Committee hears competing views on bill to restore juvenile residential placements and authorize up to $10 million

The Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice held a hearing on House Bill 2,329 on Oct. 27, 2025, taking testimony from child-welfare providers, county officials, prosecutors, law enforcement and state agencies. The bill would restore and fund certain juvenile residential placements and authorize up to $10 million per fiscal year from the Evidence Based Programs account to contract for non–foster-home beds in youth residential facilities.

Jason Thompson of the Reviser’s Office summarized the measure’s provisions: it would expand placements of juvenile offenders in non–foster-home youth residential facility beds, require the Secretary of Corrections to pay associated costs, authorize expenditures from the Evidence Based Programs account, and change statutory cross-references in multiple juvenile code sections. Thompson noted the bill reinstates a provision that expired on Jan. 1, 2018, and inserts funding for specific placements under new and existing subsections of the juvenile code.

Proponents said the change addresses what they described as an unintended consequence of Senate Bill 367 (2016), which reduced use of residential placements and led some juvenile offenders into the child welfare foster-care system. Crystal Hedrick, chief executive officer of the Children’s Alliance of Kansas, told the committee: “We’re not serving these kids well in foster care. Kids who enter foster care as an alternative to juvenile justice are much more likely to experience placement disruptions, to require higher levels of care, and to be placed in more restrictive residential or congregate care settings.”

Angela Hedrick, vice president of operations for KVC Kansas, described a weekend incident in which a young adult in DCF custody (age 18 but still under juvenile-involved supervision) behaved violently at a licensed residential day program, was arrested on a misdemeanor property damage charge, released, and returned to the facility later the same night, prompting law-enforcement involvement and a psychiatric screen. Hedrick said those events illustrate gaps in placement options and the burdens placed on foster-care providers: “We spend the majority of our time and resources as a foster care agency trying to maintain or achieve safety and placement stability for this population which detracts from our ability to provide permanency planning.”

Sedgwick County officials and law enforcement, including Sedgwick County Commissioner (testifying on behalf of the county) and Sedgwick County Department of Corrections Director Steve Stonehouse (proponent), described local pressure on placements. Commissioner Howell said the state “swung the pendulum too far” after Senate Bill 367 and that “we’re abusing our DCF system” by using foster care for kids who, he said, require different placements. Steve Stonehouse described the Missouri model as an example of treatment-focused, community-close placements and said: “We need a few number of beds, correctional sound practices close to the juvenile offenders’ families and focused on criminogenic risk and need.”

Prosecutors and district attorneys supported the bill as a pragmatic fix. District Attorney Steven Howe said rural areas in particular lack structured placement options for higher-risk youth and that group-home-style placements provide an intermediate tool between probation and commitment to the youth correctional facility.

Opponents urged caution. Mike Fonkert, deputy director of Kansas Appleseed, and other witnesses including the Juvenile Justice Oversight Committee (represented by Laura Blake Bors) argued the proposed language lacked sufficient guardrails and did not follow the multi-year stakeholder process that produced Senate Bill 367. Kansas Department of Corrections Deputy Secretary Megan Milner testified that prior research shows poor outcomes for group homes in Kansas and reported procurement problems: KDOC’s prior RFPs for residential beds produced one bidder (not eligible) and later zero bidders. Milner warned that diverting up to $10 million per year from the Evidence Based Programs account would accelerate depletion of those funds and could force cuts to community-based programs the state is expanding.

Members questioned how the bill would operate in practice for youth who turn 18 while still in juvenile-involved custody and what mechanisms would prevent low-risk youth from being placed with higher-risk youth. KDOC and Sedgwick County witnesses explained that a transfer of custody to KDOC would allow probation-violation paperwork and detention pending a hearing, rather than immediate return to foster care. Julian Block from Legislative Research indicated a fiscal note had been located and circulated to committee members.

The hearing record shows substantial disagreement among stakeholders. Proponents described a gap in the system that, they said, places foster families and child-welfare staff at risk and leaves higher-risk juveniles insufficiently supervised. Opponents and oversight bodies urged a slower, data-driven approach, citing prior studies on group-home effectiveness and lack of consistent procurement capacity.

No committee vote on HB 2,329 occurred at the hearing. The committee requested written materials and fiscal analysis and limited testimony during the hearing to ensure time for questions. The bill remains under consideration.