Committee advances House File 1918 to move child welfare duties to DCYF, extend EBT contract terms and alter foster-care timelines

House File 1918, an agency bill for the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, was presented to the Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee and re‑referred to the Judiciary Committee after a committee vote.

Representative Hansen, Vice Chair, described the bill as "an agency bill for the Department of Children, Youth, and Families" and gave an overview of the four articles, saying the measure includes an economic assistance provision to "provide an exemption to the 5 year limit on state contracts for the state's EBT contract" and several child‑welfare and foster‑care technical updates.

The bill's key operational changes described during the hearing included: (1) a provision to allow a state EBT (electronic benefits transfer) contract to extend beyond the current five‑year statutory term (allowing an initial five‑year term plus an extension up to ten years); (2) updates to the Great Start compensation support payment program to clarify what program administration data are public; (3) multiple child‑welfare and foster‑care changes including required inquiry of American Indian heritage for children and families in child welfare matters, clarifying cross‑references and permitting reestablishment of parental rights in some dissolutions of adoption; and (4) a statutory transfer, in uncodified sections, of duties and responsibilities from the Department of Human Services to the new Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).

On foster care, the bill would align state law with federal timelines by changing the statutory deadline for preparing an out‑of‑home placement plan from 30 days to 60 days, while keeping the goal of completing planning sooner where possible. Representative Hansen and members emphasized the change aims to give caseworkers and families more time to obtain benefits or services (for example, MFIP or cash assistance) before the formal placement plan deadline, but they repeatedly noted the 30‑day summary and earlier reunification actions would still be used when required.

Article 3 also contains language that would allow counties and tribes to respond to educational neglect reports with a conventional engagement response before opening a full child‑protection maltreatment response at the statutory seven unexcused absences threshold. Representative Hansen framed this as a preventive approach intended to reduce unnecessary child‑protection interactions while preserving the department's authority to act when safety concerns remain.

DCYF staff joined the presentation to answer technical questions. Nick Demp (DCYF) told the committee staff would take follow‑ups on detailed statutory language. Nonpartisan staff noted that some language aligns chapter references across child welfare statutes (specifically chapter 260C was cited during discussion) to maintain consistent legal standards.

Members asked several clarifying questions about how the 60‑day alignment would affect children and caseworker workloads, and whether the EBT contract exemption would remove competitive procurement; DCYF staff said the change would allow a longer contract duration but would still permit a competitive RFP process. Representative Nadeau and others raised concerns about long contract terms for large, high‑value contracts and asked for assurance that procurement transparency would be maintained.

The committee adopted Representative Hansen's motion to re‑refer House File 1918 to the Committee on Judiciary. The motion "prevails," per the transcript; a roll‑call tally was not specified on the record.

Ending: The bill will proceed to Judiciary for further consideration; staff and DCYF indicated they would follow up with members on specific statutory language and cross‑references.