WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 475

A Resolution recognizing the month of September 2026 as "ITP Awareness Month" in Pennsylvania.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz and 9 co-sponsors

PA bill strengthens treatment/problem-solving courts and authorizes more flexible modification or revocation of probation terms under Title 42.

Reported as committed
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 475

Summary of Bill: HR 475 (Session: 2025-2026) – Pennsylvania

Note: The bill text provided appears to be Senate Bill 475 (SB 475) from the 2025-2026 Pennsylvania session, with a bill title referencing “A Resolution recognizing the month of September 2026 as 'ITP Awareness Month' in Pennsylvania.” The available official bill text and action history describe SB 475 as an Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) related to problem-solving courts and probation modification, not a resolution designating an awareness month. The following summary reflects the substantive contents and status as reflected in the bill text and actions listed.

1) Main purpose and intent

  • The bill is aimed at strengthening Pennsylvania’s treatment and problem-solving courts by making amendments to Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.
  • Specifically, the measure seeks to enhance the organization and jurisdiction of common pleas courts’ problem-solving courts and to provide for modifications or revocation of probation orders in sentencing contexts.
  • Overall goal: improve treatment courts and related probation processes to support rehabilitation and public safety outcomes.

2) Key provisions and changes

  • Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure):
    • In the area concerning organization and jurisdiction of courts of the common pleas, the bill adds or clarifies provisions related to problem-solving courts (which include specialized dockets such as drug treatment courts, mental health courts, veteran courts, etc.).
    • In the area concerning sentencing, the bill adds or clarifies provisions for modification or revocation of orders of probation. This could affect when and how probation terms can be altered by the court, including potential mechanisms for modification in response to a participant’s progress or setbacks.
  • The amendments are framed as strengthening the operation and scope of treatment/problem-solving courts and providing clearer authority for probation modifications or revocations.
  • The bill includes references to related fiscal notes and supporting documents (e.g., House and Senate fiscal notes) indicating consideration of budgetary or funding implications, though specific dollar amounts are not stated in the summary text provided.

3) Who or what would be affected

  • Courts of common pleas, particularly those operating or administering problem-solving/treatment courts.
  • Defendants or participants in probation who are under orders that could be modified or revoked under the new provisions.
  • Court administrators and staff responsible for implementing problem-solving court procedures and probation supervision.
  • The broader criminal justice and public safety system, due to potential changes in treatment court operations and probation management.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Legislative path:
    • Referred to Judiciary in March 2025.
    • Reported as committed in March 2025.
    • First and second consideration in March 2025.
    • Re-referred to Appropriations in April 2025; re-reported as committed in April 2025.
    • Third consideration and final passage in April 2025 (Senate), with a final Senate vote of 49-0.
    • House actions followed in May–July 2025, including Judiciary referral, committee consideration, and floor votes.
    • Final House passage on July 8, 2025 (203-0); Governor actions followed with signature on July 21, 2025.
    • Act No. 38 of 2025, dated July 21, 2025.
  • The bill’s enacted status indicates broad bipartisan support in both chambers.
  • After enactment, implementation would align with the amended provisions in Title 42, requiring updates to court procedures and probation supervision practices.

Additional context

  • The included sponsor list names several senators (e.g., Cappelletti, Baker, Street, Tartaglione, Haywood, Schwank, Kane) and indicates multiple co-sponsors, suggesting broad legislative interest.
  • Supporting documents and amendments (House amendments, fiscal notes) are referenced, indicating consideration of cost implications and technical changes.

If you would like, I can:
- Extract and list the precise statutory language changes once the final printed bill text is available.
- Provide a side-by-side comparison of current law vs. amended text.
- Summarize potential fiscal impacts based on the attached fiscal notes.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.