WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 11

DIRECTING THE JUDICIARY TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP TO EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND POVERTY ELIMINATION (HOPE) COURT PROGRAM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH STATE AGENCIES AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION.

153rd General Assembly (2025-2026) Introduced by Alonna Berry and 11 co-sponsors

Delaware would study and report on creating a HOPE Court to coordinate housing, poverty services, and legal relief, with pilots and statewide implementation recommendations if feas

Passed By Senate. Votes: 20 YES 1 ABSENT
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 11

Summary of Bill: HJR 11 (Delaware, 153rd Session)

Purpose and Intent

  • HJR 11 directs the Delaware judiciary to establish a working group to explore the feasibility of creating a Housing Opportunity and Poverty Elimination (HOPE) Court program.
  • The goal is to assess whether a HOPE Court model can be implemented statewide, in partnership with state agencies and community organizations, and to develop recommendations for statewide adoption and implementation.

Key Provisions

  • Formation of Working Group: The Judiciary is instructed to form a working group to study the HOPE Court concept. While the bill text provided does not enumerate all membership details, the group is expected to include representatives from the judiciary, state agencies, and community organizations.
  • Assessment Scope: The working group will examine the feasibility, design, and potential impact of a HOPE Court program. This includes how such a court would operate, stakeholder roles, and interagency coordination.
  • Partnerships: Emphasizes collaboration with state agencies and community organizations to ensure the program addresses housing, poverty alleviation, and related social services.
  • Recommendations: The working group must produce recommendations for statewide implementation if a HOPE Court is deemed feasible. This would likely include pilot considerations, funding needs, staffing, training, and measurement of outcomes.
  • Legislative Action Post-Report: While not explicitly stated in the summary, typically such resolutions culminate in presenting findings to the General Assembly and proposing further legislation or budget actions to authorize or fund a HOPE Court program.

Affected Parties and Stakeholders

  • Judiciary: Primary lead for establishing and overseeing the working group and potential HOPE Court model.
  • State Agencies: Likely relevant agencies include housing, social services, health and human services, and potentially corrections or court administration, given the cross-agency nature of housing and poverty-related issues.
  • Community Organizations: Nonprofit and community-based organizations involved in housing assistance, poverty alleviation, legal aid, and social services.
  • Individuals Targeted by HOPE Court: Individuals experiencing housing instability, homelessness risk, or poverty-related legal issues who would be served by a specialized court program (subject to the feasibility and design).

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Introduction and Assignment: The bill was introduced and assigned to the Judiciary Committee in the House on May 12, 2026.
  • Next Steps: The Judiciary Committee would review and debate the bill, potentially amend it, and progress it through the legislative process. If approved, it would advance toward a floor vote and possible passage, with any necessary appropriations or future legislation dependent on the working group’s findings and recommendations.

Potential Impacts and Considerations

  • Access to Justice: If implemented, HOPE Court could provide a specialized, coordinated approach to cases involving housing instability and poverty, potentially improving access to services and legal outcomes.
  • Cross-Sector Collaboration: The model would require substantial collaboration across state agencies and community groups, which could drive integrated service delivery.
  • Resource Implications: Feasibility and statewide implementation would require careful consideration of funding, staffing, training, data sharing, and court workflow adjustments.
  • Pilot and Evaluation: Successful adoption would likely depend on pilot testing, measurable outcomes (e.g., housing stability, recidivism in related cases, service engagement), and scalable implementation plans.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific audience (general public, policymakers, or legal professionals) or incorporate any available amendments or fiscal notes.

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

Sign in to ask a question.