Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears expansion of Fostering Success tax credit to age 25 and higher annual cap
Summary
House Bill 136 would expand Georgia’s Fostering Success tax-credit program to cover former foster youth up to age 25, raise the annual credit cap from $20 million to $30 million, and allow insurers to use premium-tax liability to claim credits, the committee heard.
House Bill 136 was presented by Dr. Newton as a series of amendments to the existing Fostering Success tax-credit program to support youth aging out of foster care. The sponsor described several changes: expanding eligibility up to age 25, increasing the annual cap on tax credits from $20 million to $30 million, allowing insurance companies to use premium-tax liability to claim credits, and formalizing a cap on administrative costs so that at least 80% of funds flow to direct services.
Dr. Newton said the bill reflects lessons from the program’s first year and seeks to broaden services for former foster youth who need help with postsecondary education, vocational training, housing, transportation and other transition supports. The draft includes specific allowable uses — mentorship stipends, postsecondary and vocational enrollment, housing and wraparound services — and described a mentor stipend capped at $100 per month or $1,200 per year in program language.
Heidi Carr, executive director of Fostering Success Act, Inc., testified about program metrics and operational experience. Carr said her organization distributed about $4,000,000 in 2024 and reported 133 youth enrolled in technical and four‑year programs in fall 2023 and 187 enrolled in spring; she said the program’s caseload and requests have grown rapidly. Carr told the committee that many youth face housing, transportation and nutrition needs and that earlier access to funds and co‑ordination with the University System of Georgia Foundation and other partners are important.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about age eligibility language (discussion focused on whether the program should require six months in care after age 14 or begin eligibility at a different age) and how the Department of Revenue would allocate credits if the cap is reached. Dr. Newton and witnesses said they would refine drafting to align language with the program’s intent and provide clearer administrative rules.
No committee vote was taken; the sponsor said he would return with clarified language for the committee’s consideration.
