Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foster Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Mary Jane Walner urges preservation of Social Security benefits for foster youth in HB661 hearing
Summary
Lawmakers heard testimony supporting House Bill 661, which would conserve Social Security and veterans benefits for roughly 200–250 foster children so funds are available when they age out; Department of Health and Human Services described implementation costs and long‑term fiscal impacts.
Representative Mary Jane Walner, prime sponsor of House Bill 661, told the House Finance Committee the bill would preserve federal Social Security and veterans benefits for foster children so those funds remain available to them after they leave care. “The Department of Health and Human Services has the consultant report,” Walner said, describing a phased implementation that would begin in June 2027 and complete by July 1, 2028.
Why it matters: Supporters said the measure targets a small subset of the foster population — about 200–250 children who receive federal benefits out of roughly 1,500 in care — and would help those youth pay for essentials such as education, transportation and housing when they age out. Walner read a letter from Dawson Hayes describing $16,132 that DCYF received on his behalf between August 2021 and February 2024; the letter argued those funds “should have been saved for my benefit.”
Department and fiscal concerns: Susan Larby, general counsel and legislative liaison for DCF, and Nathan White, DHHS chief financial officer, said the department is not taking a position but highlighted implementation complexity identified in a PCG consultant report. The report estimates a one‑time implementation vendor cost of about $280,300 and ongoing administrative costs (either staff or contract) estimated at roughly $461,000 annually; DHHS also warned of a potential long‑term loss of federal revenue in the range of about $2.1–$2.9 million per year that could shift costs into the general fund.
Committee questions focused on scope and mechanics. Senator Long asked whether children placed in respite or residential treatment count as foster care; DHHS responded that federal definitions encompass foster homes, kinship placements and residential treatment when appropriate. Committee members also asked how the state currently spends benefits while serving as representative payee and what protections exist for benefits conserved for a youth.
Public testimony: Foster parents and other public witnesses supported the bill, describing out‑of‑pocket costs for medically complex children and the risks youth face when they age out without savings. Stacy Phillips, a Manchester foster parent, recounted helping a former foster youth reverse an erroneous Social Security overpayment notice and urged the committee to act to prevent similar harms.
Next steps: The committee closed public testimony on HB661. No roll‑call vote on the bill is recorded in the transcript; implementation timing and budgetary impacts were flagged for further fiscal review.
