Committee hears bill to fund juvenile residential beds and authorize KDOC to contract for at least 40 non‑foster placements

At a meeting of the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice (date not specified), the committee held a hearing on House Bill 2329, which would increase placement options for juvenile offenders by authorizing the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) to contract for youth residential facility beds and to use up to $10 million per fiscal year from the Evidence Based Programs account to pay for them.

Jason Thompson, advisor from the Revisor's Office, briefed the committee on the bill’s structure. Thompson said the bill restores and amends portions of statutes that previously allowed placement in non‑foster residential beds, references K.S.A. 38‑23‑61 and related code sections, directs KDOC to follow specific court orders for placements, creates a rebuttable presumption for certain chronic offenders to be placed in residential facilities rather than the juvenile correctional facility, and would change the existing statutory contracting language so KDOC "shall contract for use of not less than 40 non‑foster home beds." Thompson said the bill would permit KDOC to use up to $10,000,000 in any fiscal year from the Evidence Based Programs account to contract for those beds.

Proponents described operational strains in the foster care system and local public‑safety consequences. Crystal Hedrick, CEO of the Children’s Alliance of Kansas, told the committee the child welfare system is not designed for many youth who present criminogenic behaviors and offered point‑in‑time data: "Last year ... the average last fiscal year was 5,931 kids in foster care at the end of each month so just under 600 kids would have been the population we were talking about last year," and one provider found that of 1,370 foster youth served, 182 had a legal encounter or charge. Hedrick said HB 2329 would allow more targeted placements and make it easier to connect youth to mental health and behavioral treatment.

Angela Hedrick, vice president of operations for KVC Kansas, gave an extended operational example: an 18‑year‑old on two ankle monitors stayed in a licensed facility, became physically threatening, ransacked the building and forced staff and youth to barricade until police arrived; law enforcement responded with tactical entry and after a misdemeanor criminal property damage charge the youth was released and later returned to the same facility, creating severe trauma for staff and other youth. She said KDOC‑operated residential placements would offer more intensive supervision and specialized services and argued those placements would protect foster homes and allow foster case managers to focus on permanency planning.

Supporters from counties and prosecutors echoed that judges, prosecutors and law‑enforcement officials see a service gap created after Senate Bill 367 (2016) removed many group‑home options, and that HB 2329 provides an intermediate placement option between probation and commitment to the juvenile correctional facility. Sedgwick County Commissioner Howell and Sedgwick County Department of Corrections Director Steve Stonehouse described local challenges and recommended a small number of treatment‑focused, close‑to‑home residential beds that follow criminogenic‑risk principles.

Opponents raised concerns about scope, data and cost. Mike Fonkert of Kansas Appleseed and Laura Blake Bors of the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee urged broader stakeholder review and more guardrails, arguing the bill could reinstate commitments for low‑level or first‑time offenders and lacked clear eligibility criteria. Megan Milner of KDOC noted a 2014–15 study of group homes that she said reported poor outcomes (the testimony cites an executive summary provided to the committee) and said past KDOC RFPs drew no viable bidders; she also warned that redirecting up to $10 million per year from the Evidence Based Programs account would accelerate depletion of funds used for community programs unless a sustainable funding plan were identified. Kansas prosecutors and county sheriffs testified that prosecutors and frontline workers face practical problems in managing high‑risk youths under current law and supported creating targeted residential options with treatment focus and family involvement.

Committee members limited oral remarks and asked detailed questions about data, funding, eligibility (including how 18‑year‑olds who remain under juvenile jurisdiction would be handled) and whether KDOC had capacity and vendor interest to operate contracted beds. KDOC staff said the providers likely would be the same licensed group homes that already operate in the child welfare system, and that contracting experience had been limited: recent RFPs produced few or no bidders.

No committee vote on HB 2329 was recorded in the provided transcript; the item remained in the hearing stage with opponents and proponents urging further stakeholder work and clearer eligibility and funding guardrails.