The Office of the Executive Secretary (the administrative offices of the state court system) has several implementation issues with this bill, House Bill 163. First, the changes to the alternative transportation authorization language remove the language requiring that the proposed alternative transportation provider (“ATP”) be identified to the magistrate. This change shifts the burden of determining the availability of a potential ATP to the magistrate. This shift would require an independent judicial officer, tasked with making the ultimate decision on an ATP based on evidence presented, and require that officer to actively collect the evidence that will then be used in a decision they must make. Additionally, the bill could make it less likely that ATPs will be utilized because it removes the current language requiring that a proposed ATP be identified to the magistrate. Although the bill requires a magistrate to consider "all options for alternative transport,” it is unclear where the magistrate is to find information about those options if no one is coming to the magistrate and requesting an ATP. Second, the bill would prevent magistrates from issuing a TDO if a hospital bed is not instantly available. This change to the statutes contradicts the existing statutory directive that the magistrate “shall issue” the TDO when the statutory TDO criteria are met. By adding the following language to Code sections 16.1-340.1 and 37.2-809 – “The magistrate shall not issue a temporary detention order until a facility of temporary detention that is ready and able to accept the minor upon issuance of the order has been identified.” – the bill links the magistrate’s ability to legally issue a TDO to the hospital’s ability to admit the respondent. Furthermore, the bill fails to give any guidance on how the facility’s ability to accept the respondent is to be verified or by whom. State law currently requires hospitals to accept patients in need of temporary detention if no other placement is available. Requiring magistrates to “verify” that the hospital is willing and able to comply with the law is unlikely to fix the underlying problem of hospital capacity. Finally, the bill adds language to the TDO statutes that makes the TDO void if the receiving facility does not immediately accept custody of the respondent upon arrival. This raises troubling repercussions for a respondent who has met the statutory criteria for temporary detention and is now left without direction or access to treatment without any evaluation of whether the initial circumstances leading to issuance of the TDO have abated or been resolved.

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

Dear Delegate, Protect religious freedom, vote YES for HB 306! Our religious freedoms do not end just because government bureaucrats declare a public health emergency. Our First Amendment rights apply at all times. Thank you, Kellie M. Good

Correction: Please vote YES for house bill 306! No one should be punished for exercising their right to religious freedom!!!!!

Please vote YES for house bill 106! No one should be punished for exercising their right to religious freedom!!!!!

Please consider the results of this bill. Ultimately you are allowing decreased education and responsibility for people to practice medicine when they actually have no training to do so. This will learn to a class Denver if healthcare where only the rich or the nearly killed by providers without any medical education/training/responsibility (NP/PA) will be able to have access to medical care. Non physician providers were designed to extend not replace physicians. With this bill you will be replacing physicians. Additional bills that require increased and prolonging physician training demonstrates that you are aware of the difference in roles but have not looked into rate of opiod prescribers or antibiotic, numbers of required consults which delays medical care or rate of polypharmacy-- all of which are greater in an NP managed patient. Additionally, requiring medical doctors to carry increased financial responsibility will further deter physicians from considering practice in your state. This further limiting medical access. Studies show that increased NP autonomy does not increase rural access but does inflate cost of healthcare. To improve MEDICAL access, may I suggest creating a more physician friendly environment, one that supports them with the same-- or at least equal-- as not medically trained non physician providers. May I also recommend that unless you and your entire family consistently get the lower and poorer "healthcare" providers by NP, it is hypocritical and irresponsible for you to force this on the people in your state. And perhaps you should consider how your loyalty has been purchased.

I am really wanting you all not to pass this bill because Oxford House gives me a place to live at a price I can afford on disability it gives me stability Oxford House I would be homeless and if the bill does pass that means I rent would go up and I would be homeless again and I am doing very well I enjoy living in the Oxford House we have meetings once a week for our house and we have committee meetings and everything So please do not pass this bill I in begging you

We strongly support every state hospital providing video visitation in the manner as provided for under HB388. Long distance transportation is hard for some family members, and video visitation allows for the ability to see and hear a loved one for those who do not have the means for regular in-person visits. These visits can be life saving by providing contact with family and hope for recovery. Life during the pandemic has shown have effective and cost saving the technology can be when used in this way. Bruce Cruser, Executive Director Mental Health America of Virginia

As a SALT (Social Action Linking Together) and Cornerstones advocate, I encourage you to support HB 484, with Delegate Dan Helmer as patron. This legislation exempts from mandatory participation in the Virginia Initiative for Education and Work recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families those enrolled full-time in an accredited public institution of higher education or other postsecondary school licensed or certified by the Board of Education or the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia and are taking courses as part of a curriculum that leads to a postsecondary credential, such as a degree or an industry-recognized credential, certification, or license. Passing this legislation would make moving off welfare into the workforce a much easier task, which would be a win-win for both those receiving TANF and taxpayers. Post-secondary education, GED, vocational education, and most credentialing programs, as well as apprenticeships, require more than 24 months for the screening, access and completion process. Eliminating the two-year limit is the right thing to do. Preparing adult TANF recipients for jobs to fully support their families should be a primary goal for Virginia. Attaining this goal would be a win-win for both TANF recipients and taxpayers. However, the current two-year time limit on the continuous receipt of TANF benefits is an impediment, making that goal unattainable. Regards, Sarah Newman

I support video visitation in state facilities.

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

I SUPPORT HB 388, 481, 484, 538, 877, 878, 1012, 1105, 1106, 1211, 1329, and 1342. Also, I object to the language used to describe non-citizens - the word "alien" is dehumanizing and I suggest retiring it permanently when referring to non-citizens. I OPPOSE HB 937 and 1359. It is everybody's right to control their own fertility and to NOT be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Both of these bills directly or indirectly undermine that right.

Support HB 388 – Family Video Visitation Should Continue Permanently (also see my statement attached) HB 388 helps ensure that Zoom-type video visitation, which has provided critical connectivity between state hospital residents and their families, continues past the pandemic. Over the past year, video visitation provided critically needed connectivity between hospital patients and their families and friends while in-person visits were suspended. Among its benefits are:  Reducing social isolation. After two years of living through a pandemic, everyone has suffered to some degree from loss of social contact including people in the outside community. It’s important to understand that people with psychological and cognitive impairments tend to be much more isolated to begin with. Their inbuilt isolation is compounded by living in institutional settings.  Helping people with limited resources to stay in touch with family members and friends in the hospital. Zoom-type technology increases the opportunity for people with low-incomes, or lacking the money or means of transportation, to visit and to provide emotional support for patients. Patients in Virginia psychiatric hospitals often end up far from home. For example, forensic patients from Northern Virginia are generally sent to Western State, which is 150 miles from the Falls Church area. Average driving time is two hours and 20 minutes each way.  Allowing parents to see their young children. Hospital rules and restrictions can make it difficult for children to visit their parents in person. Video visitation allowed a mother living in the hospital to see her child for the first time!  Providing all families with a way to supplement hospital visitation by telephone or in-person.  Helping patients prepare for discharge and re-integration into the community.  Increasing hospital accountability through more frequent and complete contact between families and patients. The cost of setting up video visitation is minimal. Western State Hospital purchased Kindles for this purpose within its existing budget. It’s also possible for video visitation to create savings by reducing the burden on staff to administer and supervise in-person visits. The main issue has been overcoming institutional inertia and training staff to help patients schedule and access visits. Hospital social workers and rehabilitation staff who prepare patients for re-entry into the community understand their need to maintain connectivity with family and friends and have been particularly supportive of tele-visiting. Reducing social isolation both increases the likelihood that patients can successfully return to life in the community and decreases the likelihood of relapsing into crises that involve costly hospitalizations.

See attached document: "Ensure video visitation is available to residents of all Virginia psychiatric hospitals and their families: Please enact HB 388." Statement of Karl Polzer to the Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee, Virginia House of Delegates

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments in support of HB624. I am Lisa Madron, Executive Director of Community Services. There is currently an average vacancy rate in the workforce across all 40 CSBs in the Commonwealth of approximately 15% with a range from 3-35%. There are certain programs that run a higher vacancy rate such as medical/psychiatric services, emergency services, assertive community treatment and developmental disability services which have shown a 31-36% in vacancies. CSBs have experienced an increase in turnover rates which on average was 21% in FY21 and ranged from 6-36%. Having high turnover rates makes it impossible to resolve vacancy issues and has created additional responsibilities and pressures for the workforce with already high caseloads to take on more. This leads to low morale and burnout. There also does not seem to be enough behavioral health professionals in the pipeline to fill all the vacancies. In a September 2021 Indeed.Com posting, there were 3,682 behavioral health job openings in VA. Yet the number of individuals graduating from VA behavioral health Programs in 2019 was 777. In Region 2(Fairfax, Alexandria, Arlington, Loudoun and Prince William), we are often competing for the same staff which increases the time supervisors are spending in recruitment and hiring only to lose a candidate to a CSB who can offer a higher salary or to private providers, particularly MCOs who are able to pay sometimes 20-30K more in salary and offer at least 50%, if not 100% in telework. In PWC , it is not unusually to run four, sometimes more rounds of interviews for one position. Some CSBs have had to reduce or close programs to ensure prioritized services are covered. If we are able to hire for a vacancy, the training is often more extensive as applicants accepting the position may be right out of graduate school and not have the experience or training that is typically needed for providing treatment services. As the public safety net community provider, CSBs are seeing very acute and complex individuals that require skilled and trained staff. CSBs are often the only service provider able and willing to provide treatment for these individuals. To ensure we have these qualified staff there is a projected level of financial need endorsed by VACSB that would be used to provide quarterly recruitment and retention bonuses, a path for licensure by funding clinical supervision hours and funds for loan repayment and scholarships. HB 624 recognizes the value of the public safety net workforce and provides much needed action to curb the exodus, allow CSBs to address the vacancies, help attract potential new hires and grow existing staff. Thank you

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

I would like to speak please -Amy Lee Story

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

AARP Virginia supports legislation that improves the rights of the individual under guardianship and ensures due process of those rights. As such we are in support of House Bills 424 (Herring), 623 (Hudson), 634 & 643 (Roem).

Comments by Charlotte Barkley, Executive Director of PAAC (the Parent Advocacy and Advisory Council of South West Virginia) and the step-mother of a former resident of SWVTC who is now thriving in a Group Home placement. I strongly support HB643 as it provides a way to ensure that an incapacitated person is receiving the best care and oversight under the current court-appointed guardian. This bill is in the best interests of the incapacitated person in that it helps insure adequate overview of that person’s care.

While not representing an organization, I am a member of the Virginia Public Guardian and Conservator Advisory Board and the Supreme Court WINGS (Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders) and was involved for many years in guardianship issues when working at the American Bar Association. I support HB 634, to ensure guardians are better informed about the needs, goals, preferences and values of the adult they are serving, and to bring Virginia closer to the national standard in guardian visits. I support HB 643 on review hearings, to strengthen the court's role in monitoring, and to determine whether a guardianship continues to be necessary of needs to be modified. I support HB 623 sharpening the duties, role and report of the guardian ad litem.

Comments by Jane Powell, former President of Central Virginia Training Center Families and Friends: I am a legal guardian for my sister, a former resident of CVTC. Family guardians of current and former Training Center residents, and presumably other family guardians, would be unduly burdened by the following guardianship bills and are furthermore not qualified to meet all of the requirements of the bills: HB424, HB634 and HB643. These bills set laudable goals, yet codifying these goals would cause negative consequences for family guardians, many of whom are in their 70s or older. • Many of the former residents of CVTC and SWVTC in particular sought legal guardianship of their training center loved ones prior to closure of those facilities, and those who are distant from their loved one’s new placement would be unduly and unnecessarily burdened by quarterly in-person visits when their loved one is in a stable and desirable placement. For example, one guardian lives in Florida and has arranged for his capable and fully engaged son to check in on his SEVTC relative on a frequent basis. The guardian does see his disabled son several times a year, but legally requiring strictly scheduled quarterly in-person visits would impose a completely unnecessary burden and expense. Other family guardians of former training center residents would face similar difficulties. • Family guardians lack the professional qualifications to “observe and assess” some of the provisions of HB424 and HB634, such as how an individual’s mental and physical health care needs are being met. Few visits occur during educational or vocational programs when such observational visits would be disruptive, and likewise there is often no way for families to “observe” progress made toward expressed goals. Family guardians rely on the professionals who care for their loved ones to inform them of the status of these things. • Most training center residents and former training center residents lack funds to pay a professional substitute to make visits on their guardian’s behalf, as proposed in HB634. • Many family guardians lack the technological savvy and/or equipment to meet some of the virtual meeting alternatives proposed in these bills. • Routine court review hearings are unnecessary for severely developmentally disabled persons whose conditions will never improve to the point that they will no longer need a guardian. Going through a court proceeding every three years imposes unnecessary expense and hardship on the families of such individuals. HB424, HB634 and HB643 would have a chilling effect on family guardianship, when families by their nature have the purest guardianship motives and thus should be encouraged. If applied only to paid professional guardians, the bills might make sense, but not when they are universally applied to all legal guardians. Even so, most of the bills’ provisions would be better as opt-in measures when circumstances warrant such measures rather than universal requirements for all legal guardians.

I am writing to request your support this session for House Bills 634, 643, 1207 and 1620. All of these bills are regarding various facets of guardianship. I have been involved in attempts to change or introduce new legislation in Virginia since I approached my local delegate in November 2017. Additionally, I have testified in the House subcommittee regarding the legislation and how it directly affected my ability to visit with my now deceased partner since June 2017. During that period, I was not allowed to visit for arbitrary reasons due to a guardian for two years. This left my partner isolated and I am sure contributed to her early demise due to Alzheimer's disease. I hope that what happened to me and multiple other Virginians will not continue into perpetuity. There was no one else to regularly visit her and it still pains me as she died with my only seeing her twice in three years. Thank you in consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

Good morning My name is Judy Hackler, and I represent the Virginia Assisted Living Association (VALA). We agree to the intent of this bill, but we do not agree to the presented wording to accomplish the goal. We have been working in good faith with other stakeholders on this bill to develop amendments that were agreeable to all, but those amendments have not been completely applied. We also submitted written comments in the subcommittee that were not acknowledged. The published language is worded with direct conflicts to current requirements. This conflicting language would force assisted living facilities to choose which requirement to comply with and which one to violate. That is not in the best interest of the facilities, the residents, nor the Commonwealth. As a result of these conflicts, we ask you to pass by this bill to get the more appropriate amendments, or we oppose the bill as presented to us. Thank you.

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

I would like to speak please -Amy Lee Story

Good morning, My name is Judy Hackler, and I am with the Virginia Assisted Living Association, also known as VALA. I would like to speak on HB690. After communicating with the stakeholders and agencies that proposed this bill, we agree to the purpose of the bill, and we are working with them to amend the language of the published bill to best serve the interests of the residents, the assisted living communities, and the Commonwealth. As of this morning, we have not seen any official changes published in LIS to the bill in the way of amendments or substitutes, and we encourage the committee to consider passing by the bill for this morning to allow us to review published amendments or substitutes, as we believe we can create a bill agreeable to all stakeholders. Thank you.

Comments Document

Attached

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

I would like to speak-AMY Lee Story

I would like to speak please -Amy Lee Story

Dear Sir and Honorable Members of the Committee Industry representatives in the jurisdiction(s) indicated, fully support this bill ... we however would like to point out that the Virginia Department of Health was fully tasked in 2017 to improve and expand the Environmental Health Database to include the ability to capture and report on Conventional Onsite Sewage Systems. https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+ful+HB2477 - 2017 Legislative Session 7. Improve the collection and management of data about onsite sewage systems and private wells, including (i) creating a web-based reporting system for conventional onsite sewage system operation and maintenance, (ii) accepting applications and payments online, (iii) making onsite sewage system and private well records available online, (iv) creating a complete electronic record of all permitted onsite sewage systems and private wells in the Commonwealth, and (v) creating procedures for tracking Notices of Alleged Violations and corrective actions; and The Department to date has been "unable" to provide or make changes to their database as required by legislation. We have had numerous teleconference meetings where private sector has voiced our concerns, and the VDH database administrator has given many excuses as to why they are unable to meet the legislative requirements and make changes. We hope that the committee may add some "teeth" or urgency to the matter for VDH to upgrade the database as required, for a central online reporting instrument is essential for the Chesapeake Bay reporting to work.

I oppose HB 769 as it is proposed for the following reasons: 1. Licensed operators, pursuant to 18VAC160-40, are not licensed pumpers. Individuals can hold multiple licenses – such as installer, operator, pumper, contractor. But a licensed operator, as a stand alone license, is not a pumper and has no pump out authority from either DPOR or VDH. 2. DPOR licenses operators, but does not license pumpers. VDH licenses pumpers through their Sewage Handling Permit program (see 12VAC5-610-240.B - Sewage handling permits. Any person who removes or contracts to remove and transport by vehicle the contents of any septic tank, sewage treatment plant, privy, holding tank, portable toilet, or any sewage septage or sewage sludges from any other device shall be deemed an owner and shall have a written sewage handling permit issued by the commissioner). 3. VDH is stressed to the point of incompetence with the Alternative Onsite maintenance program. VDH is mandated to enforce an annual inspection program for about 25,000 alternative septic systems. The program has been in place for the past 12 years. As of 2017, VDH's compliance is about 10% on the annual maintenance inspection program - out of 23,176 alternative systems, there were only 4,858 inspections for the two year period - 2016 & 2017. For 100% compliance, there should have been 46,352 inspections reported (4858/46,352 = 10.5%.). That’s a statewide compliance rate of 10% for only 26,000 systems. 4. The estimated number of onsite systems in each county is: i. Accomack, 21,356 ii. Essex, 5,914 iii. Gloucester, 16,923 iv. King and Queen, 3,532 v. King William, 7,373 vi. Lancaster, 7,689 vii. Mathews, 5,760 viii. Middlesex, 7,392 ix. Northampton, 7,493 x. Northumberland, 9,394 xi. Richmond, 3,999 xii. Westmoreland, 11,134 Therefore, the estimated total number of conventional septic systems is 97,000 (estimating 90% of the 107,959 dwelling units are served by septic) Does the General Assembly trust VDH to manage/compel 97,000 pump outs every 5 years? 5. DEQ has oversight and audit authority provided by statute. They routinely audit counties for CBPA compliance. If the CBPA pump out program is transferred to VDH, what agency is empowered to hold VDH accountable? 6. The CBPA regulations include enforcement and civil penalties. What specific type of enforcement and civil penalties are provided to VDH in the transfer of the program. 7. There are multiple causes for pump outs. The 5-year CBPA program is one of many reasons owners have their septic system pumped. What levels of responsibility are attributable to the owner, and to the pumper? Is the owner responsible for the pump out only? Is the pumper only responsible for reporting the pump out? What happens if a pumper fails to report? What happens if the owner refuses to comply with the 5 year mandate? 8. Is VDH going to require owners/pumpers to report ALL pump outs? The correct public policy focus should be on alternative system maintenance and the enforcement of the annual inspection program. Alternative systems are critical, as they are constructed in our most sensitive environments. VDH’s failure to enforce the annual inspection program over the past 12 years is a colossal abrogation of their duty to the Commonwealth.

I'm Katie Zhang from the Hamkae Center which organizes Asian American across the Commonwealth. The issue is that there are 20,000 Medicaid enrollees that speak languages outside of English and Spanish. And these 20,000 people face major hurdles getting care because DMAS is unequipped to overcome with language barriers. For the impacted individuals, this means not understanding what their doctors orders are or having no way of doing the application or the follow-up or selecting coverage when all of that is primarily done in English. So this issue of language turns into an issue of health. So we support Delegate Tran's bill - it would unlock the resources we need to break down those barriers and get people taken care of. I ask that you please report this bill because by investing in language access we can investing in a healthier Virginia. Thank you. 

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

Dear Delegate, Protect religious freedom, vote YES for HB 306! Our religious freedoms do not end just because government bureaucrats declare a public health emergency. Our First Amendment rights apply at all times. Thank you, Kellie M. Good

Correction: Please vote YES for house bill 306! No one should be punished for exercising their right to religious freedom!!!!!

Please vote YES for house bill 106! No one should be punished for exercising their right to religious freedom!!!!!

Have you tried Roll On – 200mg from JUSTCBD?

Comments Document

I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this bill. All you see when you look at these people is a label and what you perceive that they did. This label takes away the fact that these are humans! Humans that need help. More and more laws keep being passed to "keep society safe" YET we aren't any safer because of these draconic laws. These laws make zero sense. They do nothing to help keep people safer... but they do make people less safe by 1) forcing these people into homelessness where they have nothing to lose 2) give society a false sense of security and 3) deter society's attention from the REAL threats (the people who they are allowing into their own homes...fathers, uncles, friends...who are NOT YET on this list...the people who are the real threats to your children). You have to ask yourself...What do you want? When is it going to be enough? The people forced to register have done their time for the crime they have committed. They have been released into society. Where does it benefit anyone to punish them for the rest of their lives (and beyond)? The fact that these people are pushed into a state where they have to have emergency shelter is absolutely inhumane. All they want is a place to wait out the cold temperatures. Here is ONE of many tragic ending to these laws...tell me...who does this help? https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2009/01/death_of_sex_homeless_offender.html

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

Please rely on facts not fear. The facts are that registered folks have an extremely low re-offense rate. And after a few years, they are no more likely to re-offend than you or I. We should encourage rehabilitation, not enact byzantine regulations. Please vote NO on HB1080.

I am opposed to HB1080: Enough with the endless regulations and restrictions heaped upon people listed on the sex offender registry. These registered folks are just trying to rebuild their lives and provide for their families. During an emergency their goal will be securing shelter for their spouse and children -- not assaulting strangers! Please rely on facts not fear. The facts are that registered folks have an extremely low re-offense rate. And after a few years, they are no more likely to re-offend than you or I. We should encourage rehabilitation, not enact byzantine regulations. Please vote NO on HB1080.

I personally was homeless for many years of my adult life. I can attest to the sheer “survival mode” desperation of a person who simply wants shelter from life threatening weather conditions. I knew homeless ppl who would intentionally get put in jail for the winter months for the sake of food and shelter. While realizing that the prison industrial complex is a big windfall of profits for certain special interest business entities, it is largely a drain on taxpayers. I have also known men who have wound up on the sex offender registry for urinating in public (so I have been told) which was supposed to result in police not bothering the homeless who must urinate in public bc there are no other options. Plenty of ppl end up on the registry who may not have committed serious crimes, but at any rate, we trust that our judicial system metes out the appropriate punishment. After serving their sentence then we should simply allow them some dignity to be able to access emergency shelter. Seems like this makes being on the registry the worst of all crimes seeing as it follows ppl around throughout their entire lives. I believe in extenuating circumstances, shades of grey and forgiveness. Murderers, thieves, rapists and drug dealers are not necessarily worse ppl than those who spend their lives on the S.O Registry.

This bill is highly counterproductive. It will bar human beings from shelter during an emergency. All this will do is cost the tax payers money which could be better spent in proven methods. Not to mention you are asking untrained persons to make assements. When katrina hit, laws like this lead to hundreds dying and displacing law abiding citzens. While this law would only accomplish a false sense of security. The more folks who are unable to attain emergency shelter, the more first responders are put at risk.

I am an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I was a victim of multiple abusers between the ages of 4-14. None of them ever faced any consequences for the things they did to me. The Registry is supposedly "not a punishment," but merely a 'public safety measure'. But when laws like this are put into place, how can it be anything else but endless punishment? If the Justice System has determined that this person is not a public threat (evidenced by their freedom), there is no reason for anyone else to assume they are a threat. If an individual feels better knowing which houses to tell their children to stay away from, fine, but when there is a public service such as life-saving EMERGENCY SHELTER, it is an unusually cruel punishment to put them in a position where they are blocked from something that there is no legal reason they shouldn't be allowed to do. If keeping out people on the registry is about keeping the community safe, then why isn't there similar legislation for those who have previously been convicted of assault, murder, arson, child abuse, and theft? Shouldn't we know about ALL of the people who ever committed crimes? The person on the cot next to me may have murdered someone and been released from prison; am I really safer next to that person, or an individual (who may be there with their family) who happens to have done something that landed them on the Registry? Frankly, I think I'd rather know about the murderer. To be quite blunt, therapy can help a victim who has been sexually abused, but can't do much for someone who has been murdered. For a boring but very valid consideration, please also consider that this is redundant legislation, as this is already covered in the 2017 Virginia State Managed Shelter Plan. For a more visceral consideration, please consider the dystopian state that may essentially hand down a death sentence to a free citizen who has paid his debt, has followed the rules, and is simply looking for life-saving shelter. If we are going to block anyone with a history of a sex-related offense (even if it was a Romeo-Juliet situation in the 90's) from receiving VITAL emergency services, and continue to pass increasingly restrictive laws that make it very difficult for these citizens to even just live a normal life, we need to think about where we are headed. It must also be considered that a human who is hungry and freezing, but barred from obtaining food and shelter, is a desperate human. Prison food and shelter may seem like a reasonable option. Is that really where we want to put these folks? In a place where the only way to access emergency services is to break a law? This seems unconstitutional, inhumane, and also just plain stupid. Let people get warm. Stop punishing them, I can assure they are already punished daily because of the restrictions and requirements placed on them. Piling on additional burdens for these people does absolutely NOTHING for public safety, and anyone with common sense can see that. I hate RSO laws, but if you think they're great, you better think about this: If you keep tacking on all of these clauses and requirements for people on the registry, at some point this is going to be challenged in the courts, and it will be very obvious that these measures are in fact punitive, and with any luck at all it will help us strike down the registry completely.

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

Comments Document

Please defeat HB 1080. The bill: 1. punishes registrants if they fail to notify emergency shelter staff of their status as a registrant.  Criminalizing that failure with a $500 fine does nothing to enhance public safety. Contacting shelter staff to state that they were convicted decades ago of a sexual offense will hardly make the priority list when the registrant is only trying to find safe haven for his or her family under emergency conditions. 2. states that shelter staff may access the public registry "and use such information to ensure the safety of all persons in the shelter." Data from the registry is of no value in insuring safety since all registrants are free to live and work in society. It is unknown what training could be given to staff to make such an assessment and what actions would be taken in the unlikely case an assessment was possible. 3. requires Department of State Police to provide a summary of the act's requirements to citizens at the time of his or her initial registration only, but not to the thousands of citizens the General Assembly has characterized as lifelong Tier III sex offenders. Criminalizing a visit to an emergency shelter is punishment. There is no research indicating that registrants pose a threat to society. If so, they wouldn't be living and working in society. Research confirms that any threat in a setting like a shelter or a home is overwhelmingly (over 90%) from family, friends and acquaintances, not a stranger who happens to have been convicted of a crime decades ago. If we're interested in public safety in an emergency shelter and logically consider available data, I guess we should post a social worker at the entrance, separate the children from their parents and interview them regarding abuse they have encountered at home at the hands of their parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts and friends - since that's where the abuse originates. Paragraph 5.3 of the attached shelter plan is adequate. Kill HB 1080, please.

Please move to report HB13, 378, 677, 1066, and especially for 1080. Thank you.

Stop with the lies!

No! Stop with the lies! Cannibas is much safer than alcohol and pharmaceuticals!! Let the average person be free with a plant! Stop holding the little guy back....just stop.

The city has chosen ONE as a gaming host. This bill is identical to Morrissey's SB203 which puts limits on a casino referendum in Richmond for five years. We in the city of Richmond feels as Mr. Morrissey have committed MUTINY on us. We see this bill (HB-1134) only as a designed to remove Richmond city from becoming a host city, which in the end becomes Richmond being remove indefinite. PLEASE VOTE NO to HB-1134.

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

I would like to speak please -Amy Lee Story

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who resides in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. As a key stakeholder in the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to Report HB1207. Vulnerable individuals, especially those who are unable to speak for themselves, require frequent and regular visits. To do anything less than a face to face visit places their health and at significant risk. Training is an integral part of ensuring the health and safety of our most vulnerable residents. And DARS is a pivotal piece in this process. A phone call in lieu of a face to face visit for vulnerable individuals is grossly insufficient especially those that have been placed in nursing homes which are almost always understaffed with overworked personnel. My sister suffered and ultimately lost her life because of this lack of oversight and isolation instituted by the guardians. If a guardian is not doing an eyes on visit things will be missed, and it will be to the detriment of vulnerable wards, especially those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. If guardians are not trained in what to look for and what to include in reports, it hamstrings the courts leaving them blind unable to help. It leaves individuals like my beloved sister Anastasia without anyone to fight for them because annual reports as they stand now are severely limited in what they require to be documented. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends, when eyes on are taken away or not required.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Regular and frequent visits with reported findings would have prevented this from happening. When nursing facilities know people will be visiting they are more prone to ensure those residents are properly cared for and monitored. My sister suffered dearly. Why? Because she was severely isolated, and her particular guardians did not take complaints of abuse seriously, did not check on her, and were not required to document changes in her condition and the additional things needed that this bill provides. Please do not let this happen to anyone else. I implore you to unanimously pass HB1207. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

Comments by Charlotte Barkley, Executive Director of PAAC (the Parent Advocacy and Advisory Council of South West Virginia) and the step-mother of a former resident of SWVTC who is now thriving in a Group Home placement. I strongly support HB1260 in its intent to allow an incapacitated person the freedom to have continued visits and interactions with a person with whom they have a long-term, established relationship, and to give legal recourse to an individual whose right to visitation is restricted by the guardian. This will reduce possible spur-of-the moment, vindictive action of a guardian in causing suffering to both the incapacitated person and the visitor with honorable intentions.

I am writing to request your support this session for House Bills 634, 643, 1207 and 1620. All of these bills are regarding various facets of guardianship. I have been involved in attempts to change or introduce new legislation in Virginia since I approached my local delegate in November 2017. Additionally, I have testified in the House subcommittee regarding the legislation and how it directly affected my ability to visit with my now deceased partner since June 2017. During that period, I was not allowed to visit for arbitrary reasons due to a guardian for two years. This left my partner isolated and I am sure contributed to her early demise due to Alzheimer's disease. I hope that what happened to me and multiple other Virginians will not continue into perpetuity. There was no one else to regularly visit her and it still pains me as she died with my only seeing her twice in three years. Thank you in consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

I am asking for your support for HB 1270, with Delegate Mark Sickles as patron. As you already know, people leaving prison are vulnerable to hunger. With your support of this bill, these individuals can immediately access food assistance for themselves and their families upon their release. Currently, incarcerated individuals can apply for SNAP benefits only after they leave prison. As a consequence, it can be weeks--or even months--before they receive needed food assistance. Pre-enrolling incarcerated individuals for SNAP benefits is as simple as adding a line to a form that applicants already complete. Moreover, the bill allows the state to invest in people when they need the help the most—right before leaving prison. This legislation can help reduce recidivism and increase public safety, a win-win for everyone. Providing a helping hand at this critical time will enable the formerly incarcerated to experience the reentry process as a new opportunity, one given by our commonwealth to help them successfully reenter society after release. Reducing the risk of recidivism should also result in a tax saving for Virginia taxpayers.

I am writing in support of HB 306 to be heard in committee tomorrow morning, which will allow a religious exemption to vaccines during an epidemic. Religious exemptions exist so that citizens can act freely in mind, body and spirit. Even in a time of an epidemic, citizens must have the opportunity to act on their conscience whatever that may be. The Nuremberg Code requires bodily autonomy and informed consent for any medical treatments to one’s body. Having religious exemption makes sure that remains the rule of law. As we’ve seen over the last two years, government has retained control over persons and their bodies in a way that would make Thomas Jefferson role over in his grave. Let Virginia continue to be religiously free, as the birthplace of religious freedom. Support HB 306.

Dear Delegate, Protect religious freedom, vote YES for HB 306! Our religious freedoms do not end just because government bureaucrats declare a public health emergency. Our First Amendment rights apply at all times. Thank you, Kellie M. Good

Correction: Please vote YES for house bill 306! No one should be punished for exercising their right to religious freedom!!!!!

Please vote YES for house bill 106! No one should be punished for exercising their right to religious freedom!!!!!

Chairman Orrock & Members: Thank you for the opportunity. Vote Yes on HB 1270 Vote --- Heading off hunger before leaving prison. People leaving prison are exceptionally vulnerable to hunger. HB 1270 allows incarcerated persons to pre-enroll in the SNAP program while still incarcerated so they can immediately access food assistance for themselves and their families upon their release. Otherwise, it can be weeks or even months before they receive food assistance—leaving them vulnerable to hunger. Why is this important? Just one example: to quote a Director of a Day program for the down and out. “I see weekly at our center the release of ex-offenders into the community w/o a nickel in their pocket, with only the cloths on their back and significant anger & depression because there is no one who cares or can help them become self-sustaining or get training or a job. These mostly men end up back in prison within 6-9 months because they may have to steal or shop lift to survive.” It’s a small step to help assure the successful re-entry of persons leaving prison, especially, because being approved for Food Stamps assures immediate and mandatory referral and connection to Job Seeking & Job Keeping program participation & help. Virginia can do better to ensure family and community reintegration by this incremental step because DOJ reports that 70% of prisoners have children under 18 years of age! Again, Vote Yes on HB 1270 Vote --- Heading off hunger before leaving prison

As a citizen in solidarity with Social Action Linking Together (SALT), a voter, and a taxpayer, I am asking for your support for HB 1270, with Delegate Mark Sickles as patron. As you already know, people leaving prison are vulnerable to hunger. With your support of this bill, these individuals can immediately access food assistance for themselves and their families upon their release. Currently, incarcerated individuals can apply for SNAP benefits only after they leave prison. As a consequence, it can be weeks--or even months--before they receive needed food assistance. Pre-enrolling incarcerated individuals for SNAP benefits is as simple as adding a line to a form that applicants already complete. Moreover, the bill allows the state to invest in people when they need the help the most—right before leaving prison. This legislation can help reduce recidivism and increase public safety, a win-win for everyone. Providing a helping hand at this critical time will enable the formerly incarcerated to experience the reentry process as a new opportunity, one given by our commonwealth to help them successfully reenter society after release. Reducing the risk of recidivism should also result in a tax saving for Virginia taxpayers.

The City of Portsmouth is in support of this bill. Thank you.

Vote Yes on HB 1270 Vote --- Heading off hunger before leaving prison. People leaving prison are exceptionally vulnerable to hunger. HB 1270 allows incarcerated persons to pre-enroll in the SNAP program while still incarcerated so they can immediately access food assistance for themselves and their families upon their release. Otherwise, it can be weeks or even months before they receive food assistance—leaving them vulnerable to hunger. Why is this important? Just one example: to quote a Director of a Day program for the down and out. “I see weekly at our center the release of ex-offenders into the community w/o a nickel in their pocket, with only the cloths on their back and significant anger & depression because there is no one who cares or can help them become self-sustaining or get training or a job. These mostly men end up back in prison within 6-9 months because they may have to steal or shop lift to survive.” It’s a small step to help assure the successful re-entry of persons leaving prison, especially, because being approved for Food Stamps assures immediate and mandatory referral and connection to Job Seeking & Job Keeping program participation & help.

I am really wanting you all not to pass this bill because Oxford House gives me a place to live at a price I can afford on disability it gives me stability Oxford House I would be homeless and if the bill does pass that means I rent would go up and I would be homeless again and I am doing very well I enjoy living in the Oxford House we have meetings once a week for our house and we have committee meetings and everything So please do not pass this bill I in begging you

I strongly support HB1270. Returning citizens typically do not leave prison/jail to return to a food secure life with a good-paying job waiting for them. This leaves them especially vulnerable to recidivate immediately after release. Pre-enroll returning citizens in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) in the final month of their sentence would help with this problem since SNAP applications are processed within 30 days (7 days for expedited cases). SNAP opens them up to two benefits: 1) Food access and 2) Employment and Training opportunities. For individuals with no means to meet their basic needs immediately after prison, this is a lifetime. This is a win-win. There is no extra cost and it will help keep people from returning to jail. Thank-you.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Mr. Chairman, It is with a great deal of consideration that, on behalf of the Virginia Association of Regional Jails to note our complete support of HB1341 and we would like to thank Delegate Brewer for her contribution to this important and difficult discussion. Virginia's regional jail's are struggling to manage this problem and seek the assistance of the Commonwealth's providing the level of service the criminally justice involved people deserve that quite frankly transcends both the scope and ability of local corrections.

The Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority greatly appreciates the work Delegate Brewer has done in amending HB1341 and we fully support HB 1341. We would ask that the committee members to move HB1341 forward. HB1341 is extremely important to assist local jails in quickly getting inmates with psychiatric needs that exceed the treatment capabilities of the jail into a noncorrectional facility specifically designed for handling their care and treatment.