119-HR-7995 Journalist Public Summary
119 · HR 7995 CONNECT Act
A bipartisan House bill would refocus the Chafee Foster Care Program on helping teens in or from foster care build lasting adult and peer relationships and have a real voice in their permanency plans; it also directs HHS to issue detailed guidance to states and tribes, and it currently sits in the House Ways and Means Committee after being introduced on March 19, 2026.
Headline Summary
A bipartisan proposal to update the Chafee Foster Care Program so agencies prioritize long‑term, supportive relationships for youth 14 and older and ensure those teens help shape their own permanency plans.
What It Does
The bill (the CONNECT Act) revises the stated purposes of the John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood. It directs child‑welfare agencies to help young people who experienced foster care at age 14+ build and maintain sustained, supportive relationships with adults, kin, mentors, and peers. It also requires support for youth still in foster care to exercise their rights to take part in permanency planning and to receive written information about services and steps agencies are taking. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must, within one year of enactment and after consulting youth with lived experience, issue guidance to states and tribal agencies detailing eligible services under existing child‑welfare funding streams, best practices and training standards for mentoring and peer support, outreach and notification standards (including for youth in planned permanent living arrangements), and documentation protocols for case plans and reviews. The updated purposes take effect one year after enactment.
Who’s For It
- Bill sponsors: Rep. Gwen Moore (D‑WI) and Rep. Mike Carey (R‑OH), signaling bipartisan interest.
- Supporters argue that stronger, lasting relationships reduce isolation and improve outcomes as teens transition to adulthood from foster care.
- Some state and tribal agencies may welcome clearer federal guidance on what relationship‑building services qualify under existing funding streams and how to document them.
Who’s Against It
- Fiscal skeptics may worry about added administrative work or costs tied to new guidance, training standards, and documentation.
- Some states could view the directives as federal overreach into case planning and program design.
- Practitioners might raise practical concerns about recruiting and training enough qualified mentors and measuring the quality of “lifelong connections.”
What’s Next
Status: Introduced in the House on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Next typical steps would be a committee hearing, potential markup and cost estimate, a House vote, and then consideration in the Senate if it passes the House.
Discussion