Marco Erickson — Explained that the inspections are for licensed facilities, not private homes, and are intended to be surprise inspections to prevent staff from controlling the process.
Marco Erickson — Continued explaining that surprise inspections are meant to prevent facilities from controlling what inspectors see or hear.
Marco Erickson — Explained that unannounced inspections prevent staff from steering inspectors to preferred people or files.
Marco Erickson — Responded that the inspections are not illegal searches and are only to learn what is happening in the facilities.
Marco Erickson — The senator directed his questions to Representative Erickson about the bill's structure.
Marco Erickson — Explained that line 36 contains enforcement mechanisms, including corrective action plans.
Marco Erickson — Described enforcement tools such as corrective action plans, sanctions, withheld payments, and law-enforcement referral for crimes.
Marco Erickson — Continued explaining that sexual abuse allegations must be referred to law enforcement.
Marco Erickson — Responded that faith-based facilities are already protected under current law and licensing rules.
Marco Erickson — Said prayer and spirituality can be part of a faith-based facility's curriculum and would not violate the bill.
Marco Erickson — Said children would likely be allowed to opt out of uncomfortable practices and then shifted to the fiscal note question.
Marco Erickson — Explained that the department said it could implement the bill under current capacity without a fiscal note.
Marco Erickson — Said the department could do the work under current capacity and that the bill was drafted to avoid fiscal impact.
Marco Erickson — Explained that the bill adds little new work, requires a paper notice for families, and directs at least one unannounced visit.
Marco Erickson — Explains that unannounced visits are intended to prevent facilities from steering inspectors to preferred charts or staff and to allow unbiased interviews.
Marco Erickson — Continues explaining that unannounced interviews help avoid retaliation and get unbiased information from staff and youth.
Marco Erickson — The senator addresses Representative Erickson while raising concerns about the bill's enforcement strength.
Marco Erickson — Is asked to respond to concerns about intimidation and workarounds.
Marco Erickson — Responds that the bill closes gaps identified through conversations with partners and a state oversight committee report.
Marco Erickson — Is asked to explain the open-ended language in the bill.
Marco Erickson — Says the open-ended language was intended to allow department discretion and may relate to child protection or mental health licensing audits.
Marco Erickson — Representative Erickson responds to questions about the ages of residents admitted to facilities, explaining that admission depends on each facility’s licensure and acceptance criteria, with many facilities serving older teenagers, often ages 12 and up and sometimes 14 and up. He also notes that he is not certain which states, but says eight states are working on similar legislation this session.
Janie Ward-Engelking — A senator with a name transcribed as 'Winchro' was said to have been part of the study effort; this appears to be a questionable reference to Senator Janie Ward-Engelking or another member, but the transcript is unclear.
Christy Zito — Senator Blaylock greets Representative Erickson and raises a question about how the bill relates to existing IDAPA rules, followed immediately by Representative Erickson’s response addressing him.
Dori Healey — Asked about the language on page two, lines 5 through 7, and raised a concern about unannounced inspections.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Raised concern that annual unannounced inspections might implicate the Fourth Amendment and illegal searches and seizures.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Said the unannounced inspection language seems like an illegal search and compared it to police needing a warrant.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The transcript appears to misstate the senator's name; this is likely the same senator who raised the Fourth Amendment concern.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Said he had several questions and asked why penalties and violations are not included in the bill text.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Questioned why penalties and violations are not written into the bill before a vote.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The transcript appears to misrecognize the senator's name in the response; likely intended to address the questioning senator.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Raised a question about the bill's use of evidence-based and trauma-informed language and whether faith-based facilities were consulted.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Expressed concern that faith-based practices such as biblical counseling and prayer might not fit evidence-based or trauma-informed definitions.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — The senator is being addressed in the discussion about unannounced visits and interviewing youth and staff.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — A senator is addressed while responding that they like the bill's intent and raise concerns.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — States support for the bill's intent but says the bill may not create a strong enough consequence or cause of action.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Says the bill may not be enough to achieve its goal and worries facilities could intimidate kids or work around reporting and surprise visits.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Asks for examples of what 'conduct other activities as it deems appropriate' could mean.
Gillian Cochran — Gillian Cochran is called to testify and immediately introduces herself, stating that she is a Canadian citizen and a survivor of multiple youth residential treatment programs in Idaho.
Julie VanOrden — Chair Van Orden is addressed at the opening of witness testimony, first by a witness addressing the chair and committee, and then again at the start of Jessica’s testimony along with the vice chair and committee members.
Jillian Cochran — Jillian Cochran introduces herself as a Canadian citizen and survivor of multiple youth residential treatment programs in Idaho, then describes the harmful and abusive conditions she experienced there. She says her family communications were not private and that she was forced to speak monthly with one of her abusers. She explains that she spent multiple months in residential care across various placements and concludes by urging lawmakers to ensure children receive safe, effective care and accountability rather than debating whether they deserve it.
Jessica Hayes — Jessica Hayes is introduced as the next witness, and the committee welcomes her and invites her to begin her testimony.
Jessica — Jessica testifies in strong support of the measure and begins describing her personal background, explaining that she was unexpectedly taken from her grandparents’ home by two men she had never met and transported to a facility where she was told she would get better. Her account continues into the intake experience and the daily tactics used there, forming a single personal narrative in support of the bill.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow is identified as asking a question.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow asks follow-up questions about the program name, year, and whether it was in Idaho.
Melissa Wintrow — The witness addresses Vice Chair Bjorky; likely a mis-transcription of Vice Chair Wintrow/Birk, but uncertain.
Melissa Wintrow — The transcript appears to misrecognize the senator's name as 'Senator Siderfeld'; context suggests Senator Wintrow is being addressed.
Melissa Wintrow — The transcript likely mishears a senator's name; context suggests a senator is asking a quick question.
Melissa Wintrow — The chair calls on Senator Wintrow.
Melissa Wintrow — Makes the motion and explains it is based on the JLOC report and its recommendations.