Committee merges two juvenile-justice bills, expands youth residential placements and tightens detention rules

Committee Chair called the Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee to order on March 3, 2025, and opened a session focused on two companion measures: House Bill 2325 and House Bill 2329. After discussion and amendments, the committee voted to merge HB 2325 into HB 2329 and approved the merged bill as amended.

The merged bill in its final form authorizes expanded use of youth residential facilities (also called non‑foster home beds) for certain juvenile offenders and clarifies payment responsibility. Jason Thompson, adviser in the Revisor’s Office, told the committee the measure directs the Secretary of Corrections to contract for non‑foster home beds in youth residential facilities, requires the secretary to pay costs associated with those placements, and permits the secretary to spend up to $10,000,000 in a fiscal year from the Evidence Based Programs Account to contract for those beds.

Committee members debated changes originating in HB 2325 that affect detention and placement authority. The earlier bill would have explicitly allowed judges to commit juveniles to detention for technical violations of probation; the sponsor said that language was redundant with existing statute and proposed removing the explicit phrase. The measure increases the cumulative detention cap in statute from 45 days to 90 days over the course of a case. It also adjusts sentencing exposure for juveniles who possess or use a firearm during the commission of an offense: the amendment adopted in committee set a commitment range of 12 to 24 months to a juvenile correctional or youth residential facility for such cases, a compromise between current law and the sponsor’s original, higher proposal.

The committee also altered the risk‑assessment trigger for placement in a juvenile correctional facility. Under current law a high risk assessment is required to send chronic or repeat offenders to correctional facilities; the amendment approved in committee allows placement when a youth’s assessment is either moderate or high. The bill retains an override mechanism for detention risk‑assessment tools that allows direct placement in detention when statutory criteria are met.

On the group‑home side, the committee amended the contracting language to require the Secretary of Corrections to contract for not fewer than 35 and not more than 45 non‑foster home beds (the sponsor had originally proposed a minimum of 40). The bill limits the size of any single youth residential facility to no more than 15 beds and asks the existing oversight committee to monitor the impact and effectiveness of placements in these facilities.

Committee members raised operational and programmatic questions during debate. Representative Mosley asked whether judges would likely sentence very young juveniles — for example, 10‑year‑olds — to the longer commitments; the sponsor and a reviser said judges retain discretion and that placements and programming typically differ by age. Representative Schlingen Seapin pressed for better data and programmatic models, noting that privatized placements have not consistently demonstrated outcomes and urging a return with more comprehensive solutions. Several members referenced out‑of‑state models, and one member said a possible post‑session visit to Missouri might help the committee evaluate alternatives.

Representatives who discussed program experience said smaller, home‑like residential settings with structured programming, family visitation and graduated privileges can produce positive outcomes. Representative Martinez described an earlier, small residential model that included therapy, schooling support and phased family visitation; several members said the bill’s data and oversight provisions are intended to help track outcomes.

Procedure and votes: The committee approved the sponsor’s amendment to HB 2325 (voice vote), then took up HB 2329 and approved a motion to merge HB 2325 into HB 2329. The committee subsequently approved the amendment limiting facility size and setting the 35–45 bed contracting range (voice vote). The final motion to pass the merged bill as amended carried on the committee’s vote; several members asked to have their affirmative votes recorded.

The bill now proceeds out of committee as a merged, amended measure. The committee record shows the measures were advanced for further consideration; the sponsor said the reviser will prepare the merged text following the committee’s votes.