[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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",[32,76,88],{"_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",6622946,"mediaKeyId","2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff","parentId",2778423,"title","Committee sends House Bill 930 to finance after brief consideration","audioSeconds",32,"startMs",3399000,"endMs",3431000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff&start=3399&end=3431","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff/thumbnail_3399000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6622946/Maryland/Committee-sends-House-Bill-930-to-finance-after-brief-consideration","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622946-4818d9f7dae6c58ca282d1c332004c3e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773180848&Signature=njZTTDSreTCTUyxF6Z6VcymVQVIBdZEfJMI17GPA0kiS-6Sm8j0Og4iou3gw8gC9~xUVTmigs3YV8zl0OZZwRNpI8T9W2ZuG1yIS7fnCI337n4UimRjwqG6Omt2cpavi49RJ~n3beH~lbvigCBktuVgsRQUHZnNh9iXuKIeuwvPw2KcEuyIZpPxpUxPxXlopln6vmsyzuUt8SYXIGNfz4yYkZnnb~CYFFyHircr8ngPCQbPwtu5Y1CqhoaBv0Kk01WjRnwY3BIq7vLkCkQxjTdRzu-LUu~uiF5ihfgZKv7Ju8VOJVDlpDan5Ruy9p8csikXklYxNRchUmMnQFBor0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Budget and Taxation","date","2025-03-26T17:53:40.493Z","article","House Bill 930 was considered briefly and the committee recorded a favorable report, referring the bill to the Finance Committee. The bill received a voice vote; no additional debate or amendments were recorded in the provided transcript segment.

The committee chair noted the bill has been seen before by members and moved the measure forward. The committee did not specify additional amendments or funding changes during the short exchange that was recorded.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","B&T Committee Session, 3/26/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The Budget and Taxation Committee voted to give House Bill 930 a favorable report and referred it to the Finance Committee; the vote was recorded by voice and no substantive debate was reflected in the transcript segment.","taxTitle","Budget and Taxation Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15091,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622951,"Panel questions capacity and funding as lawmakers discuss women's pre‑release center",1232,3646000,4878000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff&start=3646&end=4878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff/thumbnail_3646000.jpg","/articles/6622951/Maryland/Panel-questions-capacity-and-funding-as-lawmakers-discuss-womens-prerelease-center","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622951-a955f56fbc21850b2b3f9ce5e4171525/orig.mp4?Expires=1773180848&Signature=T2JRD7oKqvXsyQ7ph5UMJo4NSrRAaM5AfHTwFNXV~lwtBEOXpLGIScxpIovuH9lKu3b11SNTCGExEP~4re05sh4hwpfl8Lrqbz6B715fGptcg02xJaEmUvJeO3P3qpW2IToNXwFaVni9gaNo8j2tscJxI9juv~I0tqFabnPdbygXEOfpubEFeHBx0MNcSUGLLbEB-3iL8RPUEHZiSjd7DWl7ScZFE1eKZnDQuL3zdPHgk1ehA5FyXj7IuseMxmHqdbav4X0iIQIYazmY9zC3r~sCt~i5O-GXwDrxsxtY29orXzaFVzYnriAc~7OTav-e~hpDJgr6u3z~7Ia6hBS33Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 632, which would change location and bed-count requirements for a proposed women's pre‑release center and require expanded gender‑responsive prerelease services, drew detailed questioning from the Budget and Taxation Committee on March 26 about space, staffing and funding.

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services officials told the committee a site in Baltimore City has been selected and the design-phase contract award for the new center is expected in September. Jason Davidson, speaking for the department, said approximately $9.25 million in capital funding has been provided beginning in fiscal 2023 for the project and that the total project is “around $90,000,000.” He added the department is in the design phase and that construction would start 12–16 months after the design award.

Committee members pressed the department on service capacity before the new center opens. The bill requires the department to develop a plan to provide comprehensive, gender‑responsive services on-site at the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women (MCIW) by Sept. 1, 2025, and to begin offering that programming before the new center is completed. Department witnesses said MCIW already provides multiple programs and services for women, including counseling, a women-in-transition program, lactation and baby-bonding supports, and outside organizations that deliver trauma‑informed sessions. But they also said MCIW lacks sufficient dedicated space and staff to replicate the scale of services envisioned for the new pre‑release center.

Committee members repeatedly asked whether the department can expand programming at MCIW immediately and what additional resources would be needed. Department officials said expanding prerelease programming at MCIW would require additional social workers, reentry specialists and custody staff dedicated to prerelease tiers; they also said more physical space would be necessary to add services beyond current offerings. One official summarized the gap: expanded programming “would require us to add additional staff and space which we don't have.”

Lawmakers asked for baseline data the department had not yet provided at the hearing — for example, the committee requested the number of women currently enrolled in prerelease programs and evidence tying coach/staffing levels to outcomes. Committee members also sought clarity about who is managing capital delivery; department representatives noted design bids are in process through the state procurement process and that the Department of General Services leads capital construction.

The committee did not set funding for expanded services during the hearing. Department witnesses said Project Fresh, the existing prerelease tier at MCIW, operates with volunteer and staff‑provided services but currently has no dedicated operating budget for expansion. Members requested a written implementation plan, cost estimate for expanding services at MCIW, and an itemized description of existing programs and participation counts.

The committee recorded extensive discussion and asked department staff to return with more detailed program and cost information before moving ahead on funding decisions.","Senate Bill 632 would require expanded gender‑responsive prerelease programming and a new center in Baltimore City. Department officials told the Budget and Taxation Committee a site is selected and design bids are underway but said current space and staffing limit program expansion until the new facility is built.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6622956,"Committee advances Excellence in Public Schools bill after debate over coaches, recruitment and community schools",2940,403000,3343000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff&start=403&end=3343","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2778423-e1ecc3435bf17a9ae76476f0f39f84ff/thumbnail_403000.jpg","/articles/6622956/Maryland/Committee-advances-Excellence-in-Public-Schools-bill-after-debate-over-coaches-recruitment-and-community-schools","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6622956-f9d7efed24f1d4fd529c7b901b766808/orig.mp4?Expires=1773180848&Signature=YbxUP0Yc2Q2LB0EW7MdeQyMy9u2Gwv7B4bqg3zIklnAubHyWltLza8HQDOKNsv9gLH4lWDAXBzfW2vtG0hOJS~EnUfGSHR8INR9z8odwYVRj5R1qZawN6OTXhy7M6ZhwOiubcw04woHvdvO9hkywByJ4MFFNUIVLHL2DtsmoTkmkkU59fYILGrStJhRKoVhPAA26wiF-WhHj40G8fy22vjWtCLdAREXY6zKs3QZaAkE94EFZdTfHJlet3QfVBMBwNp5riHFgQXU8QuUfoONGponsKYm6~ASc9-lsHKwCJFTxUJzWcEXXTidK9ch27iIrEWtqF9YkcIdfugJfPSt2Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Budget and Taxation Committee on March 26 reviewed Senate and House amendments to the Excellence in Public Schools Act (House Bill 504) and unanimously advanced the measure as amended, following extended discussion about implementation details for coaching, teacher recruitment and community schools.

Committee staff presented a side-by-side chart showing policy provisions in the governor's introduced bill, House amendments and Senate amendments. The chart and a reprint incorporating committee amendments guided the discussion. Committee members focused on how the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and local education agencies would implement new programs and whether proposed funding and accountability measures are sufficient.

The committee's discussion concentrated on three areas: community schools, instructional coaching under a new academic excellence program, and teacher recruitment and credentialing. On community schools, the Senate amendment set a participation floor as “at least 10 eligible schools or 35% of a local school system’s schools,” kept a local-school-system ability to expend up to 50% of funds on behalf of schools, and preserved a House requirement that an itemized report be sent to each affected community school when the system spends money on the school's behalf. A committee staff member confirmed that the law permits MSDE to withhold funds for noncompliance; when asked whether that language remains in the bill the staff member replied, “Keeping it, yes. We are keeping it.”

Lawmakers pressed staff and guests for clarity on how MSDE plans to run a new statewide coaching program the bill authorizes. The academic excellence program would fund MSDE-hired coaches assigned to regions and to two-to-four schools each; MSDE staff said those coaches would be “about 1 coach per about 12 teachers” where placed and that the department expects to grow the program to 200 coaches by FY2029. Mike Thomas, deputy legislative officer for Governor Moore, said MSDE-hired coaches’ “entire job will be to focus on educating and to supporting the educators,” and defended hiring at the state level to ensure coaches are not reassigned to noncoaching duties at the local level.

Committee members pressed for accountability and details: MSDE reported that 20 of 24 local education agencies currently have coaches, three LEAs reported they had no coaches, and one LEA did not respond to a recent survey. MSDE told the committee the statewide average is roughly one coach per 79 teachers and the program aims to reduce that to about one coach per 12 teachers. On funding, staff said the administration’s proposal would invest roughly $72 million for the suite of teacher and school programs in FY2026 (subject to budget negotiations), with about $17 million projected for the academic excellence coaches in FY2026 and earlier-year funding for recruitment and other programs. Staff identified the grow-your-own teacher grant, teacher relocation incentives and other recruitment initiatives as part of that total.

Members repeatedly requested more program-level detail and implementation plans. Several senators asked how provisional or out-of-state teachers would be credentialed and monitored; staff noted existing pathways in MSDE and that some provisions in the bill incorporate interstate teacher mobility compact exemptions for credentialed teachers from compact states. The bill also contains language authorizing MSDE to prioritize collaboratives that adopt registered teacher apprenticeship models for Grow Your Own grants, and requires MSDE to contract with an independent entity to study special education funding.

After the policy discussion the committee adopted three member amendments related to the bill’s community schools and Grow Your Own provisions and then voted to advance the Senate bill in amended form by voice vote. The committee then amended House Bill 504 to match the Senate bill’s posture and approved that motion as well.

Quoted material in this story is taken from committee proceedings. The committee did not provide a line-item implementation plan or a complete, department-level account of staff and space resources for the coaching expansion during the hearing; multiple members requested follow-up materials and MSDE data on current coach deployment and student outcomes in LEAs that lack coaches. MSDE and the governor's office said they will provide additional cost and operational details to the committee for later consideration.

Votes at the committee session included advancing the Senate bill as amended and placing House Bill 504 in the same posture; both actions were adopted by voice vote.

The committee did not set final funding numbers in the hearing; staff emphasized that FY2026 amounts are subject to negotiations in the budget process.","The Budget and Taxation Committee reviewed amendments to the Excellence in Public Schools Act (House Bill 504), debated statewide coaching roles and funding, and unanimously advanced the bill in amended form. Lawmakers pressed MSDE and the governor's office for implementation details and cost breakdowns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee sends House Bill 930 to finance after brief consideration

Panel questions capacity and funding as lawmakers discuss women's pre‑release center

Committee advances Excellence in Public Schools bill after debate over coaches, recruitment and community schools