety risk at that point, CWS wouldn't be able to offer anything because once a situation is unconfirmed, then CWS steps out and so there's no involvement. All right, thank you very much.

Thank you. For the city's prosecutor in office, I wonder how you feel about this language.

So the amendment would address our concerns because it creates it as an exception rather than an affirmative duty.

So just to give an example, under the current Bill, if a caseworker went to the home and saw that there was a lock on the refrigerator and the children look like they are emaciated, that would be a situation where they would have to do a further inquiry to determine financial circumstances which delays getting aid to that child under the revision by the Attorney General's because it's an exception, they would be able to say that, no, this still falls within the reporting requirement.

Okay, thank you very much, Members, are there any other questions?

Seeing none, we will move on to our next measure, which is HB1382, which appropriates funds for the Department of Human Services to contract with a nonprofit specializing in domestic violence to provide training and staff to be housed on site in the Child Welfare Services branch offices to support all aspects of screening for and addressing domestic violence within a case.

And first up, as you can tell, we have a number of bills here that are all a response to the Mālama 'Ohana Working Group trying to improve some of the responsiveness of Child Welfare Services. So first up, we have actually Department of Human Services. Thank you. That was in support.

And then we have the Mālama 'Ohana Working Group in support.

Laurie Tochiki, again, speaking as an individual, but in my role as co-chair, I do want to stand up and talk a little bit about this because we so appreciate the efforts to respond to a report. And again, we put out a vision or transformation that includes policy and resources, relationships, and then also mindset and values.

This place where there's an intersection between domestic violence and child welfare is one that came up over and over and over again as a place where our system does not properly function.

But at the same time, since the time of our report and now, and during the time of our report, there's been a lot of conversation among us individually about, okay, now what do we do with these voices? And we have this moral obligation to listen to.

And in this particular place, one thing that we know is that there's been a lot of effort to do training. There's been a lot of effort to really look at the process. We had actually brought forth the idea of an expert in the units. We have subsequently learned that we've tried that, too.

That's why the recommendation is, in particular, in that part about the expert, that we establish a multidisciplinary group or committee or some way to work at not only the policy and the resources, but also the relationships and the mindset. And we've got to get to the root cause of the issues.

Thank you very much. That sounds like a resolution, so please talk to me later. So next up, we have Dana Matsunami from the National Center for Youth Law. Or is this the wrong Bill? Sorry, same people are up on different bills. So I saw Lori's name moving back to Judith Clark on Zoom, Hawaii Youth Services.

Again, I'm Judith Clark with Hawaii Youth Services Network, and we support this Bill. It will enable Child Welfare Services to provide more effective services in domestic violence situations. It will ensure that staff are appropriately trained, provides supports for victims of domestic violence, and very importantly, establishes mechanisms for tracking and accountability. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We also had three individuals with written testimony in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Yes, please come up.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. On behalf of our 16 organizations and 25 member programs statewide, I respectfully submit to you comments. We are close partners with Laurie in the Malama 'Ohana Working Group, we've participated in those listening sessions, and we are so grateful that the Legislature is finally recognizing the intersection between Child Welfare Services and domestic violence.

And I respectfully ask that we instead form some sort of a multidisciplinary working groups because as Laurie indicated, there are fundamental differences to the value systems in the Child Welfare Services and domestic violence. Writ large, across the country, the Child Welfare system has developed to distinguish what are the needs and the safety of a child and whether or not they have to be removed.

That is the basis for the analysis around safety within the Child Welfare system. In the DV field, we take an entire look not just at the survivor, but at the family and the children and what are the needs to make sure that they have safety.

There's a public health concern that we're addressing and the criminal justice and social justice concern, and those two fundamentally clash. If we try to get more training, we're just doing more of the same. If the mindsets and the values and the systems are misaligned, we're just gonna get more of the same.

In my testimony, I give two examples. Safety. We heard from an advocate where there was a survivor who was strangled--and I'm not using choke because I guess minimize--and it's a felony in our statute, strangulation--was strangled by their partner, but the family situation was not deemed unsafe.

That is one of the top five lethality indicators for survivors of domestic violence, and over and over and over again, instead we hold survivors accountable for the abuse of their partners even in the Child Welfare system. What are you doing around safety? Are you getting a TRO? Are you going to press criminal charges?

Why haven't you sought benefits? Because that dollar over is going to disqualify you for everything else that you may make in your part-time job. All of these things make it incredibly hard and difficult for the two systems to work together until we get together, sit at the table, and say, what are our common values?

It's about time we start to change the Child Welfare system in this country and it starts in Hawaii, and one of the ways to do it is to get to brass tacks and figure out how do we care about an entire family? What does safety mean? What's the Child Welfare system's role when it comes to domestic violence and what is the field's role?

And I might add that DHS funds about three-ish million dollars for domestic violence services. Let me break that down for you. 1.040 FVPSA funds that have been targeted by this existing Administration. Two odd other million of that consists of other sources of federal funds.

We need to invest as a state in domestic violence. Asking our programs to now provide another position in a system that doesn't value their input is not a good use of money. I'm happy to address any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions? I have a question. So I have a question for the department.

So first of all, I really appreciate the department's openness to trying to make changes in response to the Malama 'Ohana Working Group and to think through how they could in a very short timeframe--because the report only came out a few weeks ago--you know, accommodate, and if this bill were to pass and this measure were to go through, do you have any sort of cost? A cost, a budget for implementing this?

Currently, no. We don't have a budget. We have a budget for existing contracts, but for any new types of contracts, I don't have a budget.

Because this would be training that doesn't happen right now and it would be data collection that maybe is something that there wouldn't be a cost for that you could do internally--I'm not sure--and then there would be having a heightened presence of somebody from a domestic violence nonprofit.

The heightened presence, we're looking at one of our current contracts and having that be part of their contract. So that part of the budget we can. I wanted to comment on the training because as the recent testifier had shared, that there needs to be a shift in terms of how we address our families that are experiencing intimate violence issues in their homes because part of what she said is valid in terms of we can't be providing the same types of trainings and we need to do something with the training that we provide and it has to do with education and not just educating our workers, but educating our community.

And what we have learned is we do need to listen to the voices of individuals with lived experience, and so we're fortunate in the sense that we have people with lived experience who are willing to share and say, 'hey look, you guys are missing the mark. This is what you guys need to be aware of.'

I met yesterday with a domestic violence advocate, and she kind of shared that same sentiment is that we really need to listen to what they say because the response that removing a person from a family is the only way to address a safety issue, it's not for all families, that there are ways that we can still work with families to address their issues of domestic violence and still maintain that family connection.

And so I think we need to revisit our viewpoint as to how survivors of domestic abuse are treated and they definitely do need more supports, but similar to what Laurie Tochiki had testified to, it is a whole system, and it's not just Child Welfare that needs to change, it's this whole system that needs to shift, and one of the great things that came out of Malama 'Ohana is this opportunity for different voices to come to the table and to share their expertise, and so anyway, I just wanted to share that, but definitely more funding is needed. So anyway, that's my long answer to your question.

Okay. Yeah. So maybe before, if you can get back to me, think about what, what additional funding would be needed so we can try to accommodate that appropriation.

Okay, will do. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I am not at all opposed to having a working group, but I don't want it to be instead of any effort to act now because it takes a couple years. I'd rather have some action now as well, in addition. All right. Members, any other questions? Any testifiers? Okay, seeing none.

We'll move on to the next one, which is HB 1383, which establishes and appropriates funds for a five year family resilience pilot program within the Office of Wellness and Resilience. And first up, we have the Office of Wellness and Resilience. Tia.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tia Hartsock, Director of the Office of Wellness and Resilience in office of the Governor. Thank you for this opportunity to testify again. The Malama Ohana working group report. We stand on our testimony, but I'd also like to add some comments.

The report calls for more concrete supports and more programs to strengthen family resiliency. This is one of many conversations that we've had in the last several months around what we should be doing as an office to address that main recommendation coming from the working group.

This family Resilience pilot program differs from from other programs offered currently in several ways. One, in peer support. Getting peer support navigators with lived experience to be the ones guiding and leading to work directly with families that are identified for this pilot program. Financial assistance for Families.

Those concrete supports that we were talking about in the previous bills, the need for that parenting and family strengthening training provided specifically by mental health professionals. That that's an evidence based and trauma informed program and a holistic approach that will be evaluated for effectiveness.

We want to make sure that this program, if passed and if funded, is immensely evaluated so that we know what's working, what's not working for this program and what types of changes need to be made and what can be implemented.

We want to make sure that families will be screened upon entrance and exit to the program and make sure that we work with program contracted providers. If we do get funded, this would go out for procurement. And so we want to make sure that we are being as responsive as we can.

Governor is very interested in trying to be as proactive and supportive of the Department of Human Services as as possible. And so this is one of our to this kind of comprehensive approach. This is one of our suggested pilots that we're looking at. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have DHS in support.

Aloha. Again, the Department does support this bill. We believe that this bill provides an opportunity for our families that we had just talked about, our families in poverty, that this would be a recession, a resource for them and this is a way to keep them out of the system as well. And so we are in support of this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Lori Tiki from. Okay, thank you. In support. Next we have Dana Matsunami in support. And we also had support from Hawaii Children's Action Network, SPEAKS and Hawaii Youth Services Network. And support on Zoom not present anymore. Okay.

Support from Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform, Early Childhood Action Strategy, Catholic Cherries, Hawaii Halequipa and five individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, I'm Angie Mercado with the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And as you can tell, all of my testimony for this hearing is late. So just wanted to be on the record for supporting this measure and this pilot program.

We believe that establishing the State of Hawaii as a trauma informed state is extremely important and we look forward to the work of the Office on Wellness and Resiliency. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions of our testifiers? I have a question for the Office of Wellness and Resilience. So there is another bill, a very similar bill, HB 1088. And I wanted to ask you about the differences in the bill.

So one difference is that this one includes Trauna informed parenting skills and coaching, whereas the other one doesn't. And I'm guessing it is your preference to keep that in?

Yes.

Does that account for the difference in the budget? It's like a half $1.0 million difference.

Yes.

Okay. And then. But over a five year period I guess it's not that much. And then this, the other difference is this, this bill does not include a requirement for your office to do data and referral, system tracking, implementation, evaluation plan. But I assume you don't mind that.

No, I don't mind that. However, I don't think that's a, a bad idea as well. I mean I think the more way that we could measure effectiveness and utilize.

You don't mind me adding that?

I don't mind. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Any questions, Members? Seeing none, we'll move on to our next measure which had an enormous amount of community interest relating to preschool open doors to expand the eligibility criteria and repeal the requirement that the providers be accredited. And first up, we have in person the Lieutenant Governor, Sylvia Luke.

Good morning and aloha. Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. It's my pleasure to testify in support of this bill.

Ever since launching the Ready Keiki initiative, thanks to the support of the legislature and many of the community partners, we were able to expand access to preschool both in the public pre-K system and also the private system. DHS has been working really hard with the community partners, especially with HCAN.

And that's the bill that you see in front of you.

The reason why we need to expand access to two-year-olds is because the open enrollment, you know, when your kid is ready, when your child is ready for preschool, sometimes you know you're not going to hit that three until maybe October or maybe you know, towards the end of the school year.

And it's not allowing some already somewhat ready kids to be available for preschool access. So to provide access to two-year-olds will open up a lot of access and opportunities for these kids. The second part is the accreditation.

You know, kind of a knee jerk reaction would be oh, why do they want to get rid of accreditation? Accreditation really is not-- Even if accreditation is eliminated because of the rigorous requirements of the department, they have requirements and responsibilities that the child care facilities and child care centers have to meet.

And accreditation just lays over additional burdens on some of these child care centers. Especially on the big islands, some of the centers are unable to get accredited. And even if with the general generosity of the legislature in providing accreditation training, it has not been enough. Only about 20 centers have been able to get the accreditation support.

So because of that, at this point in time, as opposed to just continuing to extend the accreditation requirement, we thought, okay, the better thing to do is get rid of it because DHS has safeguards and requirements in the budget in their department responsibility. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here. Next up we have the Department of Human Services.

Good morning, Chair Marten, Vice Chair Olds, Members of the Committee. I'm Stacie Tonouchi with the Child Care Subsidy Program on behalf of Director Yamane. We'll stand on our written testimony offering some amendments. Please let us know if you have questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the Executive Office on Early Learning.

Good morning, Chair Martin, Vice Chair Olds and Members of the Committee. I'm Yuuko Arikawa-Cross, Director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. We stand on our written testimony in support of HB 692 and defer to DHS regarding implementation and funding.

Community-based learning providers are vital to strong mixed delivery early learning system offering families options to choose the type of care that best meets their needs. However, the cost of this care is out of reach for many families struggling to make ends meet. Preschool Open Doors provide subsidies to help families pay tuition for these community-based programs.

EOEL supports this bill to expand Preschool Open Doors program because it'll allow more families to benefit from the and from this important subsidy program, and by extension improved access to early learning for all of Hawaii's families. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have the City and County of Honolulu, Jordana Ferreira.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Jordana Ferreira with the City and County of Honolulu on behalf of Director Krucky with Department of Community Services.

We are in strong support of this measure as we believe it would really help families to access child care in a more affordable way, especially for the City and County of Honolulu which holds the highest population of our keiki across the state.

We also support the appeal for accreditation because we do believe that there is still quality enhancement support available that was appropriated through the legislature and via DHS to help with the quality enhancement components. And this bill would still leave the Preschool Open Doors indoors to remain as is.

So there still is also an incentive for accreditation at a higher rate. Happy to answer any questions. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next we have American Association of University Women.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Jean Evans with American Association University Women, or AAUW Hawaii. You have our written testimony and we support everything, especially the lieutenant governor and her enthusiasm. You know, our mission is really to advance gender equity and especially economic security for women and their families.

You hear about us every year about equal pay, and that's women in Hawaii still make 84 cents on the dollar for working men. However, it's much worse for working mothers. They face actually what's called the motherhood penalty. Working mothers in Hawaii make only 74 cents on the dollar for every working father. And working fathers do really well.

You know, they get advancement and working mothers tend to be stagnant or else they leave the workforce entirely. You know, this gender gap, especially for the working single mothers, can last through their whole life and put them at economic risk throughout their whole life and the risk for the children. There are a couple reasons for this.

You know, maybe women decide not to-- mothers decide not to take an advancement because the promotion may require travel or whatever. But more likely, women face childcare situations every day. They don't have a stable system and they're scrambling every morning.

So they may come in late, they may miss work, and their employers think that they're unreliable employees. So expanding the open doors certainly will help this. It'll alleviate some of that requirement of looking for, scrambling every morning and keep women in the workforce. I just want to make one more point that I haven't heard today.

Every day we hear about federal cuts and child care in Hawaii is heavily supported with federal funds. So just keep that in mind. I'm sure you are. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up, we have Early Childhood Action Strategy in support.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have in support Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks.

Good morning Chair Martin, Vice Chair Olds and Members of the Committee. My name is Chevelle Davis and I am testifying. Testifying on behalf of Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks in support of this measure specifically related to the accreditation removal. We support it as the racial requirements reduce seat availability as well as revenue for our community based programs.

Our families need access to more affordable care options and are programs cannot afford to sacrifice revenue. Mahalo for your time and consideration and we're available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Kamehameha Schools.

My name is Kaano, Iwok. I'm not Waiale. But I'm here in her stead and we are in support of this Bill. The expansion of 2 year olds will allow all families, including Native Hawaiian families to access early learning opportunities earlier. Especially essentially giving Keiki three years of preschool preparation.

We also commend the adjustments to the Administration of the Child Care Provider Accreditation Program. These additions minimize costs giving providers a supportive pathway to achieve accreditation. There is no success without preparation. Mahalo.

Mahalo. For your testimony. Do we have Chloe? Okay. So we had support from the Early Learning Board, Indivisible Hawaii Patch people attentive to children. Aloha United Way, Keikioka Aina Family Learning Centers, Holy Nativity School, Bright Beginning Learning Center Kids multiple from Kekioka Aina Family Learning, different centers, BBLC Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii and about 120 individuals.

Which just shows how desperate people are for affordable child care in our state. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Come on up.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members Angie Murakato with the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I wanted to point out that the top two indicators of need for survivors of domestic violence in our very own research Scars on the Heart report as well as our needs assessment on Native Hawaiian and Filipino survivors housing and access to child care.

So not only is this an issue for our survivors, but it also is a great need of our workforce as we're beginning to see the impacts of a lot of our natural disasters and public health. Public health issues throughout, you know, that have affected Hawaii.

The possibility of changes in federal funding are also going to affect our, our workforce and so accessibility to child care having the expansion is going to benefit us all. Thank. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any questions of our testifiers? I have a question of dhs. You folks stood on your testimony and I do intend to adopt it. So I, I did want you to explain it so that people would understand the rationale behind.

Yeah, okay. Scott Nakasone Department of Human Services Department provided testimony and we are supportive of the measure. We did provide some language changes that we wanted to recommend. We wanted to change some of the language. I believe there's references to terms preschool and early learning programs.

And we are recommending to be using terms of group childcare center and group child care home. And the rationale is because preschools and early learning programs are not terms that are defined in statutes. And so if it's chosen to use those terms, then there would need to be statutory change to incorporate the definition of those terms.

The suggested wording that we had provided were terms that are already defined in statutes and was our rationale for that recommendation. We also recommended the to keep preschool indoors, a program that is utilized by group childcare centers and group childcare homes.

And the rationale there was because we believe that those particular care settings provide, I guess it provides the most suitable or not, I don't want to use the term suitable, but it provides a similar scenario, similar environment for the child for preparation into entry into kindergarten. It provides a classroom structure.

It provides a setting where they have children of same ages as a child attending there. And it's led by a teacher with a structured program and a structured daily routine. And so that's the reason why our recommendation for that language, that consideration and our testimony as well.

Yeah, so that would mean not including family based care. And what struck me in your testimony was that you said there actually wasn't a shortage of the centers and so there wasn't necessarily a need to expand to the family based care at this time. Is that correct?

Well, to our understanding that as far as the availability of center based care in the community, that it is, there is enough accessibility, not so much seats per se. Okay. Because that people have. People choose childcare for different reasons. They have their own personal reasons.

And so some centers, admittedly yes, they may have capacity issues, but we also do have some centers that don't. And so there is availability there. And so in our testimony we are saying that we believe that centers as they are located and they are available throughout the state, that there is accessibility for them.

And so with the FCC's it was our understanding that incorporating them into prescopen doors was an issue of accessibility or lack of accessibility. And so we are not aware of that issue, but we are open to that discussion if that is pursued and the reason for the inclusion of the family child care homes.

And then my last question was around your Suggested language on the having maintaining the ability of the Department to require a CO payment. Yes. On a sliding fee scale. I understand that you are changing your administrative rules to expand eligibility to higher income levels, correct?

Yes. And so we are expanding it. We are drafting rules to expand eligibility from 300% of the federal poverty guidelines to 500% of the federal poverty guidelines. And we believe by doing that we'll be able to make the prescope indoors accessible to families who don't otherwise have ability to tap into any childcare resource.

And as far as the statutory change that we're recommending, we're recommending it for purposes of flexibility to the Department by changing the term shall to May. It allows the Department to be able to implement a copay if needed, but it also gives the Department the ability to not have to implement a copay.

Thank you very much. Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none, we will move on to our next measure, which is relating to crimes against protective services workers, HB 1098, and it adds them to the list of people that if they are injured, it is a Class C felony, and it clarifies that a protective services worker is a public servant for the purposes of this section on terroristic threatening in the first degree. And first up, we have the Department of Human Services.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Ryan Yamane, Director of DHS. Thank you for your service. Stand on our written testimony. This bill was the intent of talking with the various staffs within our department regarding some of the issues regarding our abilities to conduct our Child Welfare as well as Adult Protective Services, so I'm here for answering any questions, but thank you. Aloha.

Thank you very much. You know it's a priority when the director himself comes to testify on it. Next up, we have the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We stand in support of this bill and I just wanted to point out some of the differential outcomes of raising this to a felony. In cases where the defendant receives probation right now, they would have a probation term of a year.

It would go up to four years if this bill passes. In cases where the defendant is for reasons of insanity committed to a hospital, if it is a misdemeanor, there is a shortened period, it's about six months. If it is a felony, the hospitalization and treatment will continue until the person is safe to release to the community.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Then on Zoom, do we have HPD? No we do not, but they testified in support in writing and the Department of Law Enforcement also testified in writing in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Seeing none, we will move on to--I'm very aware of the threats and fear among our Child Welfare service workers and appreciate that this measure is before us.

Our last measure today is HB 1081 relating to the Office of Wellness and Resilience, transferring the office to the Department of Human Resources Development and creating an advisory board and updating their functions. And first up to testify we have Director Yamane from the Department of Human Services.

The Department stands in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Tia Hartsock from the Office of Wellness and Resilience.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. We've provided written testimony, so I just want to stand in support of our testimony. But make a few quick points. This is the first legislated office of its kind in the country to be established in the Governor's Office.

With that establishment that was created in the 2022 session, our primary Kuleana is to strengthen state service systems by creating a trauma informed state. Because we act typically as a liaison between community and state in many ways there is really no perfect department fit for the amount and the breadth of work that we are currently doing.

However, we are particularly interested and excited in the opportunity to collaborate more closely with DHRD Department of Human Resources Development on the future of the state workforce.

According to our Data Dashboard in partnership with the University of Hawaii on the Social Determinants of Health and Worker well being, nearly 2 of 5 state employees said they were very or somewhat likely to make a genuine effort to find a new job with another employer in the next 12 months.

Many of our efforts in the office are looking at worker well being both around recruitment and retention efforts and our community work and the liaison type of work that we've been doing. We feel as if that would be beneficial to improving and looking at the quality of the worker in the state departments.

The Hawaii well Being and Quality of Life Dashboard has a wealth of data collected from more than 4,500 state employees employees last year and again.

We're excited to collaborate and jumpstart the conversation on the future of work in the state to make sure that we are making data driven decision making and looking at trainings across all state Department. With DHRD's breadth of working across all state departments and Making beneficial decisions for employees and potential employees.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have the Department of Education in support, but perhaps not here. And also support from Corrections and Rehabilitation. Thank you for being here. Then on Zoom, we have in support Hawaii Youth Services Network. Is she still here? Not here anymore.

We have support in writing from the Department of Health, from the Executive office on early learning, from the Malama Ohana Working Group, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and two individuals. I'll note that DHRD did not weigh in on whether they want you or not. But is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none.

Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Okay. I'd like to note the presence of of Chair Takayama and Representative Chen as well, and Representative Amato. And we will go into decision making. All right, so looking at our first measure, HB702 relating to human services, for this one. Actually, let me start.

I'll try to make it more efficient for all measures. When I say defect the date, it means July 1st, 3000. And any blanked out appropriation amounts will be placed instead in the Committee report. And whenever I say there's a tech amendment, it's for clarity, consistency and style.

So for HB702, I recommend blanking out the appropriation and noting in the Committee report that the a funds needed to reach the high level of compensation is 16.53 million, which is 6.79 million more than what is currently in the Governor's Budget. Also defect the date and technical amendments. Members, any questions or comments?

Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Voting on HB702. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Representative Amato.

Aye.

Representative Chun.

Aye.

Representative Keoho Kapu Liloi. Representative Takayama. Representative Taki Nouchi.

Aye.

Representative Akos.

Aye.

Representative Garcia excused. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure, HB 1477, which is relating to social services. For this one, the Department said we do not need an appropriation. They do have funds in that special Fund for this. So we'll delete the appropriation section and take the DHS suggested amendments to delete beginning October 12025. 4.

That appears on page 2, line 15 and again on page 3, line 15, page 3, line 3.

To reduce the number of things they have to amend in the future, defect the date and note in the Committee report that the measure should become effective as of October 12025 to give the Social Security Administration time to implement the Increase. Members, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1477. The chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noted the excused absence of Representative Garcia. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next is HB713 relating to a rate study for home health services. For this one just technical amendments defect the date and then note in the Committee report blank the appropriation.

And note in the Committee report that the costs of this study are a total of 500,000 with 50% of that cost covered by federal funds. And then 250,000 would be an appropriation of a funds. Members, are there any questions? zero, wait, hold on. There's one more thing. And then delete.

Because it's just needed in the first year for the study. It does not need the same funding again the second year. Delete page 3, line 12 through 14. The reference to same sum or so much thereof as may be necessary for the next fiscal year. With that, are there any questions or comments?

Members seeing then Vice Chair for the.

Vote voting on HB713. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the presence of Representative Garcia. Are there any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up is HB646 relating to supplemental Security Income Just tech amendments and effect the date. Members, are there any questions or comments noting the presence of Representative Garcia? Vice Chair, please take the vote.

Voting on HB646. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have HB 1099 making an emergency appropriation to the Department of Human Services. For this one we have technical amendments and we'll add a new section because the requested timeline in order to avoid federal penalties would be to provide this funding in June or meaning this current fiscal year.

And since we have already exceeded the expenditure ceiling, we need to add a section that basically deals with the expenditure ceiling. And I won't read it to you, but it's the same thing we put in all of our bills. And then do you. Yeah. So. Yep.

And then we can note in the Committee report that the funds need to become available this fiscal year 20242025 through an emergency appropriation in order to address the federal requirements. Any questions or comments? Members seeing none for the vote. Vice Chair, please.

Voting on HB 1099. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up we have HB 1079 relating to trauma informed care. And for this one I just recommend technical amendments, defecting the dates and blanking out the amounts. And we can note in the Committee report that the appropriation is included in the Governor's Budget. Members, are there any questions or comments?

Seeing then Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1079. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no. Any Members with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next one, HB239 relating to child abuse.

We will adopt the recommendations from the AG's office on page 5, line 1 through 11, delete that and replace it with when the child is not provided in a timely manner with adequate food, clothing, shelter, psychological care, physical care, medical care or supervision and the reason the person responsible for providing those things fails, refuses or is unable to do so is not due solely to the lack of the person's financial means and affect the date.

Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB239. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next is HB 1382 relating to Child Welfare Services and I recommend just defecting the date. Members, are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 1382. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Jerry, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next is HB 1383 relating to family resilience pilot program.

In this one I recommend blanking the appropriation and and then taking from HB 1088 some language to add to this Bill that asked them to do a data and referral system, tracking needs and protocols to comply with applicable state and federal laws and an implementation and evaluation plan that includes specific measurable, attainable, reasonable and time boundaries goals and adding for that to be done by the end of 2025 and then defect the date.

Are there any questions or comments? Members seeing then Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1383. Chair's recommendation is to vote is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next is HB 692 relating to the preschool open doors program. For this one I did want to adopt the DHS amendments. Page 2, line 11.

Cross out 2 year old through 5 year old page 4 line 1 cross out accredited family child care center that is registered by the Department in accordance with Section 346171. So this keeps it to just the child the center based as opposed to family based.

Page four, line four Cross out an exempt center based provider cross out the is listed with the Department in accordance with Just to clean up the language in Section 2 paragraph D page 4 line 6 have it read Participation in the program shall not require group child care centers or group child care homes to be accredited by an approved accredited body as is there right now.

So we are getting rid of accreditation because it is very expensive even with our state assistance and we don't want that barrier.

And then for Section 2 paragraph E page 4 line 10 we will add in the clause that put that the parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the program cross out shall and instead put may share in the cost of the program and then add in through a co payment according to a sliding fee scale that is based on need pursuant to rules adopted by the Department.

This is in order to realize the cost of opening up the program to higher income levels and wanting to include them but understanding that may cut into our ability to serve larger numbers and to affect the date Members are there any questions or comments? Go ahead.

Thank you Chair and thank you for the opportunity to comment in strong support. I do want to recognize Lt. Governor's comment about Hawaii island having the highest challenges as far as child care and I'm just really going to lean into all our HOA LOHAs who are providing child care especially on Hawaii Island.

This is a great great opportunity to invite our late born Kiki to start their education early and then allow our parents to get to work. So thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Any other comments?

Seeing then Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB692. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next 1 HB 1098 relating to crimes against protective service workers. For this one I have seen the important need and you know people should not be afraid to go to work. They should not be afraid to do their job and I appreciate the Department trying to protect their own workers.

So for this one I just recommend defecting the date Members are there any comments or questions? Seeing none.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 1098. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Our last measure HB 1081 relating to the Office of Wellness and Resilience. Moving to D Herd, I recommend technical amendments defecting the date, noting in the Committee report that the effective date would be June 292025 and with that. Are there any questions or comments? Members Seeing None.

Vice Chair for the vote voting on HB 1081. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting no with reservations. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you all for being here. With that, we are adjourned.

SA.