Committee prioritizes recovery centers, earmarks prevention funds and narrows childcare cuts

During internal budget deliberations, committee members prioritized a set of prevention and child‑care recommendations for inclusion in the Appropriations draft.

Substance‑use prevention: staff reviewed the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund (partly fed by cannabis excise tax revenues) and the department’s proposed allocations for FY27. The committee identified four smaller prevention programs it wants explicitly funded from the prevention fund (the transcript lists amounts for each: Elevate ~$288,935; Greater Falls connections ~$125,000; Interaction/Friends for Change ~$200,000; New Pee Park ~$26,697) and instructed staff to reflect those earmarks in recommendations.

Recovery centers: the committee debated restoring $808,100 requested by recovery centers and initially proposed a compromise recommendation of $400,000. After further discussion, members signaled consensus to level‑fund recovery centers at $800,000 and to fund the four smaller prevention programs from the prevention fund. Chair noted the package fits within the governor’s total budget and therefore would not increase the governor’s recommended total.

Child Development Division and childcare: staff noted a net decrease of about $2,049,043 in CDD and described a major fund move that would place roughly $6.2 million in the child‑care special fund (rather than general fund). Members asked for followup with the Tax Department and Ways and Means to confirm administrative assumptions. Committee accepted several specific CDD adjustments including a $100,000 cut to childcare capacity grants (with federal dollars as a possible backstop), a $100,000 cleanup to the childcare trust fund line, and a $180,000 shift into parent‑child centers for concrete supports funded by a reduction in school‑age childcare.

Prevention vs. residential care: members expressed concern that prevention cuts (for child‑abuse prevention and post‑permanency/adoption supports) were being weighed against large increases in high‑end residential spending. Committee discussions included exploring shifting a small portion of high‑cost residential funds toward prevention if feasible; staff were asked to refine numbers and draft language to avoid unintended service losses.

Next steps: staff were directed to incorporate these funding priorities and to return with clarified dollar amounts, legal language where needed, and data supporting program impacts before the committee finalizes recommendations.