The implementation of HB 863 could significantly alter how state programs assess their social impacts, potentially leading to more evidence-based policymaking. It is designed to facilitate a consistent approach to measuring social outcomes, which could enhance the efficacy of government initiatives. By requiring standardized scoring, the bill may help to align various state programs with shared social goals, improving overall program effectiveness and accountability in public service delivery.
Summary
House Bill 863 addresses the establishment of social objective scoring standards, aiming to create a framework for evaluating various social objectives across state programs and policies. The bill seeks to promote transparency and accountability in how social evaluations are conducted, ensuring that scoring methods are standardized and used consistently. Proponents of the bill argue that clear social scoring standards will lead to more effective evaluation processes, enabling better decision-making and resource allocation based on measurable outcomes.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB 863 is generally supportive among those who prioritize innovative measures to enhance transparency in governmental operations. Advocates see it as a crucial step in ensuring that social policies are evaluated using reliable and consistent criteria. However, there are also concerns from critics who question the potential for misuse of social scores and the adequacy of the standards proposed, fearing that it could lead to rigid frameworks that fail to account for local variations or unique contexts.
Contention
Key points of contention include the fear that standardized scoring could simplify complex social issues, potentially leading to a one-size-fits-all approach that does not fully accommodate community-specific needs and objectives. Critics argue that this could undermine local efforts to address unique social challenges effectively. Additionally, there are questions about who will create and maintain these scoring standards and the criteria that will be used, as differing perspectives on social evaluation could lead to conflicts in application.
Provides that the court shall not order a parent to pay child support to the other parent for reasonable or necessary expenses of the child if the parents are awarded equal time with the child
Provides that the court shall not order a parent to pay child support to the other parent for reasonable or necessary expenses of the child if the parents are awarded equal time with the child
Provides that the court shall not order a parent to pay child support to the other parent for reasonable or necessary expenses of the child if the parents are awarded equal time with the child
Provides that the court shall not order a parent to pay child support to the other parent for reasonable or necessary expenses of the child if the parents are awarded equal time with the child