[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6640685,"mediaKeyId","2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026","parentId",2549904,"title","Testimony urges Connecticut to study body scanners, limit strip and cavity searches in prisons","audioSeconds",3338,"startMs",30000,"endMs",3368000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026&start=30&end=3368","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026/thumbnail_30000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6640685/Connecticut/Testimony-urges-Connecticut-to-study-body-scanners-limit-strip-and-cavity-searches-in-prisons","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640685-5425af937948b0108ba47b1207fb545a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771086743&Signature=aZh7gVUA5QiA8vMOif0thA8oE1voJalKoVavTniudCQvNvIMWSuJPJZfJdNOTnKLoWBrxwWsL7mxjLYF6veCa-FIcEBkpo0qwi8OT0o9OvfmhumsEBYo5~rJH6Y0ZbPCWc9YwpVGJEZwtRbTwubP0SIHR-NslCpehOOChn00eccD8kpEQCrPeB-qn4HsaHRY8ububMstzT8x7AGY9YdM57lLBIzJM9NfOQz4of3aslBYcKdx6hiiB4XaS9gGZxfyf1A3iX65nvEKr6ZdxEv-2pp6-PHVKw-2uVTcQ21DWze6vBM7jIHlitbgOAWUyH1FX4hTOFgAEvY62ZXHmWsYag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Government Oversight","date","2025-03-11T22:57:55.693Z","article","State Rep. Anne Hughes (R-135th) and advocates told the Government Oversight Committee on March 11 that Connecticut should move from routine strip and cavity searches in correctional facilities toward the use of body-scanning machines and other trauma‑informed measures.

Supporters said the state's existing policy is outdated and harms people who are incarcerated and correctional staff. \"It is humiliating, abusive, and degrading,\" State Rep. Anne Hughes said, describing the effect of strip searches on detainees and staff. Hughes cited a Falcon report that, she said, recommended purchasing 26 body scanners for the state's facilities at a cost of roughly $4 million and estimated they could reduce about 250,000 strip searches in one year.

Why it matters: witnesses framed the issue as both a dignity and a safety problem — arguing that frequent, traumatic searches can escalate incidents that then require use of force and create liabilities for the state. Several speakers said body scanners could detect contraband while causing less trauma than visual or cavity searches.

What witnesses said: Christina Guillot, acting child advocate at the Office of the Child Advocate, described frequent strip searches of people under age 22, especially in restrictive housing, and urged use of scanners \"to minimize the need for strip searches, especially in those restrictive housing settings where it is a very frequent occurrence.\" Several people with lived experience, including Deandre Brown, testified about being forced naked and restrained during searches; Brown said, \"They stripped me naked forcibly and made me bend over on the bed while a gang of correction officers restrained me.\"

State ombudsman testimony: An ombudsman who testified said other states have limited cavity searches and adopted scanners. He recommended the bill be strengthened to require DOC to develop a plan and cost estimate for facility‑wide implementation.

Legal and oversight references: supporters pointed to Public Act 23-12 (which directed DOC to review scanners), the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards, and examples in other states (New Jersey and Illinois) that have limited cavity searches or required warrants in certain circumstances.

Next steps: The committee heard extensive public comment; no formal action or vote occurred at the hearing. Committee members asked DOC and advocates for more detail on costs, machine throughput and where scanners would be prioritized. The hearing record contains written exhibits and agency responses referenced by multiple witnesses.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Government Oversight Public Hearing 3/11 1:30 1A","oneSentenceSummary","State Rep. Anne Hughes and other witnesses asked the Government Oversight Committee to study wider use of body scanners and curb routine strip and cavity searches in state correctional facilities, saying current practices cause trauma and increase use-of-force incidents.","taxTitle","Government Oversight, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",78975,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":44,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640671,"Seniors tell oversight panel long‑term care insurers' premium hikes need legislative scrutiny",5473,5503000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026&start=30&end=5503","/articles/6640671/Connecticut/Seniors-tell-oversight-panel-longterm-care-insurers-premium-hikes-need-legislative-scrutiny","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640671-283123a7fb71829b3301f7dfa1ff720b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771086743&Signature=FtGI6NJWPG351-gHDGVXyY~xIc-i3ToKb5k7gUqIMAjXMNBUetPmT3vhVyGsQhWgv9XLtUDTZTYDilJD7TishT4VVUeItoUro1Yg5PZgTn5XVlDMg9BhhzDYAblkKvn7NDrubLUD3WUy4fMft3iCFinovmA2W1BjIOkixyPN39wWkWjyF5tRBLI9Pn5mD-b1IMdZxy8Y~BbVmtvyXm6lljli8sSISCpXJeukMaP1BHSwHescVe35HoRoabw7-RtMDkDqar5RehHKQqtOxMMmvX9ElvOWyml-3x8BqoMNzJnHkGLGiwzS~9BruMUC-yK8ATYYEiy9wh2USjA3fDTwpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple Connecticut residents and consumer advocates testified on House Bill 7 1 8 3 at the Government Oversight Committee public hearing on March 11, urging lawmakers to review recent premium increases in the long‑term care insurance market.

David Schwartzer, a Newington resident, said HB 7 1 8 3 provides relief for an estimated 100,000 Connecticut policyholders but noted a problematic provision that limits benefits in the bill to policies sold on or before Dec. 31, 1985. Schwartzer argued that such a cutoff is unlikely to benefit current policyholders and urged the committee to revise the language.

Why it matters: witnesses said many long‑term care policyholders are seniors on fixed incomes and that premium increases over the last two decades have been substantial. Jan Kritzman described her family’s experience: premiums that were about $1,000 annually in 2004 have risen to several thousand dollars per year, and insurer buyout offers would pay only a small fraction of the policy value.

Provider/industry context: testimony explained that insurers cite solvency concerns and actuarial assumptions to justify rate requests, but witnesses urged the committee to examine insurers’ broader corporate structures and capital positions — including parent companies and reinsurance arrangements — when reviewing rate filings made to the Department of Insurance.

Next steps: witnesses asked the committee to modify HB 7 1 8 3 language to protect current policyholders and to direct oversight staff to examine insurer capital, reinsurance, and the Department of Insurance’s criteria for approving rate increases.","Policyholders and consumer advocates told the Government Oversight Committee that some long‑term care insurers have sharply increased premiums and that statutory protections tied to an arbitrary 1985 cutoff date should be reconsidered to protect current policyholders.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640676,"Advocates, educators ask committee to study private special‑education tuition and oversight",10546,1900000,12446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026&start=1900&end=12446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026/thumbnail_1900000.jpg","/articles/6640676/Connecticut/Advocates-educators-ask-committee-to-study-private-specialeducation-tuition-and-oversight","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640676-961035bc4666ad3a96a3db5bb4e3db79/orig.mp4?Expires=1771086743&Signature=YeU2HwBbtnYr3SEXzMfFSq~TM~Yk6im5ztUvMnRKc2b7-gIeuVHWsVCFPCDBIIFcbwgnxqRcI1Nq1oZRX1xY77uYcTgHAPrzYLrz8KQCNgDlEhLggTBUOJWQDWGkXGC4vbMRPKFB2OuirxiWtpARDVDXmd3yAiWs4EmShywAj4pAGOHRXM44am1khCFfc9jt5ALEthG365HBCl9EEW~h4GstQshgtqRf2u~j4S0NN~TU3XEVEXDr3YBcjiz9eqLUXHt7ieP~1~Zmd5DQj8PrHdU7eZKGc8FnC~n7C4cyUjTt3Hp5d3g924ggqwNx-KuChOwLkZEFchCr2Pfz4wzuOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Parents, advocates, educators and some private‑placement providers testified on March 11 that Connecticut needs better data before taking legislative steps to cap or set rates for approved private special education placements.

Andy Feinstein of Special Education Equity for Kids and Orlando Rodriguez of the Connecticut Education Association urged the committee to require a study of the scope, enrollment, tuition drivers and staffing models used by Approved Private Special Education Programs (APSEPs). \"We need the basic information about what the universe looks like first,\" Feinstein said, adding that private placements serve students with very complex needs and that rate‑setting without robust data could force some providers to close.

Why it matters: witnesses said tuition for residential or out‑of‑district placements has risen in recent years and that executive compensation at some providers appears high compared with teacher salaries. Advocates said a study should consider quality of care, differences between nonprofit and for‑profit providers, transportation costs and how vacant slots affect tuition.

Key testimony: CEA pointed to rapid tuition increases in recent years and highlighted executive compensation figures in tax filings as justification for greater transparency. Providers including Adelbrooke Behavioral and Developmental Services cautioned that most APSEPs are nonprofit and that any rate limits should account for program differences and not force placements out of state.

Next steps: testimony generally supported SB 1467’s call for a review. Witnesses urged the committee to ensure the study gathers consistent cost, staffing and outcomes data before policy changes are proposed.","Advocates, education groups and some private providers urged the Government Oversight Committee to authorize a comprehensive review of costs for approved private special education placements before adopting caps or rate‑setting proposals.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":102,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640681,"Providers tell oversight panel state contracts and late payments strain nonprofit health and human services",0,12509000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026&start=12509&end=12509","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549904-0dfd2cc177d4af5f313890a148e6b026/thumbnail_12509000.jpg","/articles/6640681/Connecticut/Providers-tell-oversight-panel-state-contracts-and-late-payments-strain-nonprofit-health-and-human-services","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640681-9c9fa3a9cd735ac0685a6109fe72ba97/orig.mp4?Expires=1771086743&Signature=eLWVh6ZRzTipxn65eYQoDlFm6LWNje7R87d7y4~92oAov4TtLzdsLSNhgBVcjtPR6zqg0QohsS2i2Ug31UZAYO1jv1Nos-Key9Y0E7VSDwsvpzZm4LzsrhnXl0dJ5kW6MhDK5KtI55ZyX4vQ-Rm2lbsQSCmIDNEDLjA30T9HbrqfS02pUfMHLZT6j4lvfDGk4L8H2P4sXin69LZkS7HrjaeviQiMJ5DzIlLqyqVkhiXV8XlsR3hy6J9yQM5CU3LVutLiA1db5sepugtjC1xUDxGoLo~yuer6BP5SBwQU3qEIDkcC-buBW2M2F0rQy1YoEI55B-AmlqI4boXbygNMjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Health and human services providers who contract with Connecticut state agencies described persistent financial stress, staffing shortages and late state payments at the Government Oversight Committee hearing on March 11.

Executives from nonprofit providers including the Kennedy Collective, Reliance Health, Klingberg Family Centers and CMHA said stagnant contract rates and slow distribution of one‑time funds create long carry costs that force organizations to draw lines of credit, reduce staffing and limit service capacity. \"We are subsidizing the state of Connecticut,\" said Rick Sebastian, president and CEO of the Kennedy Collective, describing the gap between reimbursed hourly rates and fully loaded labor costs for high‑need 1:1 services.

Why it matters: witnesses warned that underfunded contracts reduce available services for children, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and people with behavioral health needs. Several large providers said they are turning away referrals in core programs because they lack licensed clinicians or the staff to meet contractual requirements.

Key testimony: Reliance Health described a contract delay that left the agency unpaid for more than seven months after a reprocurement; leaders said they covered payroll through other program revenue and credit lines. Multiple witnesses said the state authorized a cost adjustment in the prior budget year but that providers still await receipt of the funds, creating months of carrying costs. Several nonprofit executives urged OPM to perform a systemic review of purchase‑of‑service rates and administrative burdens, and endorsed language in HB 7184 that would direct OPM to examine whether agency rates adequately compensate providers.

Operational consequences: providers reported vacancies of 20–30% and described a national labor market for direct care that requires higher wages; they flagged increased workplace violence, difficulty recruiting bilingual clinicians, and the inability to fill residential slots. Several witnesses urged a requirement that state agencies pay claims within a fixed period after receipt of a properly completed invoice.

Next steps: witnesses asked the committee to direct OPM to review rates, consolidate and simplify reporting burdens, and enforce timely payments. No committee votes were recorded at the hearing.","Nonprofit service providers and agency leaders told the Government Oversight Committee that flat or delayed contract payments, unfunded mandates and rising operating costs are squeezing organizations that deliver behavioral health, developmental and home‑based services across Connecticut.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Testimony urges Connecticut to study body scanners, limit strip and cavity searches in prisons

Seniors tell oversight panel long‑term care insurers' premium hikes need legislative scrutiny

Advocates, educators ask committee to study private special‑education tuition and oversight

Providers tell oversight panel state contracts and late payments strain nonprofit health and human services