Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Services Youth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears proposal to expand Fostering Success tax credit: cap increase, age extension and guardrails eyed
Summary
House Bill 136 would expand the Fostering Success tax credit program: increase the annual cap from $20 million to $30 million, extend eligible age to 25, allow certain insurers to use premium-tax obligations, and add an 80/20 program-spending guardrail. Supporters described early program uptake; no vote was taken.
A House subcommittee heard House Bill 136, a bill that would expand Georgia’s Fostering Success tax credit program for youth aging out of foster care. The bill’s presenter described several substantive changes: raising the annual cap on credits from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000, extending eligibility so qualified organizations can support former foster youth up to age 25, and allowing certain business enterprises (including insurers that pay premium taxes rather than corporate income taxes) to use the credits against those obligations.
The presenter said the bill adds program guardrails, including a requirement that at least 80 percent of donated funds go directly to services for eligible youth (limiting administrative spending to 20 percent). The bill also lists mentorship, vocational and postsecondary assistance, and support for housing, transportation and basic needs among eligible uses.
Heidi Carr, executive director of Fostering Success Act Inc., told the committee the program enrolled 133 youth in fall and 187 in spring in technical and four‑year programs, and that her organization distributed about $4 million in 2024. Carr described the tax-credit program as a bridge between state supports and independent living, citing cases in which small expense coverage—equipment for technical training or housing and transportation—enabled youth to enroll and remain in school or training. Carr also told the committee that many former foster youth lack stable support and that coordinated wraparound assistance can reduce negative outcomes.
Committee members asked technical clarifying questions about age thresholds and program definitions; the presenter said staff would refine statutory language (committee and presenters flagged the 6‑month/age-14 language for clarification). No vote occurred; staff were asked to prepare implementation and capacity information and to clarify the statutory language before the next hearing.
