Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Intervention Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears pitch to restore YIP grants to children-and-families oversight, lays bill over
Summary
Lawmakers and service providers urged funding for the Youth Intervention Program (YIP) grant program and argued for moving oversight and funding from the public safety arena to children-and-families policy; the committee laid House File 2,362 over for possible inclusion.
Representative Emma Feist introduced House File 2,362 on funding for the Youth Intervention Program grants and urged the committee to retain and expand support for local, restorative youth interventions.
The bill’s supporters told the House Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee that YIP-funded programs run the gamut from truancy intervention to restorative practices in schools, and emphasized local relationships and long-term prevention. “It is really just about building a trusting, caring relationship with a young person that often doesn't have one,” Paul Meneer, executive director of the Youth Intervention Programs Association, told the committee.
Why it matters: Committee members heard that YIP grants have funded community-based programs since the 1970s and proponents argued the grants save money by keeping young people out of juvenile facilities. Representative Feist said the funding and programming are being moved from a public-safety frame to the children-and-families policy area to better reflect restorative and youth-wellness goals.
Testimony and details: Paul Meneer (Youth Intervention Programs Association) explained that the YIP grant program began in 1976 and that the association of grantees formed in 1984. He told the committee that the grant historically funded roughly 98 programs statewide and that another 52 programs met standards for funding but were not funded in the most recent round. Meneer summarized evaluation measures used by grantees and said an outcome survey based on the Search Institute’s youth protective factors found that about 67% of participating youth reported improved decision making and 62% reported greater accountability for choices.
Bernadette Pho, executive director of Mediation and Restoration Services, described how restorative practices in schools can reduce punitive discipline and truancy and “improve the school climate,” and urged full funding of the bill so programs can sustain training for educators and campus staff. Miranda Sheffield of the National Center for Youth Law supported shifting funding out of public safety and into children-and-families oversight, calling the move an opportunity to “reimagine how we are addressing harm” and to emphasize restorative, cost‑effective approaches.
Lawmakers' remarks and concerns: Co-author Representative Nelson praised Pine County’s restorative programs and said there is a limited subset of youth who require punitive responses, but most benefit from intervention. Representative McDonald asked whether the grant approach has produced measurable progress; Meneer and Feist cited the new reporting requirement enacted last term and county-level studies showing high non‑recidivism rates for certain grantees (for example, a Washington County partner reported 90% of referred youth did not reoffend in the following year). Representative Nadeau asked about measurable outcomes; Feist and Meneer pointed to the statewide report requirement and the Office of Restorative Practices as sources of outcome data.
Program scope and examples: Committee discussion named numerous grantees and local programs, including Bridge for Youth and Sister Rita’s House, and described program types ranging from culturally specific curriculum and workforce training to mediation and restorative justice in schools. Representative Perez Vega and others highlighted programs that also provide workforce pathways and technical skills.
Action taken: Committee members laid House File 2,362 over for possible inclusion in the committee’s omnibus work. No final appropriation or statutory change was adopted in committee at this hearing.
What’s next: The bill was not finalized; supporters asked members to consider the YIP funding as part of budget discussions and to consult the YIP program report included in committee materials.
Ending: Supporters framed the measure as a long-standing, bipartisan investment in community-level prevention. Committee members voiced general support while asking for clearer statewide outcome reporting and sustained funding.
