Committee reviews H.57 ‘Jessica’s Law’ changes, debate over adding correctional officers continues

The House Committee on General and Housing on Wednesday reviewed a strike‑all amendment to H.57, known in the draft as Jessica’s Law, that would expand survivor-benefit coverage and change how the Emergency Personnel Survivors Benefit Review Board is composed.

The amendment would add correctional officers to the list of covered personnel, expand family‑relationship definitions (including child, parent, spouse and domestic partner), set an 18‑month window for survivors to request benefits, and give the state treasurer up to one year from claim receipt to disperse funds. The amendment also removes a statutorily appointed public member of the board and would add the chair of the law enforcement advisory board (or designee) and the commissioner of corrections (or designee).

At a committee walkthrough, Sophie Dattani of the Office of Legislative Counsel said the amendment “essentially adopts the version of H.695 that came through the House last year” with changes, including the one‑year treasurer payout provision and expanded definitions for corrections positions. Dattani said the change to payout timing was intended to address concerns the committee has heard about the account balance and the time needed to replenish the fund.

Supporters framed the measure as a continuation of last year’s effort. A sponsor who identified themself as the bill’s sponsor said, “this is a phenomenal legislation. I'm proud to sponsor once again,” and urged moving the bill forward. Committee members split over the proposed expansion to correctional officers. Some members said correctional work places employees “on the front lines” and argued the expansion is warranted; others said the bill should be confined to emergency first responders and worried that adding corrections personnel sets a precedent that could broaden eligibility to other hazardous occupations.

Several committee members also questioned procedural aspects: the committee has not taken testimony on this draft in the current biennium, and members suggested scheduling witnesses from the Department of Corrections and affected employee groups before finalizing language. One member asked whether the 18‑month filing window might remove the discretion the board currently exercises to accept delayed claims; another suggested removing the 18‑month deadline to preserve flexibility.

Committee discussion touched on funding. A member recalled prior testimony that the survivors fund needed replenishment and mentioned an approximately $220,000 appropriation was placed in the Budget Adjustment Act in the Senate (committee members said the appropriation is in that act). The strike‑all also includes language allowing the emergency board to transfer funds into the account if the fund balance is insufficient and the General Assembly is not in session.

Members noted competing Senate action. Committee members identified S.89 as a broader Senate vehicle that would expand eligibility further (to family services staff, state psychiatric hospital employees and other groups); several members said they want to avoid inadvertently creating an overly broad benefit that repeatedly expands across sessions.

The committee did not take final action on H.57 during the session. The chair said the bill would be scheduled for further consideration the next day and that, unless the committee makes other changes, the chair intends to bring the measure to a vote at that time.

Why this matters: survivor benefits created for emergency personnel are rare, one‑time state payments meant to assist families after line‑of‑duty deaths. Changes to eligibility, board composition and payout rules affect who has access to the benefit and how quickly payments may be made following an approved claim.

What remains unresolved: whether correctional officers will be included in final language; whether the committee will remove or keep the 18‑month application deadline; whether the removal of a public board member and the addition of two agency/designee seats is appropriate; and whether the committee will solicit testimony from corrections staff and other affected stakeholders before a vote.