Aging, Children and Youth, & Legislative Affairs- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1921
Act 824
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/1/25 @ 11:03 AM) Added HB1921 & SB371 to the Regular Agenda House Committee on Aging, Chi…”
|
TO AMEND THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY LICENSING ACT; TO AMEND THE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS … | Torres | Notification that HB1921 is now Act 824 |
|
HB1887
Act 658
· 4 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “will start without objection on House Bill 1887. So Representative Pierce,”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTION RESPONSE TEAMS. | Pearce | Notification that HB1887 is now Act 658 |
|
HCR1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HCR1010 T. Shephard REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE…”
|
REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR YOUTH. | T. Shephard | Approved by the Governor |
|
SB340
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB340 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXP…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB371
Act 653
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/1/25 @ 11:03 AM) Added HB1921 & SB371 to the Regular Agenda House Committee on Aging, Children an…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM TO AID IN THE SEARCH OF MISSING CHILDREN WHO DO … | J. Scott | Notification that SB371 is now Act 653 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
0:00
Chair sees a quorum. Welcome to the House Aging Children and Youth Legislative Affairs Committee. This morning, members, we are going to take things out of order a bit, and
we will start without objection on House Bill 1887. So, Representative Pierce, if
Speaker 4
0:18
you will introduce yourself, you will be recognized to present your bill. Thank you.
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
0:30
Representative Shad Pierce District 40 and thank you Madam Chair and thank you
Mike Hager
Unverified
0:47
committee I'm Mike Hager I'm secretary department of public safety
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
0:52
and director of state police what 1887 does and thank you all again all we're really wanting to do let me first just read the heading to amend the law concerning statewide statewide uh statewide child abduction response
team and when you hear me later on talk about cart that's what i'm referring to and what we're wanting to do is to move it into the state police the state police has been gracious enough to do this i was on this team before and after the certification that's what's holding a lot of our law enforcement up I feel is because we're understaffed across the state on our local side and if we move it to the state police we can monitor it as it goes downstream to make sure
that we have the team that we want in place and with that I'll let Colonel Hager say a few words about
Mike Hager
Unverified
1:52
it it's not even eight o'clock yet and i've broken something um in a nutshell uh this is one of those things that we have to get right um we we can't obviously the the consequences are too significant to not get right so um we're very blessed uh specifically with the criminal justice
Institute. They started this process. It went into law a number of years ago, and it's really opened our eyes, and it's opened the awareness that we need to make sure that we have the resources in place, but unfortunately, it's what started out great in theory sometimes doesn't translate to reality, so we became more bogged down with the process and failed to realize the product, and And the participation of local law enforcement agencies has gone down significantly because of kind of a bureaucratic process that's put into place to maintain a standard and a certification that is required through the model that we had through CJI.
with their involvement what it's forced us to do and which is a wonderful thing is to identify resources and to identify the things that we need at a minute's notice but it's ultimately will change the certification process which we have a an entity already within the state of Arkansas that certifies a law enforcement operations and that's the commission on law enforcement standards And it's going to take this process, create a certification through CLEST that allows us to be more in tune with our local partners.
This is a conversation that we've had now for the better part of two years. It's actually gone before that, but for the last two years, we realized there was a problem. And the problem became with our stakeholders. The only way that this works is we have to have a joint participation with our local sheriff's departments and police departments. We saw that number getting lower and lower and lower, as Representative Pierce alluded to. He was actually part of this team in our local area. We have someone here from Jackson County Sheriff's Department that can testify from his experience.
We also have representation, I believe, from the chiefs of police that can testify from their experience. But we have a lot of agencies that are not participating because of, once again, the process that it requires and the training that it requires. And by us streamlining that, and I've met with just about every sheriff in the state on this. Every time I talk to the Sheriff's Association, it comes up. When I talk to the Chief's Association, it comes up. And we're basically just streamlining the process to more of a product that is operationally sound.
And it takes a lot of the red tape away. So that's in a nutshell. And I'd be happy to explain that. I also feel like it's important to note I didn't ask Colleen Nick to come and testify today because obviously she's a good ways away. We've been in constant contact with her. I met with her. And before we did anything or made any changes, I wanted to make sure that we had her buy-in.
And she is 100% on board with what we are doing and with the changes that are being made. And we feel like it's a good bill
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
5:23
and we'd appreciate a good vote. Are
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
5:30
there questions by the committee? Representative Torres, you're recognized. Thank you.
I was looking here on line 7. It states that the abduction
response teams adhere to the executed memorandum of understanding,
but in the paragraph above, that memorandum of understanding is crossed out. Is that going to create any conflicts since, yeah. No, basically there will
Mike Hager
Unverified
5:53
be a new memorandum of understanding. And I don't want to get in the
weeds too much on this unless y'all would like for us to. But the way it's set up right now, in order to be a CART member, each individual member of the CART, which could be a police officer, sheriff's deputy, trooper, ACC officer, game and fish officer, whatever the case may be,
They all have to be a participant, and they all have to require certain training that is through a third-party vendor. And just to give you an example, what we want to do is identify resources that we're going to utilize in the case of an abduction. And to use Representative Pierce as an example, Game and Fish do a wonderful job. Their discipline and what they bring to the table for us is to be able to do land NAF searches and grid searches in rural areas.
you know, utilize their four-wheelers and things like that to search. But the way it's set up right now for Game and Fish to participate in the members, the individual members to participate, they'll have to log online and do four hours of training in things like how to dump a cell phone forensically, how to care for a, you know, a witness through the adjudication process, things that they will never do in real life. Our aircraft pilots have to do the exact same thing, even though that's not the way we're going to use them.
So what the memorandum of understanding is going to look like is it's going to be with stakeholders, which are going to be our local police department, sheriff's departments, but it's going to be with decision makers. It's going to be people that we go to them and say, this is what we're going to do. This is the process that we're going to follow. And if you have an abduction in your area and you call state police, number one, we're an assisting agency. We're not going to come in and take over that investigation unless you ask for us to. And there's some agencies that do. We're just going to bring resources to the table. We're going to send somebody there that they're going to have basically a book of resources available where if you need a cell phone dump, we've got a guy for that.
If you need a group of detectives to come in, we've got a guy for that, or we've got a team for that. So, in other words, like North Little Rock Police Department or Little Rock Police Department is a better example. They're not involved in this right now. Sure, we've got a lot of large agencies that have a lot to offer in the way of resources, like with their detective division and things like that. They're not involved with it because of the process that's in place. I've already spoken to those chiefs and a lot of the sheriffs, and they said that they'll sign an MOU and basically say,
we'll make our assets available to you if needed. And we're going to have people with representation there from the state police. It's going to be just a clearinghouse of resources. You tell us what we need. We'll get those resources started to you. But the MOU is going to be different now. The certification process will be different now. but it's going to be, the MOU is going to be with basically stakeholders that have decision-making authority to where, and it's going to be made clear to them that if you say that you're going to participate in this, we need that authorization up front, and they've assured us that they'll give us that authorization,
that when we call, this is what we need, and they've got the authority to send that. Representative Pierce can also testify to this. poll we saw, no one wants to say that they're against CART. I mean, who in their right mind would say that? So people would sign up, but when we would have the mandatory CART meetings that were required, we were getting one, two, three-year officers that had no decision-making authority. They were asked to complete training that was outside of their discipline, the things that they bring to the table, and as a result, we were not being utilized. I can't tell you how
many cases that we have each year where CART should be activated and we should have that those resources in place but they don't because honestly they view it like well the circus is coming to town and we're going to mobilize 50 60 70 people they're going to show up at my agency and now I'm going to have to feed them I'm going to have to give them water I'm going to have to house them I'm going to have to locate them somewhere and so they're hesitant to get involved in the system because of the way it's structured right now. So Director Chapman at CLESS and Lieutenant Colonel Jason Aaron,
who's the Deputy Director at State Police, or one of, they're already working together to come up with this certification process to frame the MOU of what it's going to be with the local agencies. And, you know, once we get this in place, we'll sign those agencies and move through that certification process. Thank you. Any other questions by
Chair
Unverified
10:22
committee? Representative Barnett, you're recognized. Oh. And it won't go off. Okay.
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
10:35
Representative Eaton, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
10:41
Any opposition to this bill? None of which that I know of. I
did call the Criminal Justice Institute and let them know when I filed the bill, out of respect, that that's what we wanted to do, that we've tried it both ways and it seemed to work better the first time. I believe that they had the best intent and heart in their intent when they implemented this, but we have found over time
that it just does not work, but that would be
Mike Hager
Unverified
11:11
the only opposition. And I feel like I should say again, it can't be stressed enough, we owe a lot of debt to the Criminal Justice Institute for getting this program started, to make people take the time to sit down and put these resources together. That would not have happened had it not been for the leadership of the Criminal Justice Institute. It's just kind of morphed into something that it's become more of a detriment to, again, the product than we can afford because, again, we've got to get this right.
But, no, all the credit in the world to the Criminal Justice Institute for getting us where we are today, but it's just time that, you know, we know now sometimes things, you know, they sound really good in theory, but the practical application suffers. And we know now, you know, what we've done right and what we need to do differently. And it's just a move to do that, but it's absolutely no indictment on the CJI at all. Any other questions by committee?
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
12:11
Seeing none, we do have a couple signed up to speak.
Speaker 34
12:19
um chief deputy jacob something i can't read your last name
Speaker 4
12:36
want to introduce yourself please you'll be recognized
Speaker 40
12:42
Thank you for having me. I'm Jason Tubbs. I currently serve in the role of Chief Difty for the Jackson County Sheriff's Office. Previously, I spent 19 years as the Chief Communications Officer for Troop B with the State Police. That's where I came to no court when it was founded. Are there any questions
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
13:07
for this witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 33
13:12
we also have Gary Sipes signed up to speak on the bill if you'll
Speaker 46
13:26
introduce yourself please you're recognized good morning I'm Gary Sipes director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police and being the director of the the association I I have polled the chiefs across the state, over 300, and they are all in support of this.
And like Colonel said, we owe a great debt of gratitude to CJI for what they've done. So that's basically all I have, and I mean, I can answer the questions if you'd like. Are there any questions for
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
13:57
this witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. I
believe that's all we have signed up. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak
Speaker 40
14:13
you a quick run down the court as it is on the ground.
We started this in around 2015. My commander then, Jeff Drew, he tasked me with organizing this. As you know, in law enforcement, in the fire profession, you've got a lot of type A personalities. It's hard to get everybody on the same page. But when you talk about children, it changes. And we gathered a team together in Troop B, and Representative Pierce, he was sergeant with Game and Fish at the time.
That's how I developed a relationship with him and many others. We developed a relationship with not only our state officials, but local officials and federal officials. I was on a first-name basis with FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, and everybody was like-minded. They had children first. And when we came together, we trained, we came together, and we would have 25 or 30 people show up at these meetings. But as we went on, we started getting more structured, and we were looking at the certification process, which we all love the fact of being state certified.
That's something that we can take great pride in, but we also have to look at, in my role now, in a different role at a local, smaller agency, A lot of times I don't have somebody to send to sit for four hours and take training that's not pertinent to what they will be doing on the team. So it became a, we just got distracted by this certification process. And again, like the other gentlemen, I appreciate CJI and we couldn't make it without them.
We take CJI training. I have a deputy gone to training today and they're a great asset but this bill will help I believe bring us back to center and get us a list of resources together and everybody can get like-minded without the burden of a certain certification process and a waste of time for local agencies as as the colonel said we're we're low on manpower a lot of times and this is a very heart is very important it's always been uh dear to me and i just this this bill will help
help get us back centered and get us back where we need to be thank
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
16:51
you for your testimony seeing no one else here to speak for or against the bill representative pierce would you like to close for your
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
17:05
bill Well, I just want you each to know how passionate I am about this CART team. And I want us to be the best that we can be for our children because, to me, that's the most important thing we have in the state of Arkansas
is our children. They're our future. And so with that, I'll close and ask for a due pass, please. We
Speaker 51
17:25
have a motion due pass. Well, that's true.
Speaker 58
17:27
You did ask for it. Are you making one or asking? I'm making one. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I think I
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
17:38
put words in your mouth. So now we have a due pass on the table. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
Congratulations. You've passed your bill. Thank you, committee. That's okay. Next, we are going to move to House Bill 1921 by Representative Torres. And we have an amendment. And we
Speaker 58
18:08
do have an amendment that will be coming around. You may go ahead and introduce yourself, and you will be
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
18:13
recognized to present your amendment when everybody has it. Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Randy Torres, District 17.
And while the amendment is being passed out, I wanted to ask if Ms. Tiffany Wright could join me. you can go ahead and
Chair
Unverified
18:49
recognize yourself as well introduce yourself good morning I'm Tiffany Wright
Chair
Unverified
18:59
of children and family services okay representative torres you are recognized to present your
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
19:06
amendment you bet so this amendment basically just deletes page two lines three through nine working with the division of children and family services we just surmised that this paragraph is unnecessary so it's just being struck out of the bill. Are
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
19:24
there any questions on the amendment?
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
19:30
Representative Nazarenko, you're recognized. Is it also just substituting in that paragraph right following? I guess that's my confusion area. It's kind of like striking it but then
putting it back in? It's taking it out as a whole. Okay, because then it says substitute in the following, unless I'm reading it wrong. Page 2, the lines, and this is on the amendment, page 2, the lines 3 through 9, and substitute the following. Division 2 and family services will not require.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
20:02
Yeah. Then section 2 is left in there. I'm sorry. Right. Okay. Yeah, section 2 is left in.
Yeah. Yeah, I understand. Any other questions on the amendment? Oh,
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
20:15
Representative Duke, you're recognized. Well, I'm, thank you, Madam
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
20:19
Chair. I'm trying to decide if I'm understanding what we're doing on this one. So can you explain a little bit more detail on what you're doing? Because I'm having a little bit of a
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
20:31
struggle on. Okay. So page two, line three,
line three through five is being deleted from the bill right i
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
20:50
saying they there won't be training or there will be training yeah
Speaker 69
21:00
would you let me help um so um my understanding of this of the
Speaker 88
21:05
well the request of the amendment was to remove section two on the second page that we cannot close a provisional foster home or remove a child from a placement with a provisional foster home due to the provisional foster home not receiving the same amount of hourly training as a foster home and so the division requested that that be removed in the amendment
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
21:33
okay okay so lines three through nine basically
Chair
Unverified
21:36
sorry for the confusion any other questions on
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
21:53
the amendment representative henley henley you're recognized thank you chair uh isn't this practice already in uh
in the works i mean this reduced training hours is isn't that
Speaker 88
22:06
already in the works by some Yes, ma'am. So the division in 2023 started working to change both kinship training and
traditional foster home training. We have successfully implemented that for both types of providers, and our private agency providers also have implemented the training as well. follow up. So what is this
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
22:33
bill going to do? Make it legal? Well, what
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
22:40
the amendment approved. Let's start with the amendment, which I know we still had some
confusion on, so we got in a little deeper than normal. So are there
Speaker 58
22:47
any more questions on the amendment itself? Okay. Would you like to close for your amendment? Yes, I would. Close for
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
22:54
the amendment. And would like to I would appreciate a motion to pass. We are all having wording problems today. Okay, we have
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
23:04
a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Thank you. You have adopted your amendment, and now you may present your bill. Okay, great. Thank you.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
23:15
So House Bill 1921, this bill aims to make it easier for people, especially relatives, to become foster parents in Arkansas by reducing the training requirements. Here's a simple breakdown of what it does. Number one, it limits training hours for foster parents. The bill caps the number of training hours required for foster parents to 15 hours of initial training to get approved, and then six hours of training each year to stay approved. Okay, the Division of Children and Family Services can lower these requirements if needed.
This simplifies the process for relatives. If a relative wants to become a foster parent called a provisional foster home, they won't have to complete the same amount of training as other foster parents. This gives DCFS flexibility. The division will set rules to further streamline the process for provisional foster homes, making it easier and quicker for family members to step in and care for children. And with that, I'll take any questions. Are
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
24:19
there questions by committee? Representative Duke,
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
24:22
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think I understand it all completely, but I just want to make sure because I
did have some constituents just ask. So you're not saying the provisional won't receive training. It's just kind of discretionary to the department on, like, how much. It's not going to be the amount that others who are not family members receive, but they
might, if you think they need it, they might still
Speaker 69
24:48
receive training. So, yes, provisional families will still receive training.
Speaker 88
24:52
Right now they're getting six hours of training with four components around trauma and how you care for your relatives. Thank
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
25:01
you. Any other questions by committee? Representative Nazarenko, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
25:04
you, Madam Chair. Is provisional, is it just family member or somebody that would be, you know, could someone be a provisional foster parent if they're not family? Is that possible? Yes, we call that fictive kin. Okay, so it's two different things. So this is just strictly provisional and the training having to do with just provisional.
Speaker 88
25:26
Is that correct? So provisional could be a relative or a fictive kin. Okay. And so anything that falls underneath that that we've identified as a relative or a fictive kin, we open provisionally while they work to meet the requirements to be an open home to get services, support, and care for those children that are in their home. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 99
25:46
Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other questions by committee?
Chair
Unverified
25:56
Okay. Do you have anyone signed up? No one signed up to speak for or against. Is there anyone in the audience
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
26:09
that would like to speak for or against this bill? Okay. Representative Torres, would you like to close for your bill? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Overall, this bill is meant to remove barriers for relatives and other foster parents, helping children get placed in homes faster while still ensuring some level of training for caregivers. And with that, I'll close. And I'll make a motion due pass. Thank you.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
26:27
We have a motion due pass. As amended. As amended. Thank
Speaker 58
26:32
you. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations.
Speaker 34
26:42
You've passed your bill. Okay, members, we're going to move to House Concurrent Resolution 1010 by Representative
Speaker 58
26:55
Shepard. If you will introduce yourself, you are recognized to present your concurrent resolution.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
27:05
Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative, Chair Shepard, District 79. Colleagues, this is more about
a conversation that I wanted to have amongst us. If you will notice, I don't think you have had yet a resolution that has came to this committee. In most instances, the resolutions go where? They go to the house management, and that's who hears resolutions. So this is kind of unique in a strategy approach that I'm taking.
We have several things that we all are passionate about and that we work hard for. And for me, one of those things is juvenile justice in Arkansas and what's happening with our kids that are being confined. For most of you on this committee, you came in with me, and we're serving in our second term. For some of you others, this is your first term. But if you've noticed it, there has not been a lot of conversation around juvenile justice in Arkansas.
We've had a lot of conversations around other things, but not what's happening as it relates to locking up our children in Arkansas. So the reason why I filed this the way that I did, it's not a bill. It's asking for a study to look at ways we can more effectively reform juvenile justice in Arkansas. And the only way that I could make that happen was to file this as a resolution so that I could get before you. And I could hopefully get this out of committee to get it on the House floor
and talk to our other colleagues in regards to juvenile justice in Arkansas. It's a cross that I'm willing to bear, but I'm going to stick through it. If you look at what's before you, The resolution states that basically, if you look at the subtitle, requesting a study of ways to improve the state's juvenile justice system for youth. Most instances, this is done during the interim, and that's when it's taken care of not doing a session like this.
But I'll go back again to this gave me the opportunity to be before all of my colleagues and give a better understanding of what's happening with juvenile justice in Arkansas. It moves on to state that I'm requesting for an independent study to be done of the system to look at the comprehensive needs and the assessments of children that are being locked away in our programs. With two focuses, one is to reduce the reliance on incarceration, and two, to promote community-based programs.
On the second page of the resolution, it talks about looking at environments that are least restrictive to housing kids. It asks for a plan to be developed within one year of the resolution passing to include DYS and other stakeholders. And it goes on to also address the fact where there are needs that need to be addressed in regards to how we are housing kids, those things are done. That's it as far as the resolution. I'm going to go back to what I stated
earlier. This is about me addressing my colleagues and getting the conversation going about juvenile justice in Arkansas because you don't know what you don't know. I am an ally for DYS. I am an ally for the kids that are incarcerated and I am an ally for our judges that are making hard decisions because they are making hard decisions. And the reason why I say that, I'll go to a report that I want to read something to you
all based on a report that was submitted
by DYS, one key point that was made, an analysis of Arkansas' juvenile crime problems and juvenile justice needs reveals too many youth are being locked up in potentially damaging correctional facilities and other secure residential placements at a very high cost to the social and human
costs for minor nonviolent offenses, meaning the majority of kids that are being incarcerated in Arkansas are there for nonviolent offenses. Okay. It goes on to say the existing services are stretched to the limit. Another key point that was made in the report is that this trend is costly, with expenses running up to around $127,750 per child.
So we're spending $127,000 for one kid to be incarcerated annually in Arkansas. And I believe we spend roughly maybe $9,000 to educate a child in Arkansas annually. So what we spend, colleagues, to keep one kid in the system for one year, we could educate roughly 13 children in Arkansas. Think about that. I not only sit before you as one of your colleagues asking you to give me the opportunity to get this to the House floor
so that I can educate other legislators on what's happening. I also sit before you as someone who's considered as an expert in the field. And what I mean by that is as an auditor. I've traveled to the Pentagon and audited the United States Army Correctional Command. I've traveled to New York and audited their probation and parole services. I've traveled to Ohio and audited their Division of Youth Services, all in regards to conditions of confinement.
I'm simply asking for the opportunity to speak to other colleagues and give them an understanding of what's going on. Because at the end of the day, I didn't have to subject myself to this. But I know many of you all do not
understand the system, and therefore I'm trying to help. And so with that, Madam Chair, I'm
Chair
Unverified
34:08
closed. We have questions by committee. Representative Carr,
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
34:12
you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Shepard, say this bill passes, the test is conducted.
Where will the findings of that test be reported to? Would that be, because I know it's a year out, so we're going to say maybe July next year. Will that come through like ALC or so I'm just trying to figure out who will be reported to on the findings of the study if it passes? It will come back
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
34:36
to the legislature, and I'm glad that you brought that up as well. To answer your questions, yes. And I definitely will be following up to give, if I've got to do this again, to come back and give you all a report.
I'm more than willing to do that. This was done maybe in 2012 when Governor Beebe requested a study to be done in 2012. So the findings will also go to the governor's office. We are reaching a point to where we are bursting out of the seams with kids in juvenile justice and being locked away. So, yes, Representative Carr, it will come back to the legislature. and I will do my best to make sure you all have an understanding of what's going on with juvenile justice.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
35:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Duke, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Shepard, for bringing this
bill. And I'll reiterate what I said yesterday. I know how hard you work on your bills and the due diligence you take. I do have some questions, and I love the idea of having conversations. you and I have many of them. But on page two, lines 18 through 29, and I made these notes late,
so it may take me a minute to make sure that I've got it all, that I state it
all the way I want to. It concerns me, it looks like there's some shalls included in this when you get the study. So you get
the study, and then you shall incorporate best practices. It was in line 25. I think line 21, the implement, and then line 22, you'll implement the reform plan proposed by this resolution
and to replace the facilities where conditions are confined to support ceasing operation and
so on. So that's the piece that causes me some concern because the way I'm reading it, and I may be reading it wrong, is that the plan comes through, they get their results, and then there's not really discussion on it. It's just that once they make their recommendations, this is what
happens. Am I reading that correctly or incorrectly? Yes, you
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
36:55
are reading it correctly. First, I want to address that it's not a bill.
It's a resolution, so I want
to address that. The second thing that I want to say, I think you all will agree with me. If we look at the system and we find that the conditions are poor, Will there not be an expectation that there will be some change? Something will happen? And so in those lines that you are referencing, yes, if this plan comes back and there is a finding for need for change, that that change will occur.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
37:32
Thank you. Follow-up? And I understand that. Yes. And I understand the frustration where you don't feel like we move the needle on things. But I have concern with the way this is worded because I feel like I am passing the bill before I read the bill because I don't know what the study is going to find. I don't know how much it's going to cost. I don't know what it's going to look like. And I'm not saying there's not a need. I agree with you. We've got to look at some things differently. But to say a shall now for something,
I don't know what that's going to be. Do you see that could be a
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
38:13
concern? Possibly for you, but Representative Dukes, with all due respect, we have children in the system as young as 10 years old. If there is an environment that is unsafe for a kid and something needs to happen, it will be my expectation as a legislator that something happen. And I will go on further to say that those that have the responsibility
for oversight shall be responsible for getting it fixed. Thank you. I appreciate that and
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
38:44
I would agree that we have responsibility but we have lots of responsibilities down here as legislators as you know and sometimes those have with hard conversations and hard decisions we can't all get what we want or exactly when we want it and I'm not saying this to say that I don't think there needs to be things done here but at the same time we have to take into all the pieces of the puzzle I can't just take in one and that's what concerns me is again I don't know what any of this is going
to say or what it's going to look like and but I'm being required if I agree to this that whatever it says I'm going to do and that I don't think that's good practice in any area of life and so I think would you agree that we may not agree on this piece but it doesn't mean that those who don't agree on this piece don't still care about kids and oh no i would i'm not saying with that right
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
39:47
no i absolutely agree you know i'm not sitting here saying representative dukes that you don't care about children you know there are some things that definitely when it comes to education you're absolutely passionate about i will say that and when it comes to juvenile justice i'm passionate about it as well and so we may agree with other parts of this resolution again not a bill but not this part and you're entitled to how you feel but I feel like if there are kids locked away in programs those to have an arm
the responsibility of ensuring their safety they shall be responsible
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
40:23
for ensuring their safety I'll just get back in there. Representative Barnes, you recognize? Thank you, Chair. Colleagues, Shepard, thank you so much for wanting to see change and to implement some study. But contrary, I have been involved with it over 14 years. DYS, I've seen all of that. I've been in court. Amar's children up to the judge and back to the cell.
So I've probably seen everything you've seen. But I have a question because you said a lot of children are locked up because of, I think I can't quote you, but I'll say this, children go to DYS after they have committed an offense that would be a felony if they were an adult. They don't go to DYS for fiends, family needed services. They go to DYS when they commit an offense that normally, if they were 18, it would be a felony.
So I think your approach is what you're trying to do is good, but that back information is not true. You can't go to DYS on petty stuff, truancy, skipping class, cussing your mama out. You can't go to DYS on that. You go to DYS when there's a gun or something, you committed a crime as a juvenile that would be classified as a felony if you are an adult. So I think what you're trying to do is great.
That's the only thing I want you to correct, if
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
42:08
you would look at that. And you stand corrected. This is
DYS's report. This is what they put out. Again, I'm going to reintegrate what the state agency said. Too many youth are being locked up in potentially damaging correctional facilities and other secure residential placements at a very high cost for nonviolent offenses. There's no gun.
There's no any of those things. Well, follow up.
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
42:40
Okay. I said felony. It would be a felony if they were an adult. So it could be a non-violent, but it's a felony. It would come under a felony. That's
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
42:52
all I'm saying. And then my question to you, Representative, would be, do you think that we need a child locked up in maximum level of security for truancy? I don't know
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
43:05
if anybody gets locked up in maximum security for truancy.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
43:09
What do you think Arkansas Juvenile Assessment and Treatment Center is? That's maximum level of security for juveniles in Arkansas. And as of today, there are 180 of them out there. Okay,
Speaker 151
43:21
for truancy. Okay, for truancy. I can't
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
43:25
say that all of them are out there. We're going back and forth because in one instance you're saying violent and nonviolent. And I'm trying to give you examples of that. There are kids in Arkansas's juvenile justice system.
The majority of them are in it for nonviolent offenses. Those things that, as you're mentioning, with some of them, if they were adults, they would not be in jail. Okay. All right. I don't
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
43:50
know every case. You may have some validity on that, but I really think the investigation would
be good, though. I really think that would be good. Thank you, Representative.
Speaker 157
44:02
Well, hopefully you will make a due pass.
Chair
Unverified
44:06
Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
44:09
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, and thank you, Representative, for the gesture that you're making here. As I understand your request, you're not trying to, your request is not to do away with all the processes that are already in place with respect to the bill-making process, appropriations, and that sort of thing. It has to go before certain committees before definite action is taken in order for legislation to be passed.
So you're not suggesting that this process be skipped over, those processes be skipped over. That's not what you're suggesting. Absolutely not. Am I correct? So you want to make sure that this happens. However, it's not to circumvent things that are already in place in order for this to take place. Absolutely not. All
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
45:02
right, thank you. Normally, and I'll start off by I'll say what I said earlier. Again, my cross to bear.
I did not have to come this route, but I wanted to start with my colleagues so that people understand what's going on.
Speaker 91
45:19
Representative Barnes, do you have another question? I'm sorry. It's okay. We have mics
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
45:24
that are lit up for no reason, so I just wanted to check. Representative Henley, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam. You know, I'm new. But I think that we just passed a new revised juvenile code. And I know that Justice Rhonda Wood chairs a group that works on juvenile justice systems and processes all the time.
So it seems like a duplication of services. Like something that, I mean, can we just not get the justice to work with you? Are you on that committee? No, I'm
Speaker 168
46:09
not on the committee, but absolutely I want to work
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
46:14
with the justices. I want to work with the justices, DYS, the judges. I want to work with everyone. This route I'm taking was so that I can begin
to spark the conversation with my colleagues. Yes.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
46:28
So I think the best approach is to get with the justice and get on that team.
And it seems like they're powerful, and I believe that they can do what's best in the juvenile process. But we just voted to pass that law, that new revision of the law, juvenile code. No problem. I want to work with the judges. I want to
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
46:52
work with DYS. I want to work with everyone. It's about me getting the legislators more involved in what's happening with juvenile justice in Arkansas. That's what all of this is about. I agree with you, Representative.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
47:07
Thank you. Representative McClure, you recognized for a
Chair
Unverified
47:14
question? The question would be for
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
47:19
you, Chair. Then you're not recognized. No, I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Since we have many first-time legislators in here, could you
explain the extent of binding actions a resolution has?
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
47:30
I might defer to Blake on that, but, well,
yes, and yet, yes, if so, if we pass this as a resolution, it is binding.
Well, if we pass and it goes
to the floor, the actions within it are binding. I know we keep saying it's a resolution, but it has action within it. It's not just merely a recognition. It's calling for action. Is that what you're asking about? There are other options available to our bill sponsor. Yes. Should she not want to get this to a vote and have it fail in committee,
Speaker 45
48:13
Or she may take that opportunity if she so desires. There. Is it clear as mud now?
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
48:23
Absolutely. And she's right. There are other options or avenues, which I'll take if it doesn't get out of committee. But I'm asking you, colleagues, the same conversation I've had with you today, I'm asking you to allow me to have that conversation with the rest of the colleagues in the chamber. That's it. Okay. I knew this was going to be challenging coming in here.
But hopefully I've planted some seeds or I've made you all more aware of what's going on.
Speaker 174
48:53
Are there other questions by committee that are not for the chair? I'm just kidding. Are
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
49:12
we, does that answer your question, Representative McClure? Yes. Or do we need, okay.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
49:17
Representative Torres, you recognize. Yeah, I'm reading the bill here, and one of the things, because you're saying this resolution has teeth. I mean, if we agree to it, we're going to have to follow through with it. And under, you know, lines 18 through 23, it talks about, you know, where there exists an urgent need for construction, renovation, acquisition, and all these different things. It says the center is overseen by the Division of Youth Services of the Department of Human Services to implement the reform plan proposed by this resolution to replace the facilities where conditions of confinement support ceasing operations with facilities that do not meet contemporary juvenile justice national best practices.
That's a pretty dramatic promise, and that, I mean, you can't just shut something down because they don't meet certain standards yet. I think the whole point of this study is to make the improvements, but I just, that kind of alarms me, to be honest. And if I can give you further clarifications,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
50:18
it's based on the study. You know, that, what you just read, if
you'll read further up, it's based on the outcomes of the study. So no one is going in and trying to just shut anything down.
Chair
Unverified
50:31
That's unrealistic. Representative McGruder, you recognize for a question? Or is that Pierce? I can't
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
50:40
tell who's mic in it. Okay. Madam Chair, thank you. Mine is more of a
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
50:46
statement. Do I wait or? Well, let's check for questions and then yes. You can make your statement at the end. Maybe if there's discussion on a motion. Representative Duke, you mentioned getting back in the queue. I'm just coming back to that circle. Okay.
Speaker 45
51:01
Are there any other questions by committee? Okay. What? Let's see. We
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
51:12
don't have anyone signed up? Okay. We have no one signed up to speak on this concurrent resolution. Is there anyone in
Chair
Unverified
51:20
the audience that would like to speak for or against this resolution? Okay.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
51:24
Representative Shepard, you're recognized to close for your resolution. Again, colleagues, I'm just asking for the opportunity to go before the chamber
and express the same sentiment that I have with you all. I knew this would be a heavy lift, but, again, I crossed the barrier.
I would appreciate the opportunity, and with that, I'm closed. Thank you. What's the will of the committee?
Chair
Unverified
51:47
Have a motion do pass on the table. Is there discussion on the motion? Representative Magruder, you're recognized. And thank you for waiting.
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
51:58
Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Shepard, for the legislation.
I also was looking at those same lines that Representative Hope Duke was looking at. And my experience is a bit different from everyone else's. I can still tell you today it happened with me, February the 8th of 2022. I'm a father of six children, and my son was arrested at the high school. He's 15 years old. And Representative Pierce shared with me when I was being sworn in,
nothing you've done makes you worthy to hold this position. And I'm aware of that. But the day my child was arrested changed my entire life. He had never been to the principal's office, never been in any trouble, but he was accused of terroristic threatening of the school. We did everything possible to get a better understanding, and we were not able to get any understanding about the situation. The officer takes him to the police department, they question him, and they place him in jail.
Me being a former law enforcement officer, I called and I say, well, I want to bond him out immediately. And the probation officer says, we don't care what you want to do. The charges are so severe until you cannot bond him out of jail. My son, who had never spent the night away from home, was incarcerated, put in jail. We visit him the next morning, and he says, Daddy, I don't know what I'm going to do. I haven't done anything wrong, but there are rats running around here where I'm locked up at.
As a father, tears began to come down my face, and I reached out to every attorney that I know to see what we can do to get him out. Through much prayer, much faith, I had my father's been involved. We were able to get an attorney to represent us. Some did pro bono work, and he was released from the situation. We investigated, and he did nothing he was accused of. It was a way of other people showing me that they were in power and control.
Thank God for Honorable Judge Chester Moody. Once he got the case before him, he released it, and he made my school district admit him back in the school. Today I'm blessed that my son is at Arkansas State University. I'm proud of my children. I bring them around you all when we're eating and we're having meetings because I know I put my best foot forward with them. I know we have some issues within our justice system. I know we need to rework things, and I also know financially our status may not be in the best situation,
but I think we need to take a long look at what's going on. I'm one of those parents who was able to fight legally and get things resolved, but there are many parents who don't have a means to fight. And the main purpose of the juvenile justice system is to help the children. They don't plan on incarcerating them. But if a charge is so severe, which in my son's case it was, they hold them.
Now, if you're holding a child, especially think about if it was one of your children who comes from a good home where there are two parents for no apparent reason and he's there with the rats and the mice and kids who are actually committing crimes, there can be a problem. So I don't know if this is the approach we want to take, but I know we need to take something and we need to look at this system and we need to rework it. I'm supporting this legislation 100% because I know the problems I experienced as a father,
as a man, and as a parent. We've got to figure out something that works best for everyone within our community. So I thank you, Representative Shepard, and I will support you on this legislation. Representative
Chair
Unverified
56:10
Duffield, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
56:14
Chair. Representative Shepard, I believe your goal stated in this is to bring
awareness to the issue and get colleagues on board with this problem. And you know with our discussions, I'm fully aware of this, and And I see that it's a tremendous problem.
And myself as a legislator putting our kids as a top priority, or if not the top priority, is that. My concern from the comments I've heard today is there seems to be, there's some people that are uncomfortable with some things in your resolution. That is going to bring the awareness. So I guess my comment would be I would ask you to consider to potentially make some amendments to it or perhaps bring a different resolution to bring this awareness.
And I'll do anything. I mean, my personal commitment to you as a colleague is I'll do anything I can to help bring awareness to this and to ultimately help fix the problem, if that is to bring some small groups together, small group discussions or whatever, because I agree with you this should be a top priority to fix. I just have some concerns with, I want the colleagues to feel comfortable with this. And I feel like in the conversations, we're going to have to fix this problem. If everyone is not comfortable going in, that could provide some challenges.
Because I think everybody, their heart's in the right place. But ultimately, I just want to help fix the problem. And so I would ask that perhaps you either amend this, perhaps bring a different resolution. And again, I'll do anything I can to help
Chair
Unverified
57:48
solve this problem. Representative Duke, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, because
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
57:55
technically I'm supposed to, I'm going to take some leniency, if that's okay, or ask for some leniency and address you more than normal, but
I think Representative Duffield summarized, at least where I am on this,
is I'm not, I think we need to have the conversation. I'm high enough in seniority this time, I could have chosen a different committee. I didn't choose a different committee I want to be here because I want to have conversations about our aging our children our youth and those matters that's that's why I stayed on this committee and so having those conversations are not something that I'm opposed to but I and that's why I'm disappointed that this is worded in a way that I can't support it because we're binding
people this is an action this is saying we are going to do something and if your desired result is to have the conversation then let's have the conversation and not put it in a format in which people can't support it and are already coming to the table in a way that they in a mindset they really don't want to be in with it because they know there's an action here on it therefore they can't support it so you can't have that you can still have a conversation but I don't think it's achieving what you want by having it on a larger
scale and so i i don't know that there's what the options are since there's a motion in a second on it but i i do wish that you wouldn't change the wording on this so that we could move it forward in a way that people can engage in it more because it does need to be highlighted and i do believe members are on here for a lot of different reasons but the kids all the kids not some of the kids and i bet we all have different motivating factors of why we're here you know and and just i hope that you will consider that and I hope my fellow members that I mean I don't think this needs to
move forward because I don't think it's going to get the desired result if it moves forward out of this committee the way it is right now and for that reason
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
59:55
I won't be voting for it. Vice Chair Bentley
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
59:58
you recognized. Thank you Chairman. Representative Shepard I admire you greatly and I thank you for bringing this before us today. It's a very needed topic. I would ask that you would pull this and bring in an interim study because this committee really wants to study this and I would be more than happy to work with you on interim study because that's what I'm going to do with a couple
things that I'm not going to be able to get finished this session as well. I know you're passionate about it. I would ask that you would let me help you word an interim study and bring that interim study to this committee so this committee can do the study that you want during the interim because we're happy to do that. So I would just make that suggestion that you would let us have an interim study and let this committee in between now and next session and make some real studies and do what we need to do. The results you're wanting, I think we're going to do with an interim study, and I would ask that you would let me help you with that.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:00:48
Okay, we have a motion, but I can defer to you as the bill sponsor for what your
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:01:02
You're welcome. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just in, first of all, absolutely needed to see where we are with the juvenile justice system and utilizing the research that you have already, that's placed within the resolution from a previous study.
That's what you are going based on, right? Yes? Okay. I think, however, that the issue comes from you're wanting to provide awareness and you want to do the study and we would expect some action, but the action is here, the steps here that would be recommended, it's already written. So maybe it's almost like do a study and then, yes, we're going to have outcomes,
but we're going to do these things as well without looking at the results of the study, outcomes, and now let's move in and address this plan because we need this plan to take place. That's kind of how I'm seeing it. And so in lines 18 where the questions are that have come up several times, where there exists an urgent need for construction renovation, we know all of that. That's needed.
We know there are rats in the cells where the students are, and that this is overseen by the Division of Youth Services, and to implement the reform plan proposed by this resolution, period. Because then, if you do it like that, just then to replace the facilities, all of that information is. In other words, a study hasn't happened. We do the study. We see the outcomes.
Now, here's the plan, and now let's move this plan forward. I think that's what I wanted to share. It just seems like it's the cart before the horse, so to speak. The study is absolutely necessary. The other study that you cited prior to, it was a while back, and there's definitely a need to have another study um but it would really be great to see what the outcomes of that of the of your study that you're wanting to do and then the the recommendations and then follow
those recommendations i just wanted to share that okay
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:03:38
thank you representative shepherd we have a motion do pass on the table you have the option to proceed with that motion or pull your concurrent resolution down for further action?
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:03:50
I'm going to pull it down for further action and then bring it back. Okay.
I will make the changes. I appreciate you all. What my mission today here was I think
has been accomplished in regards to getting bipartisan support and people will begin to look at what's happening with juvenile justice in Arkansas, which is what I wanted. So yes, Madam Chair. I'll gladly pull
it down and bring it back. Thank you for bringing
Speaker 45
1:04:18
it and thank you for pulling it down to work on it.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:04:23
Thank you so much. Okay, committee. We are going to move to Senate Bill 371 by Senator Scott to be presented by Representative Brooks. And we do have an
amendment that will be coming around. You may go ahead and introduce yourself and you'll be recognized to present
the amendment once the members have it.
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:05:10
Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. Keith Brooks, Representative of District 78. The amendment that Blake is passing out is simply adding Representative Jay Richardson and Representative Barnes as co-sponsor on this bill. Are there any questions on the amendment? Would you like to close for your amendment? I'm close for amendment.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:05:37
motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor, say aye.
Speaker 58
1:05:41
Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations. You're recognized to present your
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:05:47
bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Senate Bill 371 as amended. My friend Senator Jamie Scott does an outstanding job of providing me with great notes. And so I'm going to rely very heavily on those this morning. So the language for 371 was drafted by our partners at the state police. Senator Scott had reached out to them last summer where there was a situation from a principal from one of her school districts about an elementary student who had a disability that
went missing. However, the student did not meet the criteria for an Amber Alert. There's a very stringent criteria for what an Amber Alert is. We're all familiar with those. We get those on our phones. So BLR did research to look at what the alert system was, what statute did, and also what other states did relative to child alerts. I looked at 18 states that had different types of approaches, and they came up with this approach to basically expand the opportunity for an alert for a juvenile in certain situations.
Several states have something similar. Texas, Florida have a very similar setup for them. This did pass out of the Senate 34-0 yesterday. So basically what this does is it establishes a standardized missing child alert system for cases that don't meet the strict criteria for Amber Alerts. So the problem is that the Amber Alert system requires evidence of abduction, and proof that the child is in immediate danger. However, many missing children situations don't fit those very stringent requirements, and so there is no alert in that.
And so, again, her specific situation with a principal who contacted her was a very concerning situation. So what this does, we've got hundreds of children who go missing annually that don't trigger any type of alert. What this bill does is this creates a new alert system for kids who don't qualify. It's a statewide notification process. The alerts are issued through the existing system, which is law enforcement, media, digital highway signage, similar to kind of what you see with like a silver alert that a lot of times we'll see on the news. The criteria for the alert is the child must be under the age of 18.
Law enforcement must determine that the child is missing and that their whereabouts are unknown. And the child is believed to be in potential danger as assessed by law enforcement, even if an abduction is not suspected. Collaborate with state agencies, so partner with the Arkansas State Police, who again did write the legislation, Office of Emergency Management, and coordinate with schools and child welfare agencies to improve the response. So, bottom line goal of this, this is to improve our notification system for children who may be in danger but don't meet those strict criteria.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:08:25
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Are there questions by committee? Seeing none, we do have one signed up to speak for the bill. Michael Lindsay, if
Michael Lindsay
Unverified
1:08:45
you will introduce yourself, you will be recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Michael Lindsay, and I'm here representing myself as an individual, my beautiful, wonderful wife, Toni, who is, I'm sure, watching on the live stream, and our very rambunctious six-year-old son, Thomas.
Thomas, as I said, is a very rambunctious and smart young man, but he also has developmental disabilities. And while he is much more than his diagnosis, it is a diagnosis that causes us as parents to be more mindful and thoughtful about his future and how he's seen and interacted with by others, even those in authority. We are here to urge support for Senate Bill 371. I want to thank Senator Scott and Representative Brooks and all the co-sponsors for bringing this bill to you today. Our child has a very limited vocabulary and does not communicate exceptionally well.
His mother and I often struggle. He often struggles to communicate his name, his address, and other important pieces of information that a neurotypical child might be able to provide, which would be helpful in reuniting them with their parents. This piece of legislation fills a critical need, fills a need to fill a gap in our current Amber Alert system and equip the public, the public and safety officers with the tools needed to better ensure a swift and safe recovery. It will provide necessary safety measures and awareness that our community requires to help law enforcement to be alerted quicker
and bring these very special children home in a more efficient manner and more successfully. In many instances, these children with intellectual and developmental disabilities cannot communicate their personal information. Often they don't recognize their surroundings, are scared and not able to communicate, and may not even be able to understand or follow the most basic of instructions. Senate Bill 371 would establish a standardized system to help bring home these endangered children who may have physical, mental, or cognitive impairments in a swift manner.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:10:39
We would encourage a good vote on this bill. Thank you. Thank
you. Are there any questions for this witness? Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no one else signed up, do we have
Speaker 45
1:10:56
anyone in the audience that would like to speak for
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:10:59
or against this bill? Okay, seeing none, would you like to close for your bill? I would like to thank Michael and Tony for sharing their story as a dad who many years ago experienced some of the same challenges relative to a child who may not have the best
ability to communicate and some of the challenges they face certainly resonates very well with me, which is one purpose behind this bill. So with that, I am closed and I'd make a motion to pass.
Speaker 58
1:11:25
Do pass as amended, right? As amended, yes. Thank you. Thanks for helping me out. We have a
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:11:34
do pass as amended. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Gonzalez-Worthin, you recognize? Thank you for bringing this bill. I will be supporting it, and I have seen instances, being an educator for over 35 years, where this has happened,
where a child has gotten away on the playground very quick and then looking for them, but it doesn't meet the Amber Alert. So this will also be very helpful in the school system as well. So I appreciate. Thank you. Representative Eaton, you're recognized.
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:12:07
Thank you. I do have an auto-down syndrome. I'd certainly appreciate the thought behind this. But we passed earlier this session, HB 1523, which was the purple alert system.
That's for people with delays of some type. That was an adult system. Was there any thought of just combining this instead of making another alert? Is that discussion on the
Speaker 51
1:12:30
motion or? Yes, I was actually asking or meant that
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:12:32
to be phrased as, did you consider that? I don't know that we can have question
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:12:38
and answer longer since we're on to a motion. Offline, maybe you can talk with him about that. I'll be happy to discuss it offline, yes.
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
1:12:49
Representative Nazarene. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative Brooks, for bringing this. And please pass on my thanks to Senator Scott as well. So I'm a pilot for Baxter County Sheriff's Office and a reserve deputy. One of my last calls that I've flown on was for a child that would fit in this category. And it's very important, and this can kind of go on to the discussion that Representative Eaton brought up, one of the most important things is that scene.
You know, we bring all those different agencies in, you know, and it's not an Amber Alert because it doesn't qualify. But I still need dog teams. I still need, you know, these other folks in there. And so this is very important because then it's going to be a system that gets in place. And that's what we need to do is, like, anything that's going to help find
that child quickly and get them back to safety. So thank you very much for bringing this great bill. Any more discussion
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:13:46
on the motion? Okay, we have a do pass as amended. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed, no? Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. Okay, last on our agenda today is Senate Bill 340, and we have an amendment on that, as well as two handouts. So you have some papers coming your way. Vice Chair Bentley, if you'll go ahead and introduce yourself, then once everyone has the amendment, you are recognized to present Senate Bill 340. Recognized to present your amendment.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:14:21
Thank you, Chairman. State Representative Mary Bentley, District 54. Happy to bring Senate Bill 340 to you
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:14:35
guys today. And while she's passed out the amendment, I'll just let you guys know this amendment is really just technical stuff that needed to be changed, and the dates and different things that needed to be changed in the bill. There's nothing substantive in this amendment, just strictly doing some technical changes that need to be made. this bill and I'll let you guys look at it and we'll go from there.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:15:20
Okay, as far as the amendment goes, not the handouts, but the amendment goes, as you're reading it, I'll go
Speaker 225
1:15:39
ahead and open up in case there are questions on the amendment.
Speaker 34
1:15:50
Seeing none, would you like to close for your amendment? Yeah, just really some technical language that needed to be added to the bill. And with that, I'd make a motion to do pass on the amendment. Okay, we have a motion
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:16:05
to adopt the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, you've adopted your amendment and may present Senate Bill 340
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:16:12
as amended. Thank you, Chairman. With your permission, I'd like to bring Kesa Smith up here, the Executive Director of Arkansas Advocates
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:16:17
for Women and Children. I'm happy to work with her on a bill today. bring her up to the
Speaker 229
1:16:31
table to help. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Kesa Smith and I am the
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:16:36
Executive Director of Arkansas Advocates. I just want to quickly say that I've lived in Perry County for 50 years where I live now and we have some serious issues with our juvenile court system there. We're part of Pulaski County, but I'm very disappointed in our juvenile system there. I just hear complaints all the time what's going on there, so I'm very open to changes. This is something new, something different. I'm a great fan of Senator Alan Clark. I'll just say it up front that he's done some great things and really willing to look outside the box. I'm also a member of ALEC. You guys have a letter there of support of this from ALEC that we just treat children
differently than we treat adults, that this really gets rid of punishment and we want to do correction. We want kids to do better. I think the juvenile court system should be saying that we're looking for changes in children and treat them totally different than we would with adults. So I'm always open to new and fresh ideas and I think this is really to me a great way for us to maybe look at things totally different. I know it's totally new. I know that you guys maybe thought this might go to judiciary instead of you guys but we're all about children in this committee. I think it's really I'm really excited that we can have some fresh eyes look at people that really aren't looking at the court system all the time. I think it's great
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:17:39
for us to look at that you guys are more than more than adequate to hear
Speaker 232
1:17:43
this bill and with that I'm going to lead it to Kesa. So thank you committee. I will start by saying on top of being the executive director of this organization I am an attorney and I think most relevant to the discussion we're going to have here today. Prior to this role I served as deputy director for the department of human services for nine and a half years and in that capacity I had several divisions but one of them was the division of youth services until we hired
director Michael Crump who I think has stepped out of the the room we had a series of of directors and I actually had to serve as the director of DYS several times and I will say that I would not be here if I felt that this would this bill would harm the juvenile justice system I am truly invested in our children and making the system rehabilitative for our children which is the purpose of it to describe what the bill does it is straightforward but the impact of it is complex and you will hear
about that today what it does and you'll see when you go through it including the technical corrections on the amendment is goes through the juvenile code and takes out the ability to assess fines and fees on juveniles in every place that you see that. And so what that in essence means is that a court cannot assess fees associated with probation or diversion services that children are receiving. It also means things like they will not be required to pay fees tied to receiving
counseling or receiving psychiatric evaluations. Separate and apart from this bill is SB 341. they go together, though. One of the main things, and this bill has come before you all, the legislative body before, but one of the main changes that we made this time around was that we did not want to harm the courts. We did not want courts to look and say we cannot provide the services that we need. We cannot provide the diversion that we need. We utilize critical services, and so what we did was we had a separate and appropriation SB 341 that serves to
replace the fines that are being assessed on the families. The purpose of that is, again, to make this system whole. You've already heard testimony today about it being under-resourced, and we, again, do not want to harm it. On top of the many things that this bill does, it does not touch restitution. If a child in the commission of a crime has harmed individuals, has harmed property, that child and their family should repay and make that victim whole. So we are not
advocating that there is not responsibility that needs to be had by the children that have committed the crime. But again, as we said, this is a focus on rehabilitation. Senator Clark filed this bill in 2021, and then Representative Hodges filed this bill in 2023, and now Senator Clark is filing it again in 2025. I have not been with my organization all that long. I've been here for two years. When I looked at the bill, I was skeptical at first. I know many of the individuals in the
judiciary, and I was concerned about what this may potentially be, what impact this may have. And so we started a conversation almost two years ago about what the judiciary would need to be held whole. We have had multiple conversations. We've had some through Freedom of Information Act requests, some through BLR surveys, trying to get to an accurate number. And the reality of trying to get to an accurate number is the fact that courts are different across the state.
What happens in Pulaski County is not what happens in Union County, and it's not what happens in Benton County. So I understand the complexity of trying to get to a number to hold the judiciary whole. But the reality is that when we look at a child who is entering the system, the goal of the juvenile justice system is for that child's behavior to change. for us to provide services so that that child is not doing the same thing at 22 that they were doing at 14.
The question is, and the question that we will discuss today is, is making a child, and in essence their family, pay fines the correction that is going to be, the tool that is needed for a child's behavior to change. And what we have found is that there is plenty of evidence that shows things like community service, diversion programs, et cetera, are the keys to changing a child's behavior. Holding a fine over that child and the family is not necessarily what will lead to change behavior.
And if we are serious about recidivism and if we are serious about children not ultimately becoming, excuse me, the juvenile system not becoming a pipeline for these children to ultimately go into the adult correction system, then we have the opportunity to change how we are treating these cases. And so we were truly asking that you will consider, give this a yes vote. As I said, I recognize that the system is under-resourced, and we are not trying to harm it.
But we have to make changes because you will hear directly from families that were impacted by this. And I would, you know, I know that some of our fines and fees are limited and capped. But the reality is for families that are struggling, they are not able to make these payments and it is exacerbating a situation. And so we need to look at the situation differently because, again, the goal is change behavior for our children so that we can ensure that they change the pathway of their life.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:23:49
So with that said. Well, we have to
Chair
Unverified
1:23:53
take questions if anybody has any on the committee before we get started.
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:23:59
Are there questions from the committee? Representative Barnes, you recognize? I have a question. How are you all going to recoup the fines that are lost by not taking up these fees? And are
they guaranteed that each court should get those? We filed an appropriate SB 341 is an appropriation in budget. So there is money over there in appropriation to recoup the fees that they would be getting if they did fees and fines.
So we don't want, again, we're not trying to harm the court, not trying to harm COSA or anybody that's getting funding, which we're funding it differently. We want to do it through an appropriation in general revenue because sometimes gathering funds is more costly than the fine itself. So I think you can see it sometimes, especially with a small amount, that by the time you recoup the funds, you spent more money getting the funds than you would have if you just did an appropriation. So if there's an appropriation that's been filed to
recoup the funds. So, again, you are saying those funds are guaranteed to those judges for their courts.
Chair
Unverified
1:24:54
Yes, that's what we're taking it up. They will get those funds. Yes. That's what Senator Clark
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:25:06
has done, yes. Thank you so much. Representative Duke, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my first question is, who sets the fines in these different courts for these different individuals? Who sets the fines? Judges
do. Okay, follow up. And so the judges in those areas, are they elected or appointed? They would be elected.
So they're elected in each of those areas, in those counties or whatever, on that issue.
So I can get back in the queue or do one more. Okay, I'm sorry. So the people of the
county, if they're not happy with how the system's working there, they could vote out the judges that are not, you know, reflecting their values or how they think that should be working. They can locally vote them out. Unfortunately,
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:25:52
yeah. But in Perry County, we cannot.
We don't elect the juvenile judges. It's all through Pulaski County. So most counties, I would say yes. But in my county where I live, no. Judges that are representing the youth in my county,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:26:03
they're not elected by the people in my county. Is that the norm? That's not the norm, but I'm the abnormal.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:26:09
Okay. Do you know how many are in that same vote? Do you know how many other counties are in that same situation? I'm sure most other
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:26:16
counties are, but in our county, the juvenile judges are not voted in by
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:26:21
Perry County. Okay, that is fascinating. learn something new every day. I'll step out. Representative Springer, you're recognized for
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:26:29
a question. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Madam Director, for being here. I do have a question about the appropriation. You said Senate Bill 340. How much? Is it Senate bill 340 or 341 right now what is the
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:26:48
amount that's being the amount right now is 141 but again we can um add to that we're
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:26:55
just trying to get when uh senator clark has been working diligent
trying to find out what that amount needed to be um and we can is
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:27:03
willing to change that and increase it but right now
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:27:07
it's at 140 000 oh follow up what is that amount based upon what what are the
Speaker 232
1:27:13
line items within that budget amount so the the amount that it currently has is based on the five-year, like I said, in 2021 was the first time this bill was filed, and so since then there's been a series of information requests that have been requested of the judiciary in order
to get to a total. At the time that this was filed, from doing analysis of the data that was collected, it looked as though there was only 140,000. We've had multiple conversations since then. We've talked about figures, you know, significantly higher than that. And so we are open, we being our coalition, Senator Clark and Representative Bentley are open to raising the number. We just have to have justification for where the number comes from. All right. So your appropriation doesn't have a figure then? Is
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:27:58
that what you did? No, the appropriation currently has
140,000. All right. So does that appropriation include the court appointed advocates, the CASA persons that are utilized by these judges? So it's not lined
Speaker 232
1:28:13
out where it specifically addresses CASA, but it is trying to address the fines and fees that this bill takes away. And one of the things, one of the programs that juvenile judges have the discretion to pay for in the statute is through CASA, excuse me, is CASA. And so again, when we were looking to make the judiciary whole, it was in consideration of the fact that this could potentially impact
programs like that. And again, as I said, you know, I previously worked at DHS. I know the importance of CASA and their impact on child welfare. We would not want to harm that. And so that's why we're asking, you know, what is the amount that judges are collecting so we can make sure to replace
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:28:56
that? Last question. I'll get back in the queue. So we don't know the amount that will be affected by deleting these persons. So is that basically what you're saying? If they're going to be deleted or you don't know what that cost is going to be.
Speaker 232
1:29:13
tied to the data that was submitted to us through multiple requests. We have still been in conversations as of yesterday talking to the Administrative Office of the Courts about whether or not there was a final figure. And I am still very open, I know our sponsors are, to getting to an accurate number
Speaker 243
1:29:29
so that we avoid harm. Well, hopefully then that I think that we have some judges
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:29:35
here, maybe they can tell us more about what those persons do, and I'll just get back into the queue and how many there are.
Chair
Unverified
1:29:43
Thank you. Representative Duke, you recognize? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just ask one that I had on
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:29:50
this. Do you know, when we're talking about these fees, and you, I think, mentioned in the testimony or whatever, that the hardship that it can be on families that are struggling to meet their families, Do you know if systems and judges will waive those fees or have a history of waiving those fees if they are made aware and know that there is a family who is struggling financially? Absolutely. So that's already happening. Yes.
Speaker 232
1:30:13
This is not a bill to villainize the judiciary. There are many, many judges who will look at the capacity for families to pay, and if, in fact, they do not have the ability, will either not assess fees, or if a child is compliant with all the things they have to do in a case, they will waive them at the end. The problem is that that is not universal across all courts, and so it is hard to address the members of the judiciary who don't consider someone's ability to pay and don't look
to waive those fees at the end of the case. Like I said, I respect highly the individuals that are in this room. I know that they treat those cases and look at those cases and waive and they consider the families, but I wouldn't be here if every single juvenile judge in
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:31:09
the state did that. Representative Torres, you're recognized. So just to clarify, would it be an accurate statement to say that this would basically transition the fines and court costs to the Arkansas taxpayers
rather than the parents of these children?
Speaker 232
1:31:25
This would move the cost to the state of Arkansas. But again, we have a system that is under-resourced, and respectfully, I don't believe that judges who are trying to run their
Speaker 230
1:31:36
court system should have to try to figure out how to make up shortfalls through fines on a family that's going through the court
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:31:44
system. Okay, so help me understand,
how can the parents be held responsible for the things that are going on? I mean, what deterrence is there if the parents aren't going to be held accountable for fines and court costs?
Speaker 232
1:31:56
So I think there's a number of things that the judiciary can think of as it relates to the child's behavior and what accountability they're requiring of the parent. You know, if a child is 13 and having to go to, you know, meet a probation officer or having to go to some diversion program where they're providing community service, that parent is right alongside with them if they're going to be compliant. So I don't necessarily believe that the only way that parents are held responsible is to say they have to pay $500. And I think we also have to consider, if we have a 15-year-old who's getting in repeat trouble,
is the fact that my parent has to pay that $500 going to make my behavior change. And as someone who has a child, who thankfully is grown now, I think when she was 14 or 15, she may not have been all that considerate of what was going on in my bank account in terms of her behavior. And so I think that we need to think about different solutions. And, again, I think that there is obviously a role for parents, and they need to be engaged in helping their child, again, change their behavior,
but is saying that they have to pay $500 at the end of the day of a case what's going to make sure that we ensure that
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:33:14
that behavior changes. Yeah, I just think that if I were hit with a $500 fine or court cost or whatever as a parent, I would be the change agent as it relates to that
Speaker 230
1:33:25
child's behavior real fast. Yeah, and definitely respect that, but I will also say I think that the individuals in the justice system
Speaker 232
1:33:33
who see these cases will say, that's not a guarantee either. And the main goal is for the child's behavior to change, and so if we know that that fine is not 100% something that works in every case, then we should look
Chair
Unverified
1:33:48
at what actually does work. Representative Carr, you recognize for a question? Okay. Representative
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:33:56
Barnes, you recognize? What number of judges that are against this? Have you
Speaker 230
1:34:05
know. I only laugh because, again, I'm glad to be able to count members of the judiciary as friends.
I will say that the judges that are in the room are not for this bill, and likely many of
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:34:20
their colleagues. The reason I ask the question, because I think the collecting of the money is not totally to make the parents, I guess, pay for the crime or whatever it comes across. But, you know, in my experience of dealing with juveniles, we have a pilot program in
Jespern County that I've been running for about, up until this year, about eight, about five years. We pay juveniles $11 an hour for community service on Saturdays. And there are some parents that are so lazy, they won't even bring kids out for the $11. There are some that, you know, say he don't want to work in the hot sun and all this kind of stuff. So I heard a colleague, yeah, and it's got to be some accountability.
I'm a little worried that if we pay for it, the taxpayers pay for it, that we are excluding them from any accountability. In every case, it's not a not-guilty case. Many
of these cases are repeated offenses, and we have to do something to get the parent to understand the gravity
of what their children are doing. So I just don't know if taxpayers paying for it is making a lot of sense to me.
Chair
Unverified
1:35:53
Thanks. Representative Carr, you're recognized for a question.
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:35:57
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know you'd said something there, not to be concerned about funding the programs because there's another bill coming along. Any guarantee 341 will pass if this one passes? Well, I mean, I can't
Speaker 230
1:36:12
speak for the legislature. I would hope that that would be the case, and I will say, and I will not
Speaker 232
1:36:17
attempt to say that the governor has signed off on this bill, but the governor's office has, we've sat down with them, they have been advised of this.
They have been advised of the fact that we had an appropriation bill. They did not say don't run it. We have not heard further from that. So, again, I can't guarantee what this body will decide to do, but I will say that, you know, we work closely to move that forward. And I would say this
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:36:40
is past the Senate committee and the Senate floor, so I would tell you it doesn't come here without some support from the other end of the chamber.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:36:47
Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any other questions about committee?
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:36:56
Representative Eaton, you're recognized. Sorry, I didn't see
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
1:36:59
your... That's okay. I've tried a couple times. My mic keeps going off. Question. You did say earlier that the judges use this as a tool, some judges? Some judges, yes. So why would we take away tools from a judge that
Speaker 232
1:37:16
again, the goal is not to hamper the judges. The goal is to provide services that we feel is tied to rehabilitations of a child. And I know that, you know, in this discussion, we're having a lot of discussions about parents.
I know there's a lot of frustration about parents' engagement when children get into trouble. But again, the question is the goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate the child. And the way that that happens is through evidence-based programs that change the behavior. It's about holding them responsible and holding them accountable. It's about making the parent be engaged in that process as well. And so, again, if someone could show me that 100% of the time that a parent was fined,
that that child's behavior was changed, I would not be before you today. But that is not what we've seen. And I do believe that judges need more opportunities. They need more resources. That's why we've asked for this appropriation so that they can have those tools and that they can keep their discretion on what happens with a child, but not just a placement of a fine with the hope that a parent will make sure a behavior changes or hope that a child is influenced by that fine.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:38:30
Representative Eaton, if you look at the letter that you received there from ALEC, ALEC is a very conservative organization that I've been
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:38:36
a part of for a long time, and we're not apt to hurt taxpayers. But at the end of the day, we want things that work. And I think everybody in this room would say and have heard, the juvenile justice system is broken, and what we're doing is not working. We want to make some changes, and I'd love Arkansas to be one of the states that is looking at something in a whole new direction that can agree that what we're doing is not working. We're on a different day and age. I think we need to look at things differently for the youth,
and I'm just, again, coming from my county where I've lived for a long time. I think we need to do something different. I think what we're doing is not working. I think the system is broken, and we're bringing you away just to think and to open up the box and look, can we look at something, can we change things that we're doing and bring a different approach to it, and that's what the goal is for today. So thank you. Representative Duffield recognized for
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:39:25
a question thank you madam chair thank you so much for bringing this I know our priority here again is always the children and
and seeing that they can can get the care they need I think one of the biggest concerns that that I've received from from judges and the colleagues here has to do with this appropriation representative Bentley and I believe you said that right now it's a hundred and something thousand dollars and the number that has been communicated to me and again I haven't seen a breakdown of this is quite a bit higher than that at about one million dollars. What would be the process for that appropriation to move from the one hundred and something thousand dollar
number up up to where according to these judges it would be enough to to
fund what it is they're trying to accomplish. I would say there's going to be
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:40:14
some data that's been asked for to be released so that it can be an accurate accounting office of the courts or whatever to get, because it's been some four years in place. Again, Senator Clark's been at this for five years to get an accurate number, so with some accurate data, I'm sure the appropriation would go to where it needs to be. It would have to be accurate data to back it up. I know that Senator Clark's more than willing to adjust that, and I know again, I know this is
an awkward place to put us, but we have to have accurate data. You and I would have to both have that
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:40:42
to make the increase. Follow up, please. So, just to clarify, the effort has been made for the past five years to contact these judges to get this data on how much money they are currently spending on these programs? Yes, sir.
And that has not been provided? Correct. Okay, thank
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:41:03
you. Representative Springer, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Bentley, I'm just looking at, we were in joint budget this morning,
and that bill is, Senate Bill 341 is still on the agenda.
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:41:19
Is that not correct? Yes, Senator Clark is working
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:41:26
on that. I'm sorry. So he's doing that piece
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:41:30
of it. Are there other questions by committee? Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Gonzalez-Werthin, you're recognized. Yes. Thank you for your bill that definitely needed, But I do have a question, and you mentioned that there's at least 20 other states that have done away with the juvenile justice fines and fees, et cetera, and really relying more on rehabilitation methods or steps for the student or the child to follow.
Can you elaborate on what some of these other states are doing in lieu of fines? But how are they rehabbing students, the juveniles, without the fine fee structure? And so it's very similar
Speaker 229
1:42:21
to the bill that we're presenting to
Speaker 230
1:42:23
you today, which is, you know, this is not magic. You do have to find money from another source to make sure that
Speaker 232
1:42:33
the system is whole. But they do really lean into those diversion and alternative processes.
And so you provide the funding for that and definitely make sure that you're doing things like community service, diversion program. There are many judges that are truly invested in electronic monitoring, making sure that the child is being compliant. Those things, you know, we still see in other states. They're just funded through another source. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:43:07
by committee? Representative Nazarenko, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
1:43:11
On that question, do we have the data that shows what's been the outcome of that? So those other states that have actually
enacted this, do we have the data that shows they have been successful or are they still
Speaker 230
1:43:23
working that? So mostly what we've been looking at is Louisiana and Texas because we felt like those are states that are really most comparable to our systems. I mean,
Speaker 232
1:43:32
so far, they're still in the process. I think there's still kinks in working out the process. But we think, from what we can see, it's working, and it's still going on,
and they haven't reverted and made changes to go back to putting the fines back in
Speaker 265
1:43:49
place. How long has that been enacted over there? I
Speaker 232
1:43:53
believe I'm probably going to misspeak on that. I believe that Louisiana instituted maybe five years ago, but I would have to double check. But there's no,
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
1:44:01
like, data that you've got, just kind of like that they haven't pulled it. Right. I mean, there's no
Speaker 265
1:44:08
indication that they've pulled it or that there's intention to pull it. Okay.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:44:13
Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other questions by
Speaker 33
1:44:20
committee? Okay. We have several signed up to speak on the bill today.
Speaker 58
1:44:25
I'm just going to go down the list. First, Nanachka Phillips, and I hope I did not
Speaker 276
1:44:33
butcher your first name. If you will introduce
Speaker 58
1:44:37
yourself, then you're recognized to speak. My name is Ninojka Phillips.
Speaker 277
1:44:43
Thank you for allowing me to speak. I almost teared up when you spoke because I, too, remember the day I got the phone call for my 15-year-old at the time, them being arrested at school. We had just moved into the area, new school for him, new home for me. And when he got to the school, someone said something inappropriate to him
that I think even as adults, if that was said to us, there will be consequences, whether legal in that capacity or illegal. He was arrested because he did retaliate and he was sent to the juvenile justice department. I probably cried for the next 24 hours because I didn't know what to do. Single mom and at the time probably I'm still working three jobs. I was working three jobs then
and i didn't know what to do i had no resources i didn't have no one to call and say hey can you help me in this situation i did try to go and get him out and they told me no um with that he end up spending 45 days for
Speaker 278
1:46:21
a fight. And I just had no power in the situation. I'm not
Speaker 277
1:46:25
sure what I could have done at the time. The only time that I had with him was 10 minutes a day. I remember in school, and this was 100 years ago, and you may have gotten a suspension, but he was punished twice. When he got out, he still had to sit out of school for X amount of days. As a single mom, there was no way I could have been able to afford anything that the judge or whomever would have imposed on him or myself as a parent. I don't know what the other side
looks like. I just know what my side looks like. And that's, no, I did not have the resources to pay for anything. Just trying to get him out was my main focus. And all of the support that I thought I had was not there. I had this six or seven pages full of everything that I needed to do as a parent along with working with him. However, when I'm trying to do those things and follow up with everything that they required of him, there was a block.
The therapist could not get in. No one could get into the system. This is after COVID, I imagine. That could have been probably one of the reasons. Nobody could help his situation because there was a block for juvenile. So the therapist couldn't come in to see him. He couldn't go out to any type of service to utilize any services outside of that. So that also was a block for me. He just had to sit there for 45 days for a fight at school.
I don't know what I could have done as a parent to prevent that because I want him to be able to stand up for himself but not in a physical capacity. And the only thing I really can say on that is that I feel like that 45 days impacted him because he ended up not having the support he needed in my opinion and then when he got out the services that were there for him were so poor that we both gave up there was a different
therapist every other week nobody stayed in their positions long his doctor's appointments was like six months out for what he needed for that specific thing and again just as a single parent I felt like I just had no support in the situation I feel still to this day terrible that he had to spend 45 days in school for a fight none of the um I think I mentioned uh so I've heard community service none of that was um offered and again I'm like it was a fight he didn't have a weapon
it was a fight the other kid did not receive the same um punishment and again i just 45 days was i feel like i can't think of the word but i just don't think it was right um and that's that's what i have thank you
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:49:34
are there questions for this witness Representative Magruder, you recognize? During that, thank
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
1:49:42
you so much for coming and sharing your story.
During that incident that occurred, did you have to take off work? I did, multiple times. You
Speaker 277
1:49:55
had to take off work multiple times. And I only could speak to him while I was at work because they only gave me the time from whatever, Up 6 to 6.30 was the small window that I had to be able to speak to him, and
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
1:50:10
then the call was only 10 minutes long. Okay, when you were, were there any hearings that you had to attend also? Yes, yes. And when fines were issued, you had to take off work,
so you were losing pay also to go to these hearings. So were there ever times when you had to make a choice of whether I have to pay bills at the house
Speaker 277
1:50:38
or pay these fines? I did have that thought. Unfortunately, I didn't have to pay. I think maybe that was because of my situation, but I did take off. I took off to go to court.
I took off to bring him things that I needed. I took off to even try to go through the list of what the court asked me to do for him because I didn't know what I was supposed to do. So I had to literally take off, go to the juvenile department to speak to the social workers on staff to figure out how to be able to implement everything that they wanted me to do for him during that time. So I definitely lost money over all of it.
But if fines were in, it would have only been court costs or trying to get an attorney. I had to get an attorney for him and everything, which ended up being a public defender. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:51:42
Yes. Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Absolutely. Oh,
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:51:47
I'm sorry. Yes. You recognize me. I have one question. You say your son was in a fight. At school. Okay. Did that fight, once they determined the outcome, in the visit they were fighting, he was fighting,
was it a battery or did he harm that person? Did that person go to the hospital and was harmed? The person did not go to the hospital. They were
not harmed? Did they have physical? Because it's not just a regular fight, and I was just trying to make sure if there's injury, then it raises the level of the offense. that's how that's the only reason i wanted to know it was terroristic threatening okay okay
okay so those are the offenses yeah okay that's that's what i wanted it it was a fight that i mean he
Speaker 277
1:52:34
was punished twice and then i still like it was a lot around just just that moment we had just got into the neighborhood we had just got to the school um it's i don't think he wanted to hurt the person it's just who he you know his own body makeup of and the person i don't know i'm not trying to defend his action um but i think it was a little much that he received what he received
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
1:53:07
Father. Yes, I understand as a parent, I'm a father, but also there's law, and I'm just, from a law perspective, they look at a regular fight, just a scrap between two guys. That's one thing, but if there's an injury which brings harm to the opposite person, when you said terroristic threatening, that's really, that elevates now. So that's what created the heightening of the situation
that's all I'm saying no offense I'm a father I understand you worry about your child
Speaker 278
1:53:43
I understand that thank you and so I'll respond to that quickly I don't know what
Speaker 277
1:53:49
he looked like because I was only called to say he was being arrested he could have been hurt too he went straight from there to juvenile without me and he's 15 at this time so I just think all of it was just not right whether the guy was not harmed when he went to
the hospital because boys fight and they tussle all the time up in the schools I see it I was a substitute and nothing happens so they elevated it to that particular crime because they might have wanted to or whatever but my son I never saw him I don't know what kind of what he endured and I didn't even ask if he was hurt in the situation. He just told me what happened, and I was like, well, that's just a fight. And then he was in there for 45 days instead of saying, hey, okay,
we're going to release you to your mom, and then we're going to give you community service every weekend or whatever the situation could have been. But for him to be in there 45 days I thought was a bit much at his age, in my opinion. And me not to see him physically for myself, I don't know what he looked like because I didn't see him for 45 days. Thank you, and
Speaker 33
1:55:09
thank you for your testimony. Next to speak on the bill is Will Cheatham.
Will Cheatham
Unverified
1:55:17
Please introduce yourself, and you'll be recognized. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Will Cheatham. I am the Arkansas State Director for Right on Crime. At Right on Crime, we support conservative criminal justice solutions resulting in less crime, fewer victims, and safer communities. And we believe our criminal justice system should absolutely function to deter and punish dangerous criminals, but it should also rehabilitate low-risk offenders and do everything we can to try to put an end to
the cycle of recidivism. This bill recognizes that our youth are the most vulnerable population and they have the most potential for rehabilitation as they're maturing. Saddling these kids and their families with debt that most of them can't afford really, you know, it does very little to deter kids from a life of crime. And early intervention is really a conservative solution to be a good steward of our tax dollars and create stronger and safer communities. And most importantly, you know, this bill, H.P. 340, gives Arkansas children a real chance to turn their lives around before it's too late.
And for that reason, we are in support. Thank you
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:56:28
for your time. Thank you. Are there questions for
this witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next, and I believe all
Speaker 34
1:56:38
the judges are going to come together. We get a package of judges today. Judge Braswell, Judge Bird, Judge Medlock, Judge Broadway.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:56:47
And if you will all please introduce yourself, you'll be recognized.
Speaker 302
1:56:54
You can fit around. Judge Medlock, 21st Judicial Circuit, which is Crawford County.
Speaker 58
1:57:14
Thank you, and if you'll only have one mic on at a
Speaker 303
1:57:20
time, it will help us all to hear you better. I'm Judge Mary Broadway, and I represent the
Speaker 304
1:57:25
2nd Judicial District, which is Clay, Green, Craighead, Mississippi, Crittenden, and Poinsett Counties.
Speaker 306
1:57:32
I'm Tawana Bird-Manning, and I represent and was elected by the citizens to serve Pulaski and Perry Counties. We're still
Troy Braswell
Unverified
1:57:44
in the morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Troy Braswell. I have the honor of being a
Speaker 309
1:57:50
circuit judge. in the 20th Judicial District, which is Faulkner, Van Buren, and Searcy County. So we certainly appreciate the opportunity to be present today and discuss what you've been discussing all morning, quite honestly,
and that is what is the role of the juvenile court system and what are things that we have the opportunity to do to make a difference. And I appreciate Ms. Smith's presentation. She and I went to law school. I'm pretty certain she finished above me in our class. And we have worked very closely together for a long time on juvenile justice reform efforts. In fact, when this body several years ago, sessions ago, created the Juvenile Justice Reform Board,
I had the honor of serving as the chair of that reform board. I now serve in a capacity on the Supreme Court Commission for Youth and Families. We have, for several sessions now, worked very tirelessly to come up with reform efforts that are data-driven, that reduce the number of kids that come into court, reduce the number of kids that go to jail,
and reduce the number of kids that are committed ultimately to DYS. And so I hired Representative Shepard, and when she presented, and there's been more conversations about changes in reform, and I would submit to this body is we are doing that, and we need to continue to work in that area. It's interesting to note that Ms. Smith and a member of Disability Rights, which is a part of the group that's advocating for this, they are also both members of the Supreme Court Commission on Youth and Families.
We have several working committees to look at different ways that we can provide services and make an impact on youth across the state and moving away from justice by geography so that no matter where you live, you have the same opportunity to be in your community, to be lifted up and be given an opportunity to succeed. Over the several times that they have run this bill, not one time have they brought this issue before the Supreme Court Commission where we have worked tirelessly to implement a validated risk assessment tool that's now required to be used in every court across the state before someone is committed to DYS.
The use of that tool, our court had the opportunity to be a pilot court for that. Through the use of that tool, we've reduced the number of kids in the 20th Judicial District coming into court on delinquency cases by 73%. Drastically reduced the number of kids that go to jail. You've heard today from two individuals with two similar but also different experiences on what it's like to have a family member that's locked up. That is a heavy burden that we share. That is not a light decision that we make.
And so we want to make sure that courts around the state have the tools necessary to increase recidivism, to keep kids out of court, to offer these diversion programs. At
Speaker 312
2:01:06
the last legislative session, we increased the ability, amended the law, to increase the opportunities for kids to participate in diversions to keep the low-risk kids, when appropriate, out of court. And, unfortunately, right now, in the state of Arkansas, an overwhelming majority of the courts, the
Speaker 309
2:01:28
only way that they are able to function is to provide services and use funds that are in the statutory allowed fines, fees, and costs fund to provide those services.
And Representative Duffield stepped out, but Judge Coker is his judge, and he funds amazing programs, a gardening program, other diversion tools that he uses. to provide those services. And so we have had lengthy conversations. There's not a one of us up here that's saying the only way to rehabilitate youth is to find
Speaker 313
2:02:03
families. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. At the end of the day, it is a huge financial issue
Speaker 309
2:02:14
that needs to be addressed at one day, and that is a decision for these bodies to make. And so we're here today, and you can tell this is a very important issue for us, not because we want to find families and kids, but we want to help them and meet them where they are so we can keep them out of the court system. Representative Springer, you asked a great question. The money amount in Senate Bill 341, it's a guess. I've told them for years. We were here two years ago, and I said,
hey, you're asking the wrong questions to the wrong people if you want to find out what the money is. And we're still here without knowing. It's a very difficult thing to figure out, but we're willing to work. We're willing to figure it out. I don't know a judge in the state that's ordering a parent to pay for a commitment to DYS. That's in
Speaker 314
2:03:05
the statute, right? So there are things in here that, look, we're not assessing some of these things. The main issue comes down to fine fees
Speaker 309
2:03:14
and costs. And it's not a mandatory representative,
we talked about a $500 fine. That's not mandatory. that's the maximum. That's the maximum, right? And so the biggest issue is how do we continue to provide services? How do we continue to have success in different parts of the state to keep kids out of lockup, to keep them in schools, to keep them in the community? How are we going to do that if we're going to cut the funding to those courts? And that's the dilemma, I believe, that we face, and I'll stop talking because I could probably go until dinner time.
But obviously there needs to be more clarity in terms of, number one, is the state of Arkansas, is the position of this body going to be that juvenile courts are funded through general revenue? That's a question and decision for y'all to make, not for us. But if we pass 340 and 341, the concern is, what are we cutting from courts?
It did pass through Senate Judiciary. We did not have an opportunity to be present
Speaker 314
2:04:27
that night. And we were prepared for the couple days later when we thought we were going to be there. And just for those members of the Senate Judiciary, for those counties, those 13 counties, The funding through fines, fees, and costs for those areas, $500,000. That's 13 counties. And we're talking about $140,000, right? And so that becomes the issue. And so we're willing to work.
Speaker 309
2:04:52
We're willing to come to the table and do the hard work to figure out what that number looks like and then bring that back and say, if it's this body's will to fund juvenile courts through general revenue, then here would be the starting point. And I would just respectfully submit that $140,000 is nowhere close to a starting amount. The other thing is, and these are just technical
Speaker 314
2:05:13
issues, this bill also addressed district court fines and fees. We're not district court judges. We don't assess fines, fees, and costs
Speaker 309
2:05:20
in district court. I do think it's worth noting, though, if your kid gets a speeding ticket, right, right,
they're likely, I mean, now if this is the will, what will happen is you'll pay more in fines, fees, and costs for your kid getting a speeding ticket than if they break into three houses. That's
Speaker 314
2:05:39
interesting. Also, it eliminates costs for parenting classes. In my area, I don't have to charge parents for parenting classes. We have community partners. Some areas aren't as lucky. And so we're going to send families to a private company to get parenting classes. Who's going to pay for that now? So now we don't have parenting classes.
And then the AOC, they're required to go back and try to identify every outstanding fines, fees, and costs across the state and do that by next year or the end of this year, that's going to be a very difficult issue. And then lastly, and I promise it'll be quiet and I'll do that, this doesn't address FENDS cases, and I won't go off on my thing on FENDS because truancy drives me crazy. We are suffering, y'all.
We are suffering in our state from kids not going to school. and we are trying very hard to come up with alternative ways to incentivize and motivate kids and have a parent. I mean, you want to talk about what the number one program in the entire state is to get a kid back on their feet? It's a present and willing parent, period. Show me that, and I'm closing my case. You got fines and fees? They're wiped because we're ready to go. We're ready to go.
So we've got to continue to engage in those. But in Finn's case, they're not even asking to do away with Finn's. So we're going to do away with fines, fees, and costs for kids that are found true, delinquent of committing crimes. But for kids that miss school, oh, no, go ahead and fine them. And sometimes we do. And sometimes we
Speaker 309
2:07:19
do. And a lot of times I say, hey, look, your fine is $200. If you complete every program that I've ordered you to do, it's gone. Oh, oh, I can. So
Speaker 315
2:07:28
if I do this, then I don't have to pay?
Speaker 314
2:07:31
Absolutely. A financial incentive. And so we try to use that as an incentive. So with that, Madam Chair, I apologize. I love this is what we do. That's why when Representative Shepard was talking, I was like, here we
Speaker 316
2:07:49
go. So I'll pass the baton. I would like to mostly just answer
Speaker 302
2:07:53
your questions. I've been on the bench. This is my 23rd year. And so we've got sort of a variety of tenure here with the different judges and experiences.
I don't find delinquent juveniles. I find parents for truancy, and I collect a probation fee. And one of the questions that was raised as far as where to get the figures and the numbers, and Judge Braswell mentioned a figure that's probably not going to reach the total state figure for trying to reimburse all of us. Statutorily, we're entitled to collect our fees and fines either in our office,
in the juvenile office, or through the county clerk, or circuit clerk, or through the clerk's office. Many districts do it different ways. I know how much I collect because I collect it in my office. Many judges do not know. When asked about what these figures are, what you collect, or what the judges are collecting, again, most of the time you ask the wrong person because most of us are not, we're not bookkeepers. And so we won't know. And some of the responses, I'm sure, were we don't know because we don't have that data.
It's coming into a different office. I happen to know, one of your colleagues last year sent out the request, I filled it out the best of my building and told them exactly where the money was, where it was spent, and what we used the money for. There may be some alternatives. There may be some other things that we can use as tools. I wasn't going to talk too much about the fine process, but in my experience on the bench,
some of the time the only way I can get someone's attention is if I talk about money. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. And we're not talking about a lot of money. I usually assess at the most $150 to $250 fine against a parent who won't send their kid to school. We're talking about something different. But that's the only thing that's assessed. And this fee. And most kids that complete their probation, as Judge Brazl says, we end their fees if they complete it early.
And most kids in my district are on probation for six to nine months, so we're not talking about a lot of money. Different districts have different numbers of kids, and obviously it adds up. But you're not talking about the sort of fines and fees that impact somebody to the extent they couldn't pay. And the other thing is anyone, anyone, and we're required statutorily to look at this. Anyone that asks, hey, can I get a pass? Can I get a waiver? I can't pay this. I don't have any money. We're required to assess that.
In my court, I have a great public defender who will say, hey, judge, can they file a budget? If they file a budget, I don't collect any fees. It's just that simple. So if there's some district here that's not looking at that, I can tell you as judges of this group and as far as all the judges we know, we're doing our best to try to do better at that. if there's been some problems in the past we continue to try to change that and again i know
some of you have personal issues and i respect that we don't have a perfect system we're not here to say that we believe we have the best system but it's not perfect it's not without need for some change but this is not the way to fix it and without a guarantee that there's going to be funding to provide for multiple services throughout our state that these fees are going to affect without a guarantee for that, then we really can't even guess what the outcome is going
to be. And so I guess I'm here to answer any questions you might have maybe later, but for you to recognize, as one of my colleagues said, there's always unintended consequences. And without knowing all the answers, this is one of those things that has a lot of unintended consequences when you talk about the services that many of us will lose. So I'll pass. Thank you. Again, good afternoon.
Speaker 304
2:12:23
My name's Mary Broadway. And 10 years ago, right now, I was sitting in one of your chairs. And I served two terms, both of them, on this committee. And much as reflected by, I'm sorry, Hope, Representative, last name, Duke. I stayed on this committee because I thought it was important work. It is not the sexiest committee that it is in the legislature.
Then I run and am privileged to be elected to the bench in the 2nd Judicial District. And lo and behold, I become a juvenile judge. And I'm going to tell you that that is not the sexiest kind of judge to be. I am not trying big jury trials. I'm not trying capital murder trials. I call myself a social worker judge. But again, I was in this committee, and I am a juvenile judge, and I chose to be one because I think that we do the most important work there is to do.
And that is for the benefit of vulnerable populations, predominantly our children and youth. But also this committee, of course, serves the aging and veterans, and those are very important in a disadvantaged populations. And that is my heart. I have no doubt, I think the world of Kesa, and I have no doubt that her intentions are very good, but as Judge Medlock mentioned, often what happens is when we pass bills that
are really good ideas, we get great unintended consequences, and what I feel is this bill is going to undermine the very population that it's intended to benefit. And it's because it is going to remove services. And we have talked about the disparity in our counties. I was elected to serve in the second judicial district that is geographically the largest judicial district in the state.
It is six counties. representative uh cop is it is is clark what car i'm sorry representative magruder both uh have uh constituencies in my judicial district uh and i will tell you that i'm telling you this because it is so eye-opening the disparity i sit in clay county arkansas and no disrespect to anybody here
It is the most homogenous. I don't think there is an African American or an Asian person in that county. Their problems are completely different. They're rural and they're very poor. It goes all the way down to Crittenden County where we face problems with gangs and guns and violent crime, rapes. Then we have property and drug issues in Mississippi County, in Craighead County,
and Craighead County is basically a combo of all of it. But the challenge to us is how to try to deal with those different problems. I want to talk to you predominantly about clay, because I've got a couple of problems in clay. One of them, and I'm shooting a lot of information at you, but when we talk about appropriations, we have one pie in the state
of Arkansas, and you guys have to figure out how to divide it. But in Clay County, Arkansas, I can only hold court, even though I'm supposed to have court once a month, every other month, because I can't get a public defender up there. That is two months for a parent and a juvenile to have to wait to be brought into the system to have their case dealt with. And part of that is the problem is there is simply not enough money in the state budget to serve the public defenders.
Part of this legislation calls that every juvenile is to have a free public defender. That happens right now. Nobody pays for a public defender, and it's regardless, or in my courts, it's regardless of the parents' financial situation. Those juveniles get a public defender. But the public defender system is spread so thin that we can't even conduct court in Clay County. When I first started to get on the bench, I went and talked to the juvenile department in Clay County,
And I said, I want to know what we can do here to make some changes to be impactful to these juveniles. And I was a proponent of the scared stiff. Let's take them down to the penitentiary and let them look at that. I quickly figured out that that was not a good thing. And I also entered the system with more of a punitive mindset than a rehabilitative. And I learned quickly that that is not the way to do it. So what we want to do is we want to try community service in Clay County.
In Clay County, Arkansas, there is no one to supervise community service. Our three different juvenile probation officers that cover the entire county are on call 24-7, all of them, and there are two deputies over the whole county that are available that troll that county. Nobody can supervise these kids to do their community service. So it's a great theory, but it's not there. Also to tell you about Clay
County, the biggest problem that we have in Clay County, sexual offenses. We have a lot of incest, a lot of kids that are preying on their siblings, and we have no sexual therapy available at all in Clay County, Arkansas. So those kids have to be transported. Often their parents don't have cars. So who ends up
transporting them? The juvenile officers to those appointments. These funds that we are collecting are paying for vehicles, gasoline, basic things to provide super basic services for these kids. Now that may not be true in every county. I know it's not. Some of my counties have much more resources but there are counties that if you do this
basically these kids are going to have nothing and their families are going to have nothing. The five years that I have been or four and a half years that I've been a juvenile judge I have never imposed a single fine. Where the money is coming from is a $20 a month probation fee and $35 in court cost. Occasionally there will be a public defender fee, but most of the time, as Judge Medlock said, those are waived.
But I ask for the numbers. I have not been asked for numbers before. I asked for the numbers after the AOC asked me. And in Craighead County, Clay County, and Greene County, those three counties, $95,000 was collected to help support these programs and these services. So to think that $140,000 is going to take care of our state is just not realistic.
in any way. Another thing that as a former legislator concerns me is it's wonderful if we find a magic number, but are we guaranteed that that is going to pass budget every other time when we have budget hearings? Those numbers change. And so we are very possibly defeating what we want to do when we want to rehabilitate our youth.
I know it's a low bar, but when I started this, I thought, if I can stop 35 to 40 percent of the juveniles that come in front of me from going into the adult pen, we have done something. Because I know you all have heard about the numbers that it costs for the adult penitentiary. And so if we can save these kids. But the last thing I'm going to say, and again, it's kind of a connect the dots. These things don't work independently.
But I know you all are familiar that there is much talk about the elimination of the Department of Education. Do you all realize that percentage-wise that Arkansas is the third highest recipient of funds from the Department of Education in the nation? because we're a poor state. And we need that money. And that money is to provide services for special education, occupational therapy, speech therapy, for ABA therapy. I have a child
with autism. Our children are suffering from mental health crises. And that's where that money comes from. And so if we lose that money, where is the money going to come from to address those problems. So I think the bill is well-intentioned, but I think that it is going to be a very large mistake and a very big disservice to our children if this bill should pass. Thank you.
Speaker 306
2:22:54
Thank you. Again, I'm Tawana Bird-Manning, and I serve here in Pulaski and Perry County. I am mostly here to support my colleagues. As was stated, every jurisdiction is a little bit different because the needs of the population are different and the resources available are different. I implore you to not pass this legislation because everything that you've heard here I agree with and is true. We are able in Pulaski because we do have access to some resources
that other places do not. to have additional or pots of money available for us to connect with resources for our children that we serve. But every place does not. And if the objective is for us to serve children all over the state of Arkansas, we can't create the harm that I think will be created by passing this legislation. So I'm also available to answer questions, but I'm mostly here to support my colleagues.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:23:59
Thank you. Are there any questions by committee? Representative McClure, we recognize. Well, first
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
2:24:09
of all, judges, thank you. I know you have a very, very difficult job. Each situation is very, very different. Each location is very, very different. I don't want to change positions with you at all. And to the parent that spoke, there's three things that are just gut-wrenching is watching your child be incarcerated and not have any answers. It's a feeling that you just can't describe.
So my question is to the judges collectively, because I hear a common thread here. If operational expenses are covered or were covered, would you support this bill? Representative McClure, thank
Speaker 309
2:24:49
you for that question. It's a big if, right? And so I think there's a lot of ifs that can go into it. Part of our discussion was,
Speaker 313
2:25:00
where's the money and where's it come from?
And how do we allocate that appropriately? And so if we can have those conversations, I think there is room to look at the potential for elimination of fines, fees,
Speaker 309
2:25:15
and costs. There's still going to be conversations about having the ability to provide it as incentives. But I certainly think it moves us to getting a position to either greatly reduce them or potentially one day eliminate
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
2:25:31
them. I agree on the if, and that is a huge if,
and there seems to be a great disparity on the amount of money that it's going to take, even from district to district. So let's just take the if out and assume you have your operational cost
Speaker 313
2:25:51
cleared. Sure. Would you support the bill? Okay. So I can speak for my judicial district, right, because I can't answer the questions that have different funding mechanisms. So for me personally, the impact that this would have would not be as significant as others.
So if you could give me what I'm taking in right now and I can operate the same way that I am, I'm fine with it. But we have to be able to provide those services, and if that money is not guaranteed to be there every year, then we run the risk of money. I understand that. I
Speaker 329
2:26:22
appreciate the questions. It's a good lawyer question. I've forgotten who
Speaker 302
2:26:27
one of the representatives said. You know, the fines is one of the tools that judges use, and why do you want to take away our tools?
I agree with that. I also agree that here's the thing. The impact of this is not, even though the aggregate in funding or in the amount is quite a bit, I mean, individually district-wise and individually as to persons, it's not a lot, and they'll correct me if I'm wrong. $20 a month probation fee, that's the maximum anyone can pay. Most of the kids are on probation, six, nine months. If they mess up, maybe it's extended, but that's typical.
The maximum court costs, the maximum, $35. The maximum fine, $500, and nobody's assessing the maximum fines that I'm aware of, at least we haven't ever discussed that. I mean, some people have different amounts, but that's the amount. Well, in felony court, you know, it's $10,000 and $15,000. And so we're talking about a huge difference. And so if we're using that as an incentive sometimes, we need that tool.
I don't disagree with what Judge Braswell said. If you can meet our needs as far as what our expenses are. I'm one of the districts, as I said, that we collect all our fines and fees, and I can tell you that that's a headache. But I also look at that like I know how much I'm bringing in. I know how much it is. It's decreased quite a bit since I started. So I think there's good to be had from everything. There's also an argument to be made that it's still an incentive sometimes.
As I said, we're not talking about fines here. We're talking about delinquencies. And I do fine parents for not sending their kids to school. and I find that that's an incentive. So as long as that's still on the table, I guess I would agree that if we can meet all those expenses, then that's certainly a discussion we can have. We haven't been able to get to the point of that kind of discussion where for whatever reasons, and maybe some of us are to blame, we don't have all the accurate figures.
But to jump in the pond here without the life jacket, it's going to be pretty risky. You know, and to find out, oh, well, it's going to be $1.5 million or it's going to be $2 million, who knows? And so I think that's where we are, and I'm just afraid to do that. And, again, that's one of the consequences. I think it's really risky for us. So thank you. Mr. Chair, Bentley,
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:29:04
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Chairman. So just real quick, can you tell me how much you're spending on collecting fees and fines?
Do you have any idea how much you're spending on collecting those? Spending on collecting? How much money are you spending? You have staff that's going to have to collect to keep up with it. So how much are you spending on your staff? How much time are they investing in collecting? I run my own company, so I know how much money I spend on collecting money. So how much do you
Speaker 321
2:29:33
spend on collecting? How much are you investing on collecting money? All of my staff, all of my probation officers,
Speaker 302
2:29:39
I have four probation officers, they all are able to collect probation fees when people come in.
So when they collect probation fees and or truancy fines, they give them a receipt when they come in for their usual probation meeting. In the estimate that I responded to from one of your colleagues, I said maybe 5% of their time or 5% of their salary was used in that. They don't actively collect, have a collection force as such. They collect those amounts when they meet with the children when they come in for a probation meeting.
So it's not like we're sending letters or we're using the collection for us or we're making phone calls. We have them collected when they come in for a meeting. In the event they don't pay and we find that they're able to pay, they're not paying for some other reason, then they're set for court and they come to court and we have that discussion about when and how they might be able to pay. As far as time spent, it's basically part of anything else that they would be doing because they're not in a collection mode as such.
They collect those fees at the probation meetings. There's no other process for them to do that. Does that answer your question? Does anybody
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:30:58
else want to share? I don't know if any of the judges had
Speaker 304
2:31:05
any response. In different counties, they're collected in different ways. And several of our counties, they are collected by the circuit clerk's office. So there is no additional circuit clerks collect other types of fees. So there's no real additional expense to collecting those fees.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:31:20
Okay, I have a would you agree. So now as your discussion, Judge Broadway, on closing the Department of Education, we're not going to lose any money in Arkansas. If you look at the wording, we're going to get more money because we're not wasting money in Washington, D.C. So Arkansas is actually going to receive more of our money back. so maybe we can fund this. So I don't think, you know, do you not agree? Have you not looked at the money that's coming back to Arkansas? We're just not going to keep the money in Washington, D.C. at their Department of Education. So Arkansas's Department of Education actually should get more money.
Speaker 304
2:31:52
I would have to look at that a little bit more closely. But I appreciate you saying that. I pointed out my concern, and you are alleviating that, and
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:32:04
I'm appreciative of that. Are there any other questions by
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:32:09
committee? Representative Duffield, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the primary reasoning that you guys are opposed to this legislation would be the funding that you guys would lose for juvenile
rehab services, prevention initiatives, and juvenile programs and so forth.
Is that the primary reason you're opposed? Representative
Speaker 313
2:32:33
Duffield, thank you for that question. and I don't want to go full lawyer mode here. We signed up to speak on the bill. It's obvious that we're here to present our concerns of what would happen if this bill is passed. And so I want to make sure that as representatives of the judiciary that we're not coming in here and telling you what to do. This is a policy decision for you to make.
Speaker 309
2:32:56
But what I would say in response is our biggest concern if this passes is how do we fund juvenile courts across the state? So that's the only correction I
Speaker 340
2:33:04
would make is we're here to speak on the bill, obviously expressing our concerns with it. I have a
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:33:11
follow-up. So I guess my question is, these funds are very important to what you guys do, but from what I'm hearing today is there's not been a method to keep up with how much that is.
So you kind of answered this, I believe, But I guess I'll ask again, why is that? Or could there be some steps changed to where we know what funding is needed to continue to operate and do what you
Speaker 313
2:33:46
guys need to do? It's a fantastic question. And this has been part of kind of the frustration over the years is the references to FOIA and those things.
The requests that we've been getting, they're not asking the right entities the questions. So they'll send a formal request saying provide these reports. Those reports don't exist in a certain court. So the response to that is we don't contain those records.
Speaker 309
2:34:12
And so that was part of my recommendation when we were here two years ago is why not come to the Supreme Court Commission on Youth and Families that has members at the
Speaker 313
2:34:22
AOC and their tech team bring those people together let's sit down and have a working group and figure out
a way to do it I mean I floated the idea every county has a budget the statute sets aside a separate budget for fines fees and cost if you want to do if these groups want to do FOIAs then FOIA the county budgets and find out how much money is in the fines fees and cost budget each year and you'll have a pretty good ballpark on what that is through our reform efforts in in Faulkner County specifically, when I first took over as judge, there was over $200,000 in that account. We were paying salaried positions out of that. That is not a best practice
to pay employees out of fines, fees, and costs because it certainly could appear that the only reason I'm fining somebody is so I can pay my employee. So we had to start moving those
Speaker 309
2:35:12
things. I'm fortunate in Faulkner County to have a quorum court over the years that's been able to support those efforts right and so now I'm at 21,000 because we've got fewer kids coming into court not on probation long enough so I won't go back into all that but just to your point but like for Judge
Speaker 313
2:35:29
Coker I mean those fees and costs that he's collecting are going to those diversion
Speaker 309
2:35:34
programs his gardening programs his girls restorative justice programs and so there is I believe a way to get close enough that's going to go up and down some court one of the biggest issues too ladies and gentlemen is we're closing jdc's down which sounds great that and and we're i'm a huge proponent of reducing the number of kids that go
Speaker 313
2:35:53
to jail but what happens if you live in an area like texarcana or hot springs where they reduce the number of beds that they have and you have a kid that's charged with a very violent offense i'm not talking about a fight at
Speaker 314
2:36:05
school. I'm talking about a gun in somebody's face and stealing a car. And now they have to send a
Speaker 313
2:36:13
kid to another county to have that kid detained. Who's paying for that? Well, the juvenile court is paying for that. The county where that court ultimately, I guess, is having to pay for
Speaker 309
2:36:24
that. So in Hot Springs, for instance, the judge there, they have to use funds, money, from this account sometimes to reimburse other counties for housing kids that they can't hold and so that's
Speaker 313
2:36:36
that's the other problem with identifying what is the exact number because from year to year depending on those things that happen right that that could that could change um and that's a long answer to your question i apologize but i um but i do believe that through these working groups there are opportunities to get closer to a legitimate number. And Ms. Smith knows this. We've spent hours and hours and hours. We have discussed alternatives. We have discussed negotiations.
Here's the reality. We could agree, just hypothetically, we could agree to cut monitoring fees in half, and they're going to come back next session and they're going to ask to do a way of fines, fees, and costs. So let's have the conversation. Let's have the meeting. but let's have a real discussion about what it's going to take to fund juvenile courts because there are other programs that are out there that courts across the state are trying to get funding for that work. Representative Barnes and Pine Bluff, your GBI program is amazing,
and we are begging for funding for the opportunity to expand that across the state because it saves lives and increases graduations, and we're trying to do that. And so on one breath, we're saying, hey, we're going to cut this, but now how do we do both? And so it's a lot more than just fines, fees, and costs. It's what is the will of this body in the state of Arkansas? Because Ms. Smith said it, and Representative Shepard said it.
We have got to do something to what, and it's easy for me to sit here and talk about y'all money. I don't get how your budget stuff works. I've tried very hard to figure it out. Maybe one day I'll get it. There is a serious lack of
Speaker 309
2:38:28
funding for mental health services. There is no inpatient substance abuse service program available in the state of Arkansas for kids. Zero. There is one place that we can send kids that have sex-specific problems that need services.
One. And we've lost Youth Challenge. We've had C-step beds reduced. And so that's why for us it's like we don't love fines, fees, and costs, but we can't afford to lose something else that affects the
Speaker 314
2:38:54
services that we have. So if we want to sit down and have a table and talk about the money, it's got to be more than just how much you need in fines, fees, and costs. It's what
Speaker 313
2:39:03
does the state of Arkansas need to bust the pipeline that's been referred to today? Because when I go to work and we go to work, that's exactly what we're trying to do.
I'm keeping you out of court. I don't want you to be back. And so it's a bigger issue than just fines, fees, and costs. If we don't address it altogether, we're going to be in the pond without
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:39:25
a life jacket. Thank you. Okay, committee, just to let you know where we are, we have still two more people signed up to speak on this bill.
Chair
Unverified
2:39:32
And I'm not telling you not to ask your questions. I'm just letting you know where we are as you
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:39:38
see the time going. Representative Barnes, you're recognized. There's one quick question. When we're dealing with juveniles, there have been times when a juvenile commits a traffic violation,
which puts them in another court, I'm asking if this bill is passed, will we be paying for juveniles' traffic tickets? Is there a
possibility? It certainly removes the ability. Based on the language, we'll be paying for
Speaker 345
2:40:03
their traffic tickets. Is that correct? I would say that it would prohibit
Speaker 313
2:40:08
district courts from assessing fees. District court doesn't have delinquency jurisdiction, so it is traffic tickets.
Speaker 346
2:40:16
I'd have to go back and look specific to the district
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:40:23
court language because. And the reason I ask that is because there have been times when district court judge has partnered with juvenile judge to let them do their community service to work off traffic time. So if we're going to be trying to alleviate any punitive responsibility, then we could very well be paying for juvenile traffic tickets.
Speaker 48
2:40:46
okay that's fine thank you seeing no other questions Madam Chairman I think our
Speaker 302
2:40:56
two remaining witnesses I don't I guess we've got two or three I think they're CASA folks and I just want to say that that's where my money goes it all goes to CASA and I think I probably can answer speak I think we have Crawford County which is my county and Sebastian County and the lion's share of our fees support that program and so statutorily that is a program we can use these fees for, and so that's where my money goes.
I'd ask my director to come, so maybe I stole the thunder from her, but those of you who are familiar with CASA know that that's a very good service and very much needed, and I can't speak for all the state, but I'm fairly sure that different districts use some of their funds to help CASA, so that's what we do. So anyway, thank you. Thank you, and thank you all for your testimony. Thank you all very much. Next, we
Speaker 33
2:41:48
have Melanie Allen to speak on the bill.
Melanie Allen
Unverified
2:42:08
If you'll introduce yourself, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak with you today. My name is Melanie Allen, and I'm here representing the Court-Appointed Special Advocates CASA program in Crawford County. We're a nonprofit organization that advocates for children in foster care, children who are victims of abuse and neglect. We ensure that their voices are heard in court and that their needs are met within the community. Today, I come before you with a pressing concern regarding this bill. It threatens the vital funding we rely on to support our program.
CASA's funding is primarily derived from fees and fines, and we already are facing the potential loss of other critical funding through the Victims of Crime Act. If this bill passes, it could result in a substantial reduction in our ability to assist the children who depend on us. Last fiscal year, our program served 82 children. Each one of those children had unique needs, and CASA was there to provide the advocacy and support they desperately needed. But if we lose this funding, we'll be forced to reduce services, leaving many children without the consistent support they deserve.
CASA's role in the child welfare system is unique and irreplaceable. We're the only program in Arkansas directly appointed by the courts to advocate for the best interest of children. Our dedicated workers, volunteers, work one-on-one with children, providing advocacy, educational support, and mental health assistance. This is especially important in a system where Arkansas, the Department of Human Services, is overwhelmed with high caseloads and staff shortages. Many of the children we serve are left without the regular attention of caseworkers in those cases.
CASA volunteers become the constant supportive adult in their lives. Our advocates ensure that children's safety is addressed, their needs are met, and the court has information it needs to make informed decisions. I'd like to share a few stories that highlight the profound impact that CASA has. I have changed the names to protect confidentiality. Abigail, a four-year-old girl who was removed from her home due to severe abuse, including a complex school fracture, her cause of volunteer, Lisa, provided unwavering emotional support
during a time of great uncertainty. At one court hearing, Abigail, who had been clinging to her mother, refused to leave her side. Despite several attempts by others to separate them, Abigail refused to leave her side. But then Abigail went willingly into Lisa's, the advocate's arms whenever she approached. In that moment, it was clear that Abigail trusted her cost of volunteer and felt safe with her. She fell asleep in Lisa's embrace during the rest of the hearing, finding comfort in the only constant adult figure she knew.
This is just one example of how cost of volunteers build trust and stability in the lives of children who need it the most. We have Mason, a 10-year-old boy on the autism spectrum. He suffered trauma from neglect and affected his academic performance. His CASA volunteer, Nancy, noticed Mason's struggles at school, issues with concentration, behavior, and academic progress. Nancy worked closely with Mason's school to advocate for a revised IEP that addressed his unique needs. She also fought to include a behavior plan ensuring that Mason's educational environment would support his growth and development.
As a result of Nancy's advocacy, Mason's behavior improved and his grades increased and his confidence was restored. These stories are just a glimpse into the powerful impact costs the volunteers have on the lives of children in foster care. Our volunteers offer something that no one else can, a constant dedicated advocate who will fight for a child's best interest in a way that is personal and meaningful. If this funding is lost, the children we serve will lose that vital advocacy. They will lose the one person who shows up for them when everyone else is overwhelmed.
And ultimately, we risk leaving children in situations where their needs are not met, their voices are unheard, and their future is uncertain. I urge you, as members of this committee, to consider the real-world impact of this bill. Please think about the children who rely on our programs like CASA to ensure their safety and well-being. Without the support of this funding, we'll be forced to scale back our services, and children will suffer the consequences. Thank you for your time and considering the importance of CASA. Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness?
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:46:20
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next, we have Mary Ann Craig. If you
Speaker 354
2:46:37
will introduce yourself, you are recognized. Sorry. Try that again. Good afternoon. My name is Mary Ann Craig. I'm the executive director of Casa Sebastian County in Fort Smith, Arkansas. I could echo exactly everything that Melanie said.
She described what we do. We have volunteers to advocate for children that make sure they are in safe situations and safe homes and that all their needs are met. We do receive funding from our juvenile judge. And we have heard, which is another conversation, that we may have or probably have some really deep cuts this year. So it is crucial to our program that we keep this funding so we can continue to serve children.
We have had a case where this young man was in foster care for 15 years. He, when he was 16 years old, he had had over 65 different placements, 40-some caseworkers, two or three different ad litems. Everything in this child's life changed over and over and over, with the exception of CASA. He had one CASA volunteer for those 15 years, and that's what we train our volunteers to,
make connections with these children to make sure that they are safe in their foster homes. So I would urge you, please, to ensure that we continue to get this money to vote against this bill, please. And thank you very much. Thank you.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:48:14
Are there questions for this witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Okay, we have one more signed up. Circuit Judge Honorable Latonya,
Speaker 58
2:48:23
and I would say your last name, but it's not on here. Sorry.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:48:28
That's not my title. Honorable is my title. Well, look at that. Honorable Latonya Honorable.
Speaker 4
2:48:38
I figured you were going to do that. It happens a lot. I apologize.
Judge Latonya
Unverified
2:48:43
If you will introduce yourself, you're recognized. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Judge Latonya Honorable. I have the pleasure of serving here in the 6th Judicial Circuit in the 5th Division here in Palazzi County. I have a criminal docket, and I thought that it was necessary to show the correlation between juvenile division and criminal division.
As sad as it may be, many times when youth are in the juvenile division, they graduate and they come see me in circuit in the criminal division. And I just want to highlight a few things that Director Smith pointed out, which is what prompted me to comment. She made a point to emphasize that juvenile court is there to provide services and hopefully to avoid problems from juveniles at age 14 and keep them from preventing those same offenses
when they're 22 or older, when they're in adult court. There's plenty of evidence to show, as she indicated, that community service diversion-type programs change behaviors. However, if this funding is lost, those services can't be provided. And that's been said many times. I just wanted to show the correlation between what happens in the juvenile division and how that will have a direct impact on adult court because if they don't get the services in juvenile court and they graduate to the criminal division, it's going to be really hard for us to do anything but incarcerate
because the funding won't be there to offer those services. And if that happens, the system is going to cave. We don't have a perfect system now? No. However, without this funding, it is destined to get worse because we will not be able to provide those type of services to families that are necessary to prevent them from coming to the criminal division. And so finally, I will just echo what my colleague said, and that is we have to be able to provide these services.
We have to be able to account for things that are unknown. We also know there are some other bills and there have been other acts that have been passed dealing with the criminal justice system more so on my side than the juvenile justice system. And the two are directly related. And so I will indicate my concern if the bill passes without stating whether I'm voting for or against the bill. but I definitely wanted the committee to understand the direct correlation between the juvenile courts
and the criminal division of circuit court and what defunding those programs or those courts would do for our system. Madam Chair, thank you so much for allowing me the time. I'm open to any questions, although I feel like a lot of what I said is duplicative. Are there any questions for
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:51:28
this witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you,
Speaker 45
2:51:32
Madam Chair. Thank you, committee members. Okay, that concludes our list. Representative Bentley,
Chair
Unverified
2:51:37
would you like to close for your bill?
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
2:51:49
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee, for your time. I know it's late. It's probably one of the longest committee meetings we've held this session, but I think it was very much worth it. I think our kids deserve it. I think just discussing what we can do to change things in our state. And, again, I come back as I think it's time we do something different, and we're not. Again, I think CASA is wonderful. Strongly support it and would not even think about supporting this bill if I didn't think we could get the funding to support what they're doing from other avenues. Again, this money is not coming from general revenue. The money for this was coming from central services, which already supports some of the things that we're doing in our court.
We've made major changes already with our cities and counties who are coming through central services to pay for that, some of the judges' fees and all that are coming through central services. So, again, it's coming from that and not from general revenue. So I know this is a lot for you guys to hear today. But, again, I'm passionate about us looking at things in a different manner and with children not doing a punishment. What can we do to change behavior? It's not going to affect traffic fines. It's not going to affect truancy. Those fines are not addressed by this bill. So there is some funding that will still be there.
And I just want to give Keese a chance to share a couple things, if
Speaker 232
2:52:59
that's okay, Chairman, before we close, quickly. Thank you again, committee, and thank you for hearing this. And I hope that I conveyed at the beginning that the work that the judiciary and everyone that is engaged in the juvenile justice system is critical. Again, if we were trying to, we are not trying to hurt the system, we are here to highlight that it is underfunded. You have heard a lot of testimony. I think what is concerning and what we should really be talking about is that if there are
shortfalls in budgets we do not want to see those shortfalls be filled by collecting fines I'm not saying that any judge is doing those things arbitrarily I don't think that anyone is trying to find individuals to come with budget shortfalls but we have heard horror stories of things that sound like that and again if every member of the judiciary and everyone engaged in the juvenile system were the four judges that came before you then we would not be here with this bill but I do want to point out that back in 2021 when we did this the first time we started asking those
questions we said can we sit down and talk about how these fines and fees are collected how much courts are seeing when I took this role in this position I immediately went to individuals that I call friends in the judiciary and said tell me what we need to do to fix this bill and what I heard was, oh, well, I don't really levy all those many fines and fees. It's not that much. I respect the fact that sometimes that changes. I respect the fact that one judge can't speak for another. But if we are trying to address the fact that this system is supposed to be for
rehabilitation and we are trying to address the fact that we should not be funding these by families, how do we get to that number if we cannot ask and we cannot have that conversation? and we've been asking for years, and I will say that we were asking for an amendment all the way up until last night, and so we are open to having a conversation because, again, we are not trying to harm the system, but we can't do that if we can't have accurate numbers. We can't say how much is the needed amount if the judiciary cannot equally say that. I will also say before
we close, we did get some information, Louisiana and Texas. Louisiana has been in place for two years. Texas has been in four years. Neither of those states did the backfill that we are trying to do here. They ended fines and fees, and they did not utilize state revenue to replace that, and those things are still in place. And again, there is no indication that those programs are going to end in those respective states. So I think that it can be done. I think we are having
a conversation that is critical. It is a part of a much larger conversation about how we address juvenile crime in this state so that, again, we can make sure that these children do not end up in adult prison. And we thank you so much for being willing to hear this, being willing to hear the testimony of individuals that were impacted by the system, and willing to think about the changes we need to make thank you chairman thank you committee and
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
2:56:04
as a member of the committee i make a motion do pass as amended right okay on
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
2:56:13
the floor we have a motion do pass as amended uh is there
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
2:56:17
discussion on the motion representative duke thank you madam chair i'm gonna make it real quick because i know we're
all hungry um so um a couple things that members for this discussion that i don't want, at least for me and for the people I represent and the feedback I've gotten, I don't want to lose sight of. I'm not opposed to looking at alternatives on how to fund things. But I do think that having the ability for these judges to have, be able to institute fees, fines, whatever
lane that needs to fall in, because I'm not a judge and I don't know exactly where that falls there for them. I think that's important. And it makes me, there's some similarities I hear in this conversation that I heard in conversations when I started on the school board when we started looking at other discipline procedures and we're being told oh we can't do this and you can't do that and then we started taking all these tools away from our teachers in the classrooms and then started wondering why they had some of the problems they had and now and the same arguments were used as well I'm not completely equating it but I think there are some parallels here that other states were doing these things too and we need to give this a try as well and what over the years started
happening and many of us have had these conversations is teachers are complaining we don't have these tools in our tool belts anymore and we need to be able to do these things and please help us and now other states are starting to roll those things back and we are considering that as well as I think we should so I think we've we've got to be careful when we start taking away tools from the tool belt those people that are sitting on the bench have done a lot to get to earn the people's trust to get there they can also be removed and I think we need to be careful before we decide we're going to take away the fees as an option period looking for funding because I think
they've got some great programs going on out there that do what I think needs to be done with the juveniles and I think when you look at it the second thing I would say is also blanket solutions when counties are having problems or different courts are having problems making everybody else across the state have to do it their way or change because of an issue in one part of the state I don't think that's right or fair either because you're shutting down the voices and programs that are working well in other places so um and I'm a little disappointed that from what it sounds like
I mean I know I was here last time this keeps coming back up again um that I don't understand that one and I would like to see answers to that rather than keep coming up again but I don't want to see the fines and fees taken away or at least that tool from the tool belt of our judges I guess I should reiterate that way I don't think they should be funding everything necessarily but I think there needs to be a tool there and some accountability and some responsibility, and I think I at least feel like we can trust our judges. They may not be perfect. I'm not either, but I think we
can trust them to make some of these decisions and then encourage them maybe if they need to make
Chair
Unverified
2:59:06
some changes, so for that reason, I'm going to
be a no. Any other discussion on the motion?
Speaker 196
2:59:15
Okay, committee, we have a, oh, sorry, Representative Gonzalez-Worthing,
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
2:59:17
you recognize? Yeah, so something that keeps standing out in my mind, listening to all of the wonderful testimony from, I mean, I got a really big picture of everything, and it's multifaceted. It's not just one thing, fines, fees, that was mentioned earlier.
But one thing that keeps coming to my mind is the budget. So when we think about money and how these interventions are going to be paid for, I keep thinking, so should we ask the kids? So are the kids, should the kids pay for the interventions when they're trying to be rehabilitated? I guess that's my dilemma, rehabilitation, and how can we offer these interventions while we're trying to rehabilitate the kids?
I mean, I'm at a crossroads here on that. I heard that if we can figure out the operational expenses, then maybe it would be considered possibly that we wouldn't have to pay these fines and fees. One of the judges mentioned that either you pay a fine or you do the intervention program. And so there wasn't any monetary charge, but you do the intervention.
program. If another judge mentioned, if they're a low-income family, provide a budget. Maybe there aren't any fines there. And then another judge doesn't charge fines. So I think that we have a lot to consider and maybe just looking at the county's budget to be able to provide these interventions but not on the backs of children that's so i'm i'm going to be voting um yes to senate bill 340 um and those are my reasons thank you thank you any other discussion
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
3:01:17
okay the motion is do pass as amended all in favor say aye aye opposed no no sorry representative bentley your bill has failed thank you committee for hanging in there Thank you for important work. Please go eat lunch quickly. We're adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
SB340 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR CUSTODIAN OF A JUVENILE.
HB1887 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTION RESPONSE TEAMS.
HCR1010 T. Shephard REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR YOUTH.
HB1921 Torres TO AMEND THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY LICENSING ACT; TO AMEND THE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FOSTER PARENTS; AND TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND CERTIFYING RELATIVES AS FOSTER PARENTS.
SB371 J. Scott TO ESTABLISH A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM TO AID IN THE SEARCH OF MISSING CHILDREN WHO DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ACTIVATION OF THE ARKANSAS AMBER ALERT SYSTEM.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGING, CHILDREN AND YOUTH, LEGISLATIVE & MILITARY AFFAIRS- HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
Mike Hager
Unverified
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative James Eaton
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 36
Speaker 40
Speaker 33
Speaker 46
Speaker 49
Speaker 51
Speaker 58
Speaker 69
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 88
Speaker 100
Speaker 99
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Representative Glenn Barnes
Unverified
Speaker 151
Speaker 157
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 91
Speaker 168
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 174
Representative Jessie McGruder
Unverified
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Speaker 197
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
Speaker 209
Michael Lindsay
Unverified
Speaker 225
Speaker 229
Speaker 232
Speaker 241
Speaker 243
Speaker 230
Speaker 249
Speaker 265
Speaker 276
Speaker 277
Speaker 278
Will Cheatham
Unverified
Speaker 302
Speaker 303
Speaker 304
Speaker 306
Troy Braswell
Unverified
Speaker 309
Speaker 312
Speaker 313
Speaker 314
Speaker 315
Speaker 316
Speaker 329
Speaker 321
Speaker 340
Speaker 345
Speaker 346
Speaker 48
Melanie Allen
Unverified
Speaker 354
Judge Latonya
Unverified
Speaker 196