Transcript Highlights:

• Secretary Hatch the to take several key actions to conduct financial and operational audit to evaluate
• The bill requires an an individualized treatment plan must be re-evaluated.
• Number 4, it incorporates the DLA 20 assessment to an evaluation for children and adolescents to ensure
• What is working that we can accelerate and what do we need to re-evaluate which it always be met and
• We will focus and evaluate our supports our pathways and our processes to promote prevention, as well

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How do you evaluate the different CASes then? Because if Nanakuli—why not?
• >> how do you who evaluates >> how do you who evaluates the<03:31:59.520> different
• So I don't know what kind of evaluation that you're doing, but certainly there's concerns.
• So I don't know what kind of evaluation that you're doing, but certainly there's concerns.
• What kind of evaluation that you're doing, but certainly there's concerns.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill empowers OPPAGA to conduct a thorough evaluation and reporting on these data points.
• It requires an initial review and evaluation report by December 31st.
• It requires an initial review and evaluation report by December 31st, 2025, with recommendations for
• other relevant data and information to perform an effective annual evaluation of outcomes, capacity,
• A final review and annual evaluation report by December 1, 2026. That is the bell.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several bills related to children, families, elder affairs, mental health, disability services, and child care. SB 1050 on the Agency for Persons with Disabilities was amended and reported favorably after discussion of expanding the voluntary IDD managed care pilot statewide, improving transparency on the APD wait list, creating a statewide family care council, addressing transition services for youth leaving foster care, and seeking federal approval for an adult pathways waiver. Testimony from providers and a parent emphasized workforce capacity, county-level identification of clients, Medicaid delays, and the importance of keeping the pilot voluntary; the bill passed with support and some discussion about possible future clarifications on services and Medicaid eligibility. The committee also passed SB 1310, which directs OPPAGA to evaluate student mental health outcomes tied to school mental health assistance funding, and members discussed the need for better data, coordination with managing entities, and avoiding duplication of services. SB 976 on court-appointed social investigators was amended and approved, with the sponsor describing due process protections and fee-shifting provisions for parents challenging court-appointed psychologists. SB 886, creating a crisis care coordination team pilot in Volusia and Polk counties to reduce Baker Act recidivism and improve follow-up care, was reported favorably after the sponsor described its law enforcement and community provider partnerships and an independent evaluation requirement. Later, SB 614 on child care facility and program background screening requirements was amended and passed; the bill requires a public educational webpage explaining Level 2 screening, the clearinghouse, disqualifying offenses, exemptions, and related job listings and timelines. Finally, SB 276 on sheltering or aiding unmarried minors was approved; it increases the offense from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony, creates a presumption regarding knowledge of the minor’s age, and adds a defense when the conduct was necessary to protect the minor from danger. All bills considered were reported favorably, and the committee adjourned at the end of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• at least from our perspective, and probably where many states were going, was this overlay of an evaluation
• I think we're evaluating that. Okay. Yes, those would be public. Those would be very public.
• So we'll continue to evaluate the opportunity on that particular aspect.
• , we can certainly get back to you as well as we continue to hear the detailed guidance and the evaluation
• Was that, are we evaluating the impact of this whole HR1 project? Yes. Okay.

Keywords: 962, all

Summary: The Care Management Committee met to receive a status update on the DSS/CHN PCMH program and to discuss implementation of HR1, especially the new medical frailty requirements. CHN reported the PCMH program remained steady at 124 practices and 553 sites, with 54.6% of the HUSKY population attributed to PCMH providers, and noted ongoing recruitment, provider turnover, and recent practice consolidations/acquisitions that will shift some sites to Yale and Hartford HealthCare. CHN also reported strong quality improvement engagement for 2026, with 83% of contacted PCMHs engaged, and said preliminary 2025 results showed improvement across measures. The bulk of the meeting focused on DSS’s response to the June 1 CMS interim final rule on HR1. DSS explained that it had been building a medical frailty definition based on diagnosis codes and comparisons with other states’ approaches, but the new federal rule adds a requirement that the condition significantly impair a person’s ability to work or comply with community engagement requirements. DSS said it is still evaluating how to combine claims-based data with the new federal overlay, may submit comments to CMS during the open comment period through July 31, and is considering options such as self-attestation, especially given CMS’s allowance of self-attestation for calendar year 2027. Committee members raised concerns about the rule’s complexity, possible legal challenges, the need for a good-faith waiver or implementation delay, and the risk of noncompliance if the state gets the process wrong. Members also pressed DSS for broader outreach, clearer public communication, training, and better reporting on implementation impacts and costs. DSS said it is developing a website, webinars, and a communications plan, and is working with community-based organizations, community health workers, and administrative services organizations to reach potentially affected members. DSS said it is also building a Medicaid pre-screener to help people determine whether they may be subject to work requirements. In the PCMH Plus discussion, DSS said it was not yet ready to present the 2024 quality data but would try to bring the Wave 3, Year 5 results and related quality/shared savings information to the July 8 meeting, along with the regular PCMH update and another HR1 update. The committee also discussed future agenda items including community health worker reimbursement, peer support services, and the inmate medical program.

Transcript Highlights:

• The potential patient would then fill out a health screener and risk evaluation to make sure that it
• We also ask the department to re-evaluate the entire program at the end of 3 years to see how it can
• Two questions specifically about program evaluation for your members on the committee at some point,
• and 7.2, where that program evaluation is talked about.
• I don't have an exact number for you, but I would certainly want that to be part of the evaluation of

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• use of the OLA's information all the time, and so I just—we're going to go back again to the 2017 evaluation
• use of the OLA's information all the time, and so I just—we're going to go back again to the 2017 evaluation
• use of the OLA's information all the time, and so I just—we're going to go back again to the 2017 evaluation
• use of the OLA's information all the time, and so I just—we're going to go back again to the 2017 evaluation
• and what it says is that 2017 evaluation and what it says is that first<00:10:29.040> of<00:10

Keywords: 919, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This will be a structured three-year pilot project with annual reporting requirements and evaluation
• Initiatives funded out of that fund would have to undergo a pretty extensive planning and evaluation
• We have partnered with UNM Research. to evaluate our after-school programming.
• We are evaluating our program and stand in strong support of this initiative, both in terms of one-time
• Familiar with the current evaluation that I know is in process through the Community Schools Division

Transcript Highlights:

• We know how to evaluate complex medical histories in medications we don't just treat in fixed.
• And we need doctors who can evaluate our patients health.
• But when that program is not working, we must evaluate. But the problem is and fix it.
• And it was mentioned that Dennis evaluate and treat the entire patient.
• So those patients would be full of audit, formal, formal evaluation.

Transcript Highlights:

• or perhaps just evaluate as it relates to goals and outcomes.
• And as I said earlier, there will be some evaluation done of those efforts over the next 3 years.
• Um, we, we started this work as far as sort of evaluation last year.
• And because of that, we're not always able to make good decisions or evaluate programs.
• Sustainability plans and program evaluation measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• In this evaluation, we really researched two main questions.
• In this evaluation, we really researched two main questions.
• I will say that we have continued across audits and evaluations to find issues with documentation of
• to find issues with and evaluations to find issues with documentation<00:35:34.599> of<00:35:
• <01:28:20.239> on in 20203 about doing evaluations on in 20203 about doing evaluations on

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on February 10, 2025, with member and staff introductions and opening remarks from Chair Kristin Robbins about the committee’s bipartisan mission to address state fraud and improve oversight of executive branch spending. Robbins said the committee would focus on both legislation and informational oversight hearings, likely in coordination with standing policy committees, and emphasized concerns about reported fraud in state government and the need to prevent waste before it occurs. Members from both parties generally expressed support for the committee’s work and interest in learning more about the issues. The sole agenda item was a presentation from the Legislative Auditor on the 2023 report, “Oversight of State-Funded Grants to Nonprofit Organizations.” Legislative Auditor Judy Randall and Deputy Legislative Auditor Jodi Munson Rodriguez explained that the report reviewed how comprehensive Minnesota’s grants management policies are and how well agencies follow them. They said the policies cover the grant lifecycle but often lack detail, and the office found widespread noncompliance in recent years. The presentation included examples such as limited standards for progress reports, flexible monitoring requirements, and no required timeline for closeout reviews. The auditors also noted that state agencies spent an average of about $514 million annually on nonprofit grants from fiscal years 2018 through 2022, with about 2,400 nonprofit organizations receiving grants. The auditors said several factors contribute to compliance problems, including inconsistent funding for grants management, limited training, and uneven use of electronic grants systems. They also noted that statutes gave little authority to enforce compliance. Since the report was released, the Department of Administration has taken some steps, including changes to pre-award financial review policies and a timeline for closeout reviews, but the auditors said other recommendations remain only partially implemented. No votes were taken and no bills were acted on at this meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• as well as evaluating what recruitment is working, what retention strategies are working, what's working
• The most immediate of those responsibilities is any hazard to workers, and we evaluate each situation
• However, we recommend that the legislature, when evaluating this proposal, focus on how any findings
• So our recommendation for evaluating this proposal is to have the department identify specific ways in
• We are doing active evaluations.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill pushed for people to be evaluated for a civil commitment.
• Before just releasing them, they will be evaluated for a civil commitment.
• Is that an evaluation of their behavior that sends them to the next upper facility?
• Who commit serious crimes to be evaluated, and they might end up in an adult setting.
• It's come to my attention that we've lost a contract or two or a few evaluators.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the study will focus on evaluating successes in relation to how other states support educators and
• But we don't know until the evaluation comes forward in December whether the way we've approached it.
• I can't judge because we don't have that evaluation.
• Cotton, I was going to say that while the evaluation is due in 2029, we do have annual... 2025.
• They were actually funded in the state budget to do formative, impact, and process evaluation of our

Summary: The committee heard a series of budget proposals focused on education finance, with repeated questions about whether the state’s investments are coordinated, targeted to the highest-need students, and likely to produce measurable results. On the first item, the administration proposed $1 million for a study of California’s curriculum framework, standards, and instructional materials process, plus $250,000 for supplemental ELA/ELD guidance. CDE and Finance said the study would examine how other states organize standards, frameworks, and adoptions, while the chair and members questioned why California has gone so long without updating some standards, what the study would actually accomplish, and whether the proposal was too vague to justify the cost. The issue was held open. The committee then took up a proposed $25 million statewide literacy network within the system of support. CCEE and CDE said the network would coordinate multiple existing literacy leads, create a clearinghouse of evidence-based resources, and improve coherence across the state’s many literacy initiatives. Members pressed on how a one-time, five-year allocation could support a long-term system, how the work would reach distressed and rural districts, and whether the proposal would translate into classroom change rather than just another layer of coordination. The issue was also held open. Next, the committee reviewed a $500 million proposal to expand literacy coaches and reading specialists and to create a math coaches program. CDE described the existing literacy coach cohorts as producing positive reports from participating LEAs, while the LAO recommended modifications, especially for the math coach portion, including limiting eligibility to elementary schools, setting minimum grant amounts, directing funds to eligible school sites, and making eligibility automatic rather than application-based. Members focused on whether coaches were actually being placed at the schools with the greatest need and whether the state has a coherent long-term strategy for literacy and math investments. The committee also heard a $40 million proposal for training and implementation of K-2 reading difficulty screeners, which the LAO said was reasonable but could be reduced because $25 million had already been provided for training; CDE said the new funds were needed for full implementation, procurement, and sustainability. Finally, the committee heard a $10 million proposal for a developmentally appropriate TK multilingual learner screener, with CDE explaining why the preschool language-identification process is different from K-12 EL assessment and the chair asking staff to explore whether a single, more consistent approach could be developed. The meeting concluded with a presentation on universal school meals and kitchen infrastructure, including a $31.5 million backfill, an $84.1 million increase for projected meal growth, a COLA adjustment, and $150 million for kitchen upgrades and training to support freshly prepared meals.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state also funded an evaluation of this program in the 2022-23 budget act, but this evaluation has
• This evaluation has not yet begun.
• Do we have a good estimate about when we're going to see a program evaluation on outcomes?
• My concern is that this has not gone through the, I guess, the typical IT evaluation.
• Is there any thoughts about maybe trying to go through the evaluative process?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• and prohibits the state land commissioner from using solar scores or other similar solar evaluators
• I see no harm in the solar map, and the intent is to have a complete evaluation for the maximal use.
• Current law gives them broad authority to plan, evaluate, and manage state trust lands based on market
• Removing solar scores and evaluators from state land decision-making puts an energy source that is one
• Finally, the bill outlines the air emissions modeling evaluation and fuel blend feasibility study and

Bills: HB2014, HB2055, HB2145, HB2150, HB2696, HB2755, HB2763, HB2781, HB2782, HB2787, HB2795, HB2889, HB2975, HB2985, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2020, HCR2038

Keywords: air emissions, fuel blends, environmental quality, feasibility study, Arizona Department of Agriculture, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, Arizona Revised Statutes, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, fuel reformulation, gasoline standards, environmental regulations, ethanol supply, Air Quality, state land department, mineral lease, renewals

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee approved the March 17 minutes and then took up a long calendar of bills, holding HCR 2038. HB 2787, which would bar the state and its political subdivisions from using personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with the Mexican wolf reintroduction program, drew opposition from Sierra Club and Humane World for Animals/Animal Defense League of Arizona, who argued it would hinder wolf recovery and undercut science-based wildlife management. The committee nevertheless gave HB 2787 a do-pass recommendation by a 4-3 vote. The committee then considered HB 2055 on a Brackish Groundwater Recovery Program Fund and HB 2782 on disclosure requirements for regulatory assets in utility rates. Testimony on HB 2055 raised concerns that brackish groundwater is still groundwater and that pumping it could cause localized impacts, but the bill initially received a do-pass recommendation before a later vote failed on reconsideration. HB 2782 prompted discussion about Corporation Commission authority and utility regulation, but it ultimately received a do-pass recommendation. The committee also heard HB 2781, a solar energy decommissioning and financial assurance bill, with testimony from environmental groups, industry representatives, and a local official; an amendment by Senator Sundareshan to strengthen financial assurance and remove the remediation fund failed, and the underlying bill also failed on a tied 4-4 vote. Later, the committee approved HB 2975, which would suspend use of solar scoring maps on state trust lands and require new mining and housing scoring maps, despite opposition from environmental groups and neutral comments from the State Land Department that the solar map is only a guidance tool. HB 2696, as amended, passed after the committee adopted amendments shifting the Arizona Commerce Authority’s fuel-price mandate and creating a fuel resiliency task force; testimony focused on fuel supply, pipeline capacity, refinery access, and whether the ACA was the right agency to lead the effort. The committee also passed HCM 2009 urging Congress to require legislative approval for new national monuments and to streamline mining and land-swap processes, and HB 2889, which funds ADEQ monitoring of uranium contamination and creates a statewide registry and tribal partnership program. Finally, the committee approved HB 2763, which would require legislative approval before the Arizona Game and Fish Commission could close a shooting range. Supporters said it was meant to protect facilities like Ben Avery and preserve safe shooting locations, while opponents argued the bill was unnecessary because existing review steps already exist and there was no imminent closure threat. The committee also heard testimony on the bill from Game and Fish, which said the measure would add another layer to an already extensive closure process and that the department was neutral on the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• The assessed value of a sewer plant gets re-evaluated, and at this point in time the evaluation went
• The assessed value of a sewer plant gets re-evaluated, and at this point in time the evaluation went
• The assessed value of a sewer plant gets re-evaluated.
• >> and determine what it new evaluation is.
• >> and determine what it new evaluation is.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So how exactly do you evaluate that? It was our question.
• Plus, that's 200,000 a year for evaluation, which equals a 21.6 million.
• Or a parent requests evaluation, or a person is in SOT, technically they are covered there.
• The third evaluation stemmed from a clinical diagnosis of autism.
• and we were able to obtain an independent educational evaluation.

Transcript Highlights:

• With the amendments, this bill will require regulations and consultation with OCA to be re-evaluated
• The findings of the evaluation will be reported as required under existing law at a public meeting on
• And to evaluate how affordable rates are, under this bill, the departments will consult with OCA and
• We'll get the data, and I think it'll serve as a platform for evaluation moving forward.
• As a psychiatrist, I know that a brief crisis evaluation often cannot determine whether someone who is

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• No, I'm not privy to the information that Is put out or evaluated during these evaluations, I'm not a
• I mean, do the evaluations?
• I don't know if they're psychological or psychiatric evaluations have those evaluations shed any light
• So I don't know if they're psychological or psychiatric evaluations necessarily.
• You do these evaluations and because these kids sometimes are younger Often it is the evaluator comes

Transcript Highlights:

• , which is outlined before implementation and evaluation plan.
• The program evaluation, yes, we are working on program evaluation in close collaboration with LFC and
• And to be honest with you, the Kids Count evaluation, that's only 2 of the 16 measures, right?
• First, we have a nationally recognized evaluations team.
• I'm one of your program evaluators at the LFC.