Nevada bill would let counties carry adoption-savings for two additional years to meet federal reinvestment rules

Assembly Bill 515 would allow Nevada jurisdictions to retain “adoption savings” — federal Title IV‑E funds generated when more adopted children become eligible for Title IV‑E — for up to two additional fiscal years instead of reverting unused amounts to the state general fund at biennium end.

Joanna Jacob, representing Clark County, told the Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services that delays in the state’s subgranting process leave counties with shortened windows to spend the funds and meet the federal requirement that at least 30 percent be used on post‑adoption and post‑guardianship supports. "Any flexibility we can get, we will take," Jacob said.

The bill responds to two federal developments Jacob cited: the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, which expanded Title IV‑E eligibility and created the adoption‑savings funding stream, and subsequent federal reporting requirements upgraded after the 2018 Families First Act. Clark County estimates roughly $2,300,000 annually in adoption savings, Jacob told the committee.

Supporters told the committee the change is intended to provide time and predictability for counties and contracted providers to stand up programs, hire staff and execute contracts. Bradley Mayor, partner at Argenta Partners, testified on behalf of Raise the Future, a placement and permanency program that contracts with Clark County, saying the funding helps sustain intensive recruitment and post‑placement case management for hard‑to‑place youth. "The funding challenges ... is why the adoption savings were looked at as a potential, more stable permanent funding source," Mayor said.

Cadence Matievich, representing Washoe County, said the counties view the funding as a maintenance‑of‑effort requirement rather than “savings,” because the state must continue spending the preexisting state dollars even as it begins billing federal Title IV‑E. Matievich asked the Legislature to consider appropriating adoption savings in the budget; she said Washoe’s request had not been included in the current budget package.

Assemblymember Hunt asked whether starting the two‑year carryforward when counties actually receive the federal subgrant would be preferable. Jacob and Matievich said additional flexibility would help because the federal law does not set an expenditure timeline; the state’s timing of subgrants creates the practical constraint.

No one testified in opposition. The committee closed the AB 515 hearing without a vote; further fiscal consideration was expected in Assemblyways and means.

The bill text, as presented, also contains a cleanup amendment that would narrow statutory spending language to align state statute with federal restrictions on allowable uses of the adoption‑savings pool.

Why it matters: The change aims to keep federal funds directed to post‑adoption services that support permanency and reduce re‑entry to foster care, while recognizing state and county budgeting and contract timelines.

What’s next: The committee closed the hearing; if the bill advances it will proceed to fiscal review and possible appropriation decisions in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.