House Standing Committee on Human Services & Homelessness

Aloha. We are opening the, Committee on Human Services and Homelessness hearing, Tuesday, 03/24/2026, 10AM, in Conference Room 329. This might be our last hearing of the session that I'm running. Next one should be my vice chair. So, I appreciate all of you folks for being here.

First up on our agenda, we have SB 2479, SD 2 relating to criminal procedure. And we have to testify with comments, the judiciary.

Good morning, chair, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions in the first circuit as well as, judiciary administration. Judiciary takes no position on the intent of the proposed legislation, but we did provide comments regarding some provisions that we have some concerns with. They are outlined in our testimony, but I'd just like to highlight the first part of Section one appears to require the court to sentence a defendant, to imprisonment, even if they are probation eligible.

In addition, subsection eight appears to require, to permit any defendant, to seek a reconsideration of their sentence for up to one year after the imposition of the sentence as well as a 120 days after it was remanded after being a firm I'm sorry, after it was affirmed from the appellate court. This really will affect the finality of judgments, especially for victims.

And so we have some concerns about that as well as the provisions that permit us to commit the judiciary to either probate or reduce a sentence. And that may not be, possible given the language of other statutes in Chapter 706, that include the not with standing language. So I will be here, and

I have a couple other comments on here.

And we'll stand on the rest of our written testimony. We do note that given the greatly expanded sentencing review provisions, the judiciary cautions that we may require additional resources in order to handle these motions and these reconsiderations as well. So I will be available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for being here. To clarify all of that. Next up, we have, the office of the public defender in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is William Bento, and I'm representing the office of the public defender. We are in a strong support of the intent of SB 2479, SB 2. We feel that for the first time, there's going to be a codification of this belief and understanding that we are who we are because of our life experiences and the things that we've been sometimes forced to endure.

Defense attorneys have been presenting this type of evidence in court long before I even started practicing law.

But for the first time with this change in statute, there is a reason for us to present it in the HRS that gives relief for those who have had to experience the things that we're discussing in this bill.

And we feel that these are significant changes that can help not just in the trial for a case like these described or what we foresee, but also in the sentencing of those individuals and how they're treated with the recognition that our life histories are part of our realities. It helps them to move forward and to help to try to improve ourselves as as people. In our written testimony, we've outlined one of the concerns we have dealing with the rule 40 petition.

And that is that almost every case has this type of information provided in the pre sentence report.

Therefore, people who are now currently serving time would not be able to file their rule 40 petitions and ask for relief with the passage of this bill because that evidence has already been presented to the sentencing judge previously. So we're asking for a change in language so that those individuals would be allowed to present, this evidence in a rule 40 petition and benefit from the language proposed in this statute.

We also have a concern as outlined, not in our written testimony, but in the judiciary's testimony, where in it, it says that felony cases where a person could receive probation, they're gonna be foreclosed from receiving probation because of the language of the bill. I think the idea was to give people less jail than the current statute is called for. But it in a sense now precludes probation for other, felony offenses, non class a felony offenses.

Therefore we'd ask for a change in that language to allow for probation to be an appropriate sentence, meted out by a judge when the judge feels that that's, proper. I'm available for any questions that you have. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We have the County of Hawaii office of the prosecuting attorney on Zoom. Not present. Not present. We had the attorney general's office pop in, and I think they have two hearings at the same time, but they are in opposition.

We also had written comments from the judiciary here, never mind. We had written a testimony in opposition from Maui County Department of Prosecuting Attorney Kauai, prosecuting attorney Kauai Police Department, and we had support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers.

Very quiet. Okay. Moving on to our next measure, SB 2557 SD one relating to homelessness. This is asking the state office on homelessness and housing solutions to report on a number of things annually. And first up, we have the the office on the business and health institutions in person.

We have comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. We stand on our our testimony. We just wanted to just we appreciate the intents of the language of the additions for, from this bill. We just wanted to make sure that we can highlight that our our office does provide an annual and a quarterly basis reports to the state. This can be found on our website.

And some of the information has already been found in these in these reports. The partner the appointment time count is done annually across the state and is one place that we can also find some more information. I can provide any updates to those type of information to the the members of the committee as we are able to bring them together. But we do also want to just bring up the fact that our office is a small office.

And and due to to that because of our number of staff right now, I have three four staff with me right now. Adding another expectation onto them, we do put less that you'd consider expenses as as well. So we thank you for the opportunity, and I'm here for any questions.

K. We also have thank you, Jane. In person, we do not have the in person. Shipta with road in support. Do we have the State Council on Mental Health on Zoom?

In Yes. Aloha, chair. Go ahead.

Yes. Aloha. Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. I'm Carolyn Wagen Hildebrand, lead support staff for the State Council of Mental Health on behalf of the chair and the rest of the members. Our the testimony of the council is parallel to what they have said when they testified for SB.

The well, it just got off me, but the other, bill is to emphasize that, homelessness is also a health and poverty issue and that among and data has shown that a big number or of the those involved course are chronically homeless and usually shell shelterless are folks with serious mental illness and co occurring health and poverty conditions. So any there is really this need for a pairing of a continuum of care and a corresponding continuum of housing solutions.

So, for for this particular, bill, the the accounts would like to strengthen this measure while also respecting the what mister Jun Yang has alluded to about, you know, the shortage of staff and the challenges and has an amendment on page three lines twelve sixteen to say to and to the extent practicable and in collaboration with relevant agencies, data on individuals experiencing homelessness with serious mental illness or co occurring behavioral health conditions, including placement type and housing outcomes.

So it is hopefully something that is supportive of the effort to end homelessness, but also respectful of the challenges on how to bring about relevant data in a report form. So it should strengthen the current report and also strengthen this bill.

Thank you, and I will be available for to answer questions.

Thank you very much for being here. We also had comments from the policy advisory board of elderly affairs and support from Waikiki immigrant board. Members, are there any questions for our testifiers? Or is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Members, any questions?

I have a question, June, please. So, I understand that the the point in time count is actually done by a nonprofit, and I feel like last year, they didn't do it. They said they're only actually required by their grant to do it every other year, and so to save money, they chose not to do it. So would this require you to share information that may or may not be available?

It would. So the point in time count is required by the Federal Government on an annual base on a biannual basis, every other year. Our community for the long for the long time has done it annually. But over the past couple of years, they've decided to move to a biannual basis mainly due to volunteer and just the amount of effort it takes. And so that report won't be available to us every year. So you're absolutely right.

So just to read the language on page three number four, it says report annually on the number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals and the number of individuals who've been placed in permanent housing, supportive housing, and permanent or independent living arrangements. I assume the the part after that and about placement, that would be available every year regardless if you do a point in time count.

Is that answer? There there

is some HUD information and data available that is available to us on on more that is available to us through the Federal Government. So we can try to find that information for you. I don't have that off the top of my head.

I So for that would be on placement. But in terms of the total number of sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals, that would not necessarily be available to you every year. Or what?

It it's a report that we probably could generate

Okay.

Through the HMIS system. Okay. And it it may not be, you know, as up to date and and as as but as close to it as we can get.

Do something. Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. And I see that doctor Jack Lewin joined us.

Did you wanna testify in this measure? This is the, report annual report from the state office on homelessness and housing solutions.

Sorry. Which I'm with you all.

I hear you. SB 2557. Asking

Oh, yes. We we definitely would like to see this information gathered. We obviously it's you know, there's a there's a cost to it, but we think it would be help very helpful to us to see, you know, see the numbers if possible and realizing that there will be a cost. But we think the data would be helpful for a lot of reasons, particularly because a lot of these individuals end up in health facilities, health care services, where the costs are extremely expensive.

So we'd like to find ways to be more efficient about this, and

I think the data would be helpful.

Thank you. Since we're already in our question time, I'll ask you a question. So they do already publish various reports. Do you does your office use any of those?

We have not really we've so far, we've not seen any of those reports as part of you know, and and it's I think the relationship of of homelessness to health care costs and health care services is an area that we'd like to explore further.

Okay. Okay. Members, are there any other questions? Nope. Seeing none, we'll move on to our next measure.

Thank you for being clear, doctor White. So SB 2861 SD2. This would require the Office of Wellness and Resilience to develop a plan to establish a pilot program to support family and children in need. And first up, we have in person the office of wellness and resilience

. Aloha to your advice to your members of the committee, Naomi Leipo with the office of wellness and resilience. Director Hartzok sends her regrets, and her apologies that she couldn't be here in person today. We stand on our testimony and support, and we have submitted, amendment requests for the committee's consideration. In summary, the amendment requests are to clarify our office's role in planning and an advisory role capacity. We also want to recognize and reiterate DHS as a key collaboration partner in this effort, and we wanted to add safeguards for, federal compliance. I'm here for any available questions. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Do we have DHS on Zoom?

Yes. Good morning. Good morning, chair Martin, vice chair Olds, and members of the committee. My name is Catherine Scardino here on behalf of director Yamane. The department stands on its written testimony in support of the bills intent and offered comments.

Thank you very much. We also had, written testimony in support from Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, one individual, and then one individual with comments. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing then, members, are there any questions? I have a question for DHS if you're still on Zoom.

Yes. I am. Okay. Perfect. Yes, ma'am.

So we are I don't know if you saw the testimony from the Office of Wellness and Resilience, basically, to clarify their role and your your part in that collaboration and to to also clarify that they are not really an implementing body. That's not what they do. Right? They said it would just be a plan. But I wanted to get from you.

The bill has state stated in it that the focus would be on families of children exiting foster care. And I I feel like that is your programs do not extend to that group. This the current COCO program with ADHS does not extend to that group. Is that correct?

So long as the fam so long as there is a parent or a specified relative caring for a child, it would meet the qualification in terms of household, TANF eligibility, and household composition.

Yeah. That that wasn't my question. I I'm looking to see if it's redundant with your current COCO program within DHS that you already do.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. So just just they they're specifying that it's kids exiting foster care. So I'm just double checking that once a child and whatever family unit they become in at that time, are they they are out of your current coco program. So it would not be duplicative. I'm just trying to verify.

Okay. I will need to defer to our social services division so I can take your question back, chair, and provide a response through the director's office.

Okay. And then my second question that is related is is that really do we want to be exclusive about that group, or is there another group that we can also define that is high risk because they are not in your system in such as a serious way that you are able to provide services? Right?

They're not technically clients of DHS, of CWS yet, but maybe they have become known to you through maybe there was a report of suspected neglect, and you folks assess that, no, there isn't we don't see the level rising to neglect. However, this family could clearly use some help.

You know, I wonder if if there could be another way and if you all delay decision making till Thursday for this bill so that I can get language back from you folks. There's there's so much. Right? Thursday. Oh, I won't do it on Thursday.

I'll delete decision making to our next hearing. I will not make make it on holiday. But but I'd like to I'd like to get specific language from you folks so that we know it works. We don't want it to be redundant. We don't wanna in any way dismiss the efforts of the department on something that I think is really a great program.

And we want to get a clear definition on how we could target kids at risk because it's hard to identify. So if if the department come back before our next hearing, which would be next Tuesday, with language, then we'll do decision making at that time.

Okay. Will do. Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Alright. Any other questions? If not, we'll move on to our next measure, which is SB 3204 SD 1, relating to Family Resilience Pilot Program. Which sounds very similar to our last bill, but this one is looking at using peer navigators so it's a little bit different.

And we have first up, the Office of Wellness and Resilience in person.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of committee. Naomi Leipold with the Office of Wellness and Resilience. Thank you for hearing this measure. We stand on our testimony and support. We've asked for some consider minor amendments for the committee's consideration.

One, it would be to extend the program's time duration to a two year period that would allow us for sufficient time to develop policies and procedures and collect meaningful outcome data to evaluate the program's effectiveness. Thank you for consideration and I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Thanks very much. And next up, do we still have Department of Human Services on Zoom?

Yes.

Yes, chair. Catherine Scardino again here on behalf of Director Yamane. The department stands on its written testimony in support of the bill's intent and offered comments.

Thank you very much. And we also have do we have in person the State Council on Developmental Disability?

Good morning, chair. We stand on our written testimony and support. Thank you

And State Planning, State Health Planning and Development Agency.

Yes, chair. And members, we stand on our testimony in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we also had testimony all in support in writing from the Executive Office on Early Learning, Early Childhood Action Strategy, Catholic Charities Hawaii, Hawaii Children's Action Network Speaks, and two individuals.

Members, are there is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Go ahead.

Thank you. For Office of Wellness, thanks for being here. You know, within the bill, it's higher and train five trauma informed peer support resources, resource navigators to assist up to 80. Just trying to understand the math there.

And because it it's the scalability right after that.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you for that question. So we took this after the, we tried to map it out. So in full capacity, if a peer support specialist can operate at full capacity, how many families they can serve, and that's how we came up to that number. Initially, it's at 80, but we didn't wanna pigeonhole ourselves just since it's a pilot to see if they can really serve in that capacity.

So with the amount that was the funding that was initially proposed, I know it's zeroed out right now, but given that amount, we calculated it to up to 80

up to 80

up to 80 for five year support specialists.

And what is that amount?

Initially, it was introduced at 600,000 for 10 funds.

And then, for the five to 80, get the ratio. How are we spreading it across, you know, the neighbor islands? Like, what's that math? Right. We know there's a lot of need on, Oahu, but we have very rural communities on our neighborhood.

Yes. Definitely. And we hear and we we've heard this in the conversations with also we've been talking closely speaking closely with SCDD and CWS about this possibility of this program. We understand that there are certain hotspots where there are more reports. Our offices standing, is we prefer if we can pilot this in a certain geographic area.

We have yet to determine where that would be. We want to make sure resort, possibly work with existing community based organizations or places that have shown strong connection with community and possibly pilot there. But it is yet to be determined and but, yes, we would like to do it small scale in one geographic area or possibly two and then see how that go.

Great. Thanks

Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on to our next bill. SB 3,324 SD1, which appropriates funds for Medicaid home and community based services.

And we have to testify in person, The Department of Health.

Good morning, chair. vice chair, and members of the committee. Justin Lam representing the Department of Health today. We did submit written testimony in strong support of this measure, but I'd like to provide additional remarks. We at the department, we're seeing a growing demand for these community based care homes that allow our kupuna to stay in their homes and out of institutions.

And at the center of this based care is our caregivers, and they do incredibly meaningful and compassionate work every day, but they're also carrying a heavy burden.

And that burden, especially for these facility types, is that they're often, underpaid, overextended, and they're trying to meet the increasingly complex care needs with limited resources. So this bill directly impacts those caregivers and it affects their ability to maintain the skills that they need, increase resident safety, and increase the quality of life for those residents. At the same time, it's also a highly effective cost model. Residential care carries a significantly less cost compared to an institutional long term care type facility.

If we don't invest now, we risk losing both this workforce and the capacity that keeps our people in these communities.

And so thank you for the opportunity to testify in this measure, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, very much. Okay.

Do we have the the Hawaii state council right now?

Well, I'm sorry. We'll send our definitely in support. Thank you.

And AARP Hawaii in support. Not here. Department of Human Services on Zoom.

We're here. Oh, okay. Sorry.

Vice chair, members of the committee on Meredith Nichols for Department of Human Services, and we'll stand on our testimony in support. And then, AlohaCare and support on Zoom. Not present. We also had written testimony in support from the Disability and Communication Access Board, Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Hawaii Medical Association, Aloha, Community Connections, Hawaii, Balanced ABA, and a handful of individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure.

Seeing none, members, are there any questions for our testifiers. I have a question for DHS. I just wanted to be able to include in the committee report the numbers, if you have those to share with us, of our state funds and the matching end funds that we may expect for Sure. So, this program actually leverages good federal match about 60%. So our remaining estimated general fund cost would be about 1,700,000.

And then how much do you know the end the number that end funds by chance or no? I do that this would be 38%, and I'm sorry if my memory got slow today. Okay. That's fine. Alright.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Members, any other questions? Okay. And then we'll move on to our last measure, which is SB 3325 SD 1 HD 1, which is relating to public school Medicaid reimbursements urging the or requiring Department of Education to update a plan for maximizing Medicaid reimbursements.

And first up, we have the Department of Education. Thank you.

Aloha, chair Martin, vice chair Olds, and members of

the committee, Keanu Gardner on on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands, on its testimony in support of the measure and to we respectfully request an amendment to page four, section five b, that eliminates the or asking for a Medicaid reimbursement amount received for direct services by complex area and administrative service statewide. So this eliminates ambiguity in the reporting requirement, aligns with the statutory language with CMS, and enables the department to produce a meaningful annual report without mischaracter mischaracterizing service delivery and planning outcomes.

Okay. And it that is consistent with what was in your written testimony? Yeah. We also had a testimony from the attorney general's office

on Zoom. I think I I'm here. Oh, okay. I'm trestifying. Excuse me.

Morning. Chair Martin, vice chair Oates members. Anne Periuchi, department of the attorney general. As we noted in our testimony, we, recommend that the bill be revised to provide clarification regarding certain position titles that are listed in the bill. There is a reference to the assistant superintendent for the exceptional support branch of the office of student support services that could actually refer to two different positions.

So if it's meant to refer to the assistant superintendent of the office, then we provided a suggested revision. Also, with regard to the position of student coordinators, we believe that's probably a reference to student services coordinators. Yep. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure?

We had testimony in writing in support from Aloha Independent Living, Hawaii, Hawaii Association for Behavioral Analysis, Balanced ADA, and three individuals. I just wanted I does anybody have any questions for our testifiers? I have a question for, Department of Education. I just wanted to verify that you saw the attorney general's, testimony and that the positions that they specified are the appropriate positions.

So it it could mean two different things. So I'm the assistant superintendent of the office of student support services. It may be that they want the director of the exceptional support branch.

So so that how how should we amend the language to make that clear? That would not be the way that they should amend in that case.

Be the most appropriate person. The director of the student of the exceptional support branch.

I mean and and we're fine with including both possessions. Right?

and and we're fine with including both possessions. Right? So the Should

So the Should we just go ahead and include both?

Just that it's it's listed as though it's the same one and the same person.

It's on sorry. It's section two cB 3.

Sorry. I'm trying to oh, okay. So training materials have a lot, including assistant superintendent for the office of you know, we could insert for the office of student support services and the Director of the Exceptional Support Branch. I think it would be fine for both of those positions to receive the training.

including assistant superintendent for the office of you know, we could insert for the office of student support services and the Director of the Exceptional Support Branch. I think it would be fine for both of those positions to receive the training.

K. You are speaking faster than I'm writing. So the first one is the the assistant superintendent for the office of student support services. And then the other one is A director. Director.

Exceptional support. Right?

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay.

We will be considering all of our measures because of a deadline today, so we can't wait for the one that I had said we were going to defer, decision making on.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we will move on to decision making. Okay. We're gonna recess for a second.

But our first measure, SB 2479, SB 2, I am going to defer this one. I appreciate the intent to acknowledge the hardships that people have faced and how that impacts their behavior, but there is a lot of problems with this bill and unintended consequences. Our next one, SB 2557 SD 1 relating to homelessness. I would like to just redefact the effective date and pass it out. Otherwise, unamended.

Members, are there any comments? Let's check the vote, please.

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on SB 2557, SD 1. Chair’s recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Representative Amato, aye. Representative Hartsfield, aye. Representative Keohokapu-Lee Loy, aye. Representative Takayama, aye. Representative Takenouchi, aye. Representative Alcos, aye. Representative Garcia, aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have SB 2861, SD 2. This is the one for reproducing the DHS CAFO program for other at risk families. And for this one, I'd like to adopt the amendments as proposed by the Office of Wellness and Resilience and included in their testimony, which basically reinforce that it is just a plan. It will be done in collaboration with DHS, and they are not an implementation organization.

And in addition, defect the effective date, technical amendments for clarity consistently in style. And in the committee notes, I'd like to note that the preferred date is effective upon approval and that there is no need to include language about a repeal at any time. It will naturally sunset.

And then I would also, since we will not have the luxury of delaying decision making for this to go on to its next committee, I'd like to amend the language on page two line four in addition to having a focus on children exiting foster care, also include other at risk children as determined by the plan. And with that, members, are there any comments?

No. Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on SB 2861, SD 2. Chair’s recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting all members present. Any members voting no or with reservations?

Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 3204, SD 1, which is, again, this is the peer counselors for the using TANF funds with the Office of Wellness and Resilience.

So this one, I just wanted to make technical commitments or clarity, consistency, and style, read that the effective date, and note that it it changed it from a one year pilot to a two year pilot, which impacts page two, line 15, page five, section five, And, also change the repeal, the ending date to 2028 to match the two years and then adjust from 80 families exactly to up to 80 families to give them a little bit of grace.

And, then on page four, section four, instead of establishing, identifying monthly parenting classes or cultural family strengthening services offered by contract or subcontract providers and connect to families as appropriate. And then note in the committee report that the requested amount of TANF funds, so not from our general funds, would be 600,000.

Members, are there any comments? Vice chair.

Thank you, chair. Members voting SB 3204, SD 1 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting no with reservations? Chair, recommendations and documents.

Thank you very much. And then next up, we have SB 3324, SD 1, which is increasing rates for our Medicaid home and community based care. I'd like to just read effect the effective date and note in the committee report that the amount requested from general funds was $1,700,000 to be matched by a 62%, end funds. Members, are there any questions, Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Members voting SP 3324, SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting no? Reservations?

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have SB 3325, SD 1, HD 1, which is looking at increasing Medicaid reimbursement within the DOE. And I wanted to adopt the DOE's amendments to, page four, section 5b, lines 13 through 15 to delete number of eligible administrative and support services provided classified by complex area. I'm leaving the rest of the language there.

And then also amend, clarify as brought up by the AG and as specified by DOE that that we will have both the assistant superintendent of the office of student support services as well as the director of the exceptional support branch participate. And also, page four line four as recommended by the AG, just clarify inserting the word service between student and coordinators.

Members, are there any comments? Seeing none, nice to have the vote, please.

Any Chair members voting on SB 3325, SD 1, HD 1. Chair’s recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any members voting no or with reservations, Chair’s recommendation is adopted.”

Thank you very much. And we are adjourned.