SB 971 creates a state-run certification program for educational surrogates, administered by the Department of Administrative Services through a contract with a nonprofit organization. The program is intended to train and certify people who can represent children in special education matters when the child lacks an available parent or guardian to do so, especially children in juvenile court custody or wardship. The required curriculum includes federal disability-rights law, the IEP process, communication and negotiation, complaints and mediation, behavior supports, abbreviated school days, restraint and seclusion, discipline, and transportation.
The bill sets minimum training and recertification standards, including at least 20 hours for initial certification, ongoing training every two years, and proficiency demonstrations in writing and orally. It also requires the program administrator to keep a list of certified surrogates and share it with agencies and nonprofit partners that work with children and families affected by disability. In addition, the bill establishes a grant program to help applicants pay tuition, travel, and stipends, while allowing some non-grant applicants to enroll if space remains.
SB 971 also amends Oregon law governing court-appointed educational surrogates under ORS 419B.220 and 419B.223. Beginning July 1, 2028, a court-appointed surrogate generally must be certified under the new program, though a court may appoint an uncertified surrogate if no certified surrogate is available after a reasonable search. The bill also updates the duties of surrogates in special education decision-making and allows continued advocacy services in certain circumstances after formal duties end.
The bill’s legal impact is to add a new certification and training framework to Oregon’s special education and juvenile dependency systems, funded by General Fund appropriations to DAS. It would affect DAS, the Department of Education, DHS, juvenile courts, CASA-related and disability-support organizations, and individuals serving as educational surrogates for children with disabilities. The measure also creates a delayed operative date for the statutory changes, giving the state time to build the program before certification becomes mandatory for most court appointments.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears broadly supportive of stronger advocacy for children with disabilities and more consistent surrogate qualifications, but it may raise implementation and access questions because it imposes training requirements, relies on state funding, and limits who may serve as a paid education advocate while receiving grant support.
SB 971 would create new statutory provisions requiring a formal educational surrogate certification program and would amend ORS 419B.220 and 419B.223 to tie most court appointments of educational surrogates to that certification. It also appropriates General Fund money to DAS for program development and administration, including curriculum, staffing, data systems, and grants. The bill would affect juvenile court practice, special education advocacy for wards and children in state custody, and the agencies and nonprofits that identify or support surrogate decision-makers.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. On its face, the bill reflects a policy preference for more training, consistency, and accountability in educational surrogate representation for children with disabilities. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means any assessment of political sentiment would be speculative.
The main potential points of contention are the cost and administration of the new program, the requirement that surrogates be certified before most court appointments, and the restrictions placed on grant recipients who also work as paid education advocates. Another likely issue is whether the state can recruit enough certified surrogates to meet demand, especially in rural or underserved areas, since courts may still appoint uncertified surrogates only when no certified person is available after a reasonable search. The delayed operative date suggests lawmakers anticipated the need for time to build capacity before the new requirements take effect.