Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Good afternoon. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is Wednesday, 03/18/2026. It's just after 03:15PM, and we are here to take up a bill which is now in our possession, page six fifty seven, Accolating to Enabling Unaccompanied Homeless Youth to Obtain Certain Services Without Parental Consent. Okay, so we have Katie and John here from Legislative Counsel, and just let you guys take it away.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: You. Katie McGlynn, legislative council.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: John Kreya, from legislative council.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon. I'll share my screen. Is that okay? Yes. Okay. So this is an omnibus bill. Number of topics covered in this bill. So I'll just kind of give you an overview, and then we can look at the language. There's language pertaining to reach up and asset limits. There's language pertaining to social security benefits for youth in foster care. There is a big section of the bill pertaining to unaccompanied youth and the services they could obtain for themselves without parental consent if they obtain a certain certification. Then there's a bunch of conforming sections that go along with that. There is a section about transporting youth in DCF custody. There is a section about restraint and seclusion of youth in DCF custody not related to transport. And there is a section on surveillance of pregnant individuals by DCF, a work group, looking at that issue, the pregnancy calendar, for lack of a better way of explaining that. And I hope I haven't forgotten anything, but lots of topics related to DCF. So I will dive in. This first section pertains to reach up. Right now, there's a $9,000 asset limit in your reach up, subject to certain exceptions for retirement accounts and the HEAP accounts, education savings accounts. So that language is removed, there's an affirmative statement being added that the department shall not impose an asset limit for the purpose of initial and continuing eligibility for the Reach Up program. And then I will happily turn it over to John for Sections two and three.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, so just to set up the problem with these Sections two and three we're trying to solve, currently DCF serves as representative payee for certain children in its care that receives Social Security benefits, and that includes both benefits under title two, your retirement survivor's disability insurance, and then also benefits under Title 16, your supplemental security income. As revenue fee, its current practice is to reimburse itself for foster care costs. What these provisions of the bill would do is instead of being used for reimbursement of DCF spot for care costs, they would be conserved for the child's benefit, either in the form of dedication to a trust account appropriate to that child, or they would be used for child's unmet needs, meaning those pieces beyond what the state is obligated to provide on its own time, assuming that these provisions pass. So section two of the bill and you want me to go?

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, sorry. You can whatever.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: He is amending the definition section to fall out of some of the pieces that I just spoke to. So I talked about a trust account appropriate to the child, qualified ABLE account you may be familiar with, but it's a tax advantaged savings account that would be used for children that currently receive Supplemental Security Income benefits. And those are available exclusively to persons with an eligible disability. Representative Pey, we've spoken to. This is the person appointed by the SSA to manage the benefits for a child. We have called out the different titles that I just spoke to, so RSDA benefits, that's your Title II benefits. And we have a generic call out the Social Security benefits, which would capture both of those Title II and Title XVI benefits, SSI being the supplemental security income benefits I've just spoken to. On page four, we see the actual directives to DCF. The first is to prohibit the current practice. So subsection a is prohibiting the department from using any portion for child Social Security benefits to offset the state's costs except that's an important practical concern. Except as useful to maintain the child's eligibility for SSI benefits and avoid a violation of federal asset resource limits. As you can imagine, if you switch to a practice where you're conserving the child's benefits, but you also have a means tested program, the accumulation of those funds within a trust account could actually trigger a violation of those asset limitations. So this is saying, don't use the funds in this particular way except as required to maintain the child's benefits. Subsection B, it's saying that upon request of a child or their foster care provider, the department may use their benefits for those unmet needs beyond the amount that the

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: state is required to provide you.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: So there's two things that you could do with the money. You can use toward unmet needs, that's beyond what the state is obligated to do for conservatory child's benefits. Subsection c pulls in the treasurer, and this is kind of a broad new idea for those funds. In its capacity, it's representative of the treasurer. The child shall, one, establish the trust account for that child, which would be that qualified ABLE account if it's a child receiving SSI benefits. Additionally, we'd monitor those asset limitations for their benefits. Third, we'd ensure that the best interests are served by using those benefits for unmet needs or conserving in a way that avoids violating those resource limitations. Then on page five, appealing any denied applications for SSI benefits. Some children come to the department without currently being eligible or having had an application made for receiving SSI benefits. If DCF applied, this would require them to appeal any denied application to maximize benefits for the child, and then providing an annual accounting of the use of those funds. Those are my sections. I'm happy to answer questions, but also have

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: to turn it over given how much you guys are going through.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Okay, I'm not seeing questions, so thank you, John. Okay.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: The next section is the unaccompanied youth section. And as led off with, this is a provision that first defines what we mean by unaccompanied youth and then authorizes those individuals, if they have a certificate that's filled out on their behalf confirming that they're an unaccompanied youth to obtain certain services and benefits using that certificate. So we have some definitions section. The definition of unaccompanied youth refers to a youth who homeless, who's a homeless child or youth. So we have this definition of homeless child or youth of our definition of unaccompanied youth, also a definition of school district homeless liaison. And then subsection B, we turn to the certificate itself. The unaccompanied youth may be certified if the youth is found by a school district homeless liaison or other support appropriate staff person to be an unaccompanied youth or believed to qualify as an unaccompanied youth by the director of an emergency shelter program funded by the state, the director of a runaway homeless youth program funded by US Health and Human Services or US HUD or designee, or a continuum of care lead agency designee, or the chief juvenile defender designee, or the Vermont Network. So any of those entities could do the certification. Proof of certification. So in this subdivision one, we have Elevate Youth Services, Vermont Coalition of Runaway Homeless Youth Services, developing a standardized form that's used for this purpose. The front of the form includes the circumstances that qualify the youth, the date of the certification, the name and signature of the person doing the certifying, confirmation from the certifying individual that they've completed a human trafficking training in the past two years. And then this section of law will be printed on the backside of the form so that somebody receiving the form, like a potential landlord, would know what the meaning of the form is. They would have the statute accessible to them.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: They could read the type.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: We have nothing about large type here. Yeah. Go

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: ahead. I find these sections pretty problematical. Doesn't seem to be any law enforcement or other entity that would actually first of all identify who the person is, the youth is, to find out where is he, is he in his system, does he have parents, Where is he coming from? So all of a sudden you have some people that are not in law enforcement or judiciary that are certifying that he's homeless. Well how do you know if he's homeless if you don't have a check to find out whether he's got a home? What do the parents know? Is this a violation of any parental rights?

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: These are youth that well, what is that language? Me find this. Consent with your parent or guardian. So I'm skipping ahead to subsection E, but there's language here that is let me just write language. Yeah. A person, provider, or health care profession no, that's not what I'm looking for. There's language that the youth is deemed I'm not finding it. That the youth is deemed to

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: have

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: been I don't know what the right words are. I'm sorry. Use a certification form. There's language that the parent sort of, by not taking care of the youth, the youth is deemed unaccompanied. Where am I? It's not a sense of that understanding.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: We also have Rep Chair Wood here. I'm sorry, I'm not finding it. It's been a long weekend. We're the end of a long day, and there's been a lot of bills.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Even with that, someone would have to determine that that child was unaccompanied and that something had happened there. It doesn't seem to me that some of the people that are certified are either capable of or trustworthy enough necessarily to do that job. I know if my kid did something like that and turned up, I wouldn't be very happy. I don't have any kids, maybe that's why I would really not be very happy.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: That's why you didn't have kids. All right.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: I'm not

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: finding the language that's in my mind, but I'm happy to defer that question to the policy committee.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Okay. Are we going to move on temporarily at least, and then we'll address it as we need to?

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So we've talked about the entities that are doing the certification. The page we're on now? Are on page seven. Subdivision C3. This is the list of what an unaccompanied youth could use the certification form for. They could use it to apply at no charge for a non driver identification card, a learner's permit, an operator's license, an operator's privilege card, obtain a vitals event certificate, consent to health care by a professional licensed or certified in Vermont, including medical care, dental care, mental health services, including psychological counseling treatment, psychiatric treatment, substance use prevention treatment services, surgical diagnosis, including medical diagnosis and treatment such as preventative care for themselves or the youth's child if the certified unaccompanied youth is unmarried and is the parent of the child and has actual custody of the child. They could enter into a contract for housing to obtain admission to a shelter or or transitional housing, obtain employment subject to state law, purchase an automobile and obtain a automobile policy subject to state law, apply for student loan, obtain admission to a high school or postsecondary school, participate in school activities, including extracurricular activities and field trips, open an account in a state or federally chartered bank or credit union, and receive services for victims of domestic or sexual violence as appropriate. Use of the form is in subsection D. A health care professional shall accept the completed form as proof of the use status as a certified unaccompanied youth. And it is that provide housing services or benefits authorized under this section may keep a copy of the form or card in the youth's medical file. We have language about consent of a parent or guardian. A certificate issued pursuant to this subsection shall authorize the unaccompanied youth to obtain benefits listed. The person, provider, health care professional shall not require the consent of a parent or guardian as providing the benefit or service authorized. In subdivision two, for the purpose of implementing subdivision c two I, that's opening an account in a state or federally chartered bank. Commissioner of financial regulation is to ensure minimum youth certification requirements are met for the purpose of making it legally permissible A bank credit union or insurance company contract with the unaccompanied youth without the consent of a parent or guardian, with the understanding that the youth may not have a permanent physical address. We have immunity from liability that an entity, provider, or health care professional who contracts with an unaccompanied use pursuant to this section shall be immune from liability for determination to contract with a minor unless the entity, provider, or health care professional acted with gross negligence. And then we have language that this isn't altering an existing interstate compact.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Back Okay. On my other question, this one. With this language, would this provide immunity to, say, a shelter manager that certified this kid is homeless? Anyone

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: who contracts with an unaccompanied youth. So it's not a provider. It's a provider who relies on the certificate to provide a service to the youth. And they're not liable? They're not liable for their reliance on that, for providing a service without parental consent. So they are reliant on that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: The shelter would not be viable for accepting that certification and providing them the service. What about the person who certified it?

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: The person who certified it?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: There could be different interpretations of the term contract, right? If you think of contracts in terms of contract, you can enter into a verbal contract of some sort.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: This, to me, doesn't read like it would apply to the folks who are certifying the certificate, because the language is an entity provider, a health care professional who contracts with the unaccompanied youth that feels like they're making an agreement with the youth, which is different than certifying the form. Yeah. Chair Wood, if you want to

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: bring another chair up, we can have you join us at the table because there may be some questions to have you answer.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: If you guys have no questions for my success, I'm more than happy to just make this Okay. Incredible.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Deep John's chair.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Alright.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: Happy for me.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Happy to too.

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: I'm happy to leave. Goodbye.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: So you heard that exchange. Is there anything you'd like to add to that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: I just wanted to add to the community. I'm sorry. I thought you were done with the question. Introduce yourself.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Yes. Okay. That would be

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: a good idea. I'm just so plunged by sitting side by side with Katie in the women's chair. So yes, Teresa Wood from Waterbury Chair of House Human Services. So I wanted to point out that the judiciary committee is also reviewing this bill and addressing any potential legal issues. So I wanted the members to know that. So we have it in our possession.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Yes. They must be doing sort of a little drive by at some point.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Yes. When doing a drive by, to be honest, I'm not sure if they have any feedback about that. I don't know if

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: I think it happened this Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: It happened this morning.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Think Oh, it already did. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And actually, Cherry Long is coming in tomorrow for something else, so we might snag him on that if he wants to talk about that. I'll text him about that. Okay. Okay.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Continue, please. Section 4A. As we were working on this, the judiciary team, due to our attention, there is this existing language from the unlawful sheltering and aiding of a runaway child. And there is an exemption well, let me read the rule first. So a person commits a crime of unlawfully sheltering or aiding a runaway child if the person knowingly shelters them, potentially aids, helps assists to become a runaway, or knowingly takes, entices, or harbors a runaway child, etcetera. Then we have a list of exemptions. Added to the exemption are individuals who are assisting under the previous section because of this language that knowingly shelters a child, because one of the items on the list is potentially housing somebody using that certificate that we just talked about. The next several sections are all conforming sections, I guess, to mechanize allowing a youth, the non accompanied youth, to obtain the services that were in this list. Most of these, but not all of them, apply to motor vehicles. First one does not. First one is vital event certificate. So the lead in language is that the state registrars shall waive the fee for certified copies of vital event certificates issued to, and then unaccompanied youth with this certificate are added to the list. Next is the non driver identification card. Similarly, the commissioner shall require a payment of $29 except for individuals on this list. Unaccompanied youth are added to this list. Page 13, license and privilege cards. Let's see. An unaccompanied youth who has obtained a certificate shall be provided an operator's license or operator privilege card and no charge. No additional fees shall be due for a motorcycle endorsement for an unaccompanied youth. Next is the learner's permit. There is a fee, except there is no charge for certain individuals already in statute, and the proposal is to add unaccompanied youth here as not having a fee. Similar here for the $11 except that it will be waived. Motorcycle learner's permit, same language. Page 16, unaccompanied youth who has obtained a certificate pursuant to 30 three-ninety-four 908, similarly waiving the fee for a lawyer's permit.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: I have a question. Because this is DMV, did transportation have to look at this?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: It went to ways and means because of the fee issues, and they voted it out ten-one. So it did not go to the transportation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Federation doesn't need to see it because it's a fee thing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Because it went to fees. Yeah, I mean to Right. Ways and

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Just as a point of curiosity, he was in DCF's custody that's 18 to 22 years old, and would be able to get these.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Can you tell me exactly where you're?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Back on, when you get into your fees,

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: if you

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: look at section C1, individuals 23 years of age were in the care and custody of the commission of children and families pursuant to whatever that is.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: That's current statute. I'm

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: just curious.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Mean, that is current law.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Who would be in that age category and in the custody of children and families, then be able to get a motorcycle license.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: I have to cross check what 4,903 I'm happy DAY: to do that. I stop.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Don't need to do anything. You keep going. You fix it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: I can give you an example. I know pertinent if to the Section 4,903, but for instance, if you are a youth with a disability and you're continuing on in school, they can make provisions to extend your custody. So I'm not sure if that's what's cited in 4,903, but I do know that that's, In my previous professional experience, that has been the case.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: It could be some physical disability that doesn't impact your ability to drive a vehicle or something like that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: It could be.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Forty nine zero three has to do with the responsibility of the department. Yep.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: I

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: guess as you don't want me to deep dive on this, although I can.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Okay, I'm gonna pull this up. Transitional youth services is 49 out of

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: the four.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Yeah. There's a whole section around transitioning youth. And there are, as I said, certain circumstances where DCF can retain custody that enables the child to continue to access foster care or maybe a transitional youth placement that is paid for by the department. I imagine it's not the bulk of the work. It is not. It is not.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: All right, let's continue. Okay.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: So we got through all of the sections on unaccompanied youth, and that brings us to a section on transportation of children, of a child. There is already this section already exists in statute, but you'll see that there's a lot of new language here. So we have a definition section about secure transports and the meaning of different types of restraints that are referred to, definition of waste shackles. So in existing language, we have language that DCF shall ensure that all reasonable appropriate measures consistent with public safety are made to transport a child in the following manners, preventing physical, psychological harm, respecting privacy, representing the least restrictive means necessary. In subsection C, the commissioner has the authority to designate the professional or law enforcement officers transporting a child, and shall authorize the method of transport. A contract has to reflect the requirements that are in this section. And transportation services that are with non contracted law enforcement officers can only be authorized in emergency situations or by court order. Top of page 18, subsection D, the commissioner shall provide education materials complying with this section to outline the legal requirements for secure transportation of children to individuals designated pursuant to C and have to obtain verification that all designated individuals have reviewed those educational materials. And E, secure transport is only used when the department determines and documents why it's necessary to prevent risk of serious physical harm to the child or others based upon an individualized risk assessment. And F, we have language about the policy of the state that's already an existing law, that mechanical restraints are not routinely used on children, subject to this chapter unless circumstances warrant. New language is that soft mechanical restraint shall be the first option for a restraint, and other mechanical restraints shall not be utilized as a substitute for soft restraints if the soft restraints are deemed adequate for safety. And G, an entity contracted to do the transport is to provide documentation to the department for the use of those restraints when the entity believes that the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: requires the use of soft restraints before or during the transport, including a description as to why less restrictive interventions could not reasonably be attempted or why the attempted use of less restrictive interventions was unsuccessful. Two, the

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: entity entity believes believes that that the risk

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: of serious

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: physical physical harm to the child or others was such that soft restraints were not adequate for safety and shall include a description as to which restraint was used and why soft restraints were deemed inadequate for preventing the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others. Three, the use of way shackles was determined to be the sole means of preventing serious physical harm to the child or others, and shall include a description as to why way shackles were the sole means of preventing risk of serious physical harm to the child or others. H pertains to documentation. It's required for the use of restraints and must be completed prior to transport unless circumstances require the use during the course of transport, in which case the documentation happens after the transport. I specifies that the use of waste shackles is prohibited on children 12 years of age or younger. Use of way shackles on children 13 years of age or older shall be assessed and determined to be the sole means of preventing serious physical harm to a child or others and shall be documented accordingly. Only designated law enforcement agencies shall use the waste shackles on a child to transport pursuant to this section. Subsection J, the commissioner shall ensure supervisory review by the Department of all documentation required by this section. And K is an annual report from DCF to the policy committees and the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate, addressing the number of secure transports during the previous year, including those transported with restraints. So specifically, age, gender and racial background of the transported children, number of children transported using mechanical restraints, whether the transport was conducted by law enforcement or a private agency, while applicable, type of mechanical sorry, when applicable, the type of mechanical restraint, the type of custody children were in when transport occurred, and the purpose of the transport. So that is all part of an annual report. Once the department has upgraded its technological capacity in a manner that enables it to collect responsive data, information specific to Sorry, lost my list. B, C, E, and F shall be collected and included in the annual report. So there is a recognition that the technology might not yet be in place to collect all the information. There's another annual report required, this time from the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs to the Policy Committees, the Department and the Office of the Advocate, addressing the number of secure transports of minors during the previous year. And again, a similar type of information is collected as part of that report. Section 10 is a one time report on the transportation of children and restraint. So by December of not this year, but the following year, DCF is to submit a report to the policy committees addressing how the department is effectuating the policies set forth in the section above and in language that was put in the budget in 2017, specifically addressing contracting with or private agencies for the transport of children, departmental oversight and supervisory review of the secure transport of children, including transport provided by private agencies or law enforcement officers, mechanism used by the Department to collect and review data on the application of mechanical restraints during the transport of a child, materials and requirements for designated contractors, written policies used to effectuate the law, other information the department deems relevant, and we have a cross reference on restraint. Next is Section 11, Use of Force Policy. This directs the Vermont Criminal Justice Council in consultation with the state's attorneys and sheriffs, the Child Youth and Family Advocate, Disability Rights Vermont, DCF and Dale to conduct a formal review to determine whether its use of force policy should include an appendix to adequately address the transportation by law enforcement of children 18 years of age that is in alignment with public policy considerations for the transport of children in the custody of the Department. Okay, section 12. We're moving to non transport related restraint and seclusion. We have a subsection A with all of our definitions. So chemical restraint, child, here meaning a child or children in DCF's custody or receiving care and services in a program regulated or licensed by DCF. Mechanical restraint, physical restraint, prone restraint, seclusion, strict search, least restrictive, soft restraint, secure residential program. There are definitions. And then subsection B sort of sets the rule. There are a couple exceptions, as you'll see as we move down. But the department shall not use or authorize the use of prone restraints, mechanical restraints, chemical restraints, strip searches on a child. In subsection E, seclusion or physical restraint shall not be used for punishment, disciplinary purposes, the protection of property or any other reason other than as a safety measure of last resort to prevent serious harm to the child or others. In subsection D, a staff member shall use other restrictive interventions unless less restrictive interventions have failed or would be ineffective in stopping imminent danger or property damage. And he, after attempting to use less restrictive means, the staff member who's trained in accordance with the rules that are required by this section can physically restrain a child or place the child in seclusion after the staff member first determines that the behavior poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to the child or others, conducts physical restraint or seclusion in a manner that respects the child's privacy and limits physical and psychological trauma, And after initiation of the intervention, explains to the child the reasons for the restraint or seclusion and informs the child of the circumstances that allow release from physical restraint or seclusion. In F, if a child is placed in physical restraint or seclusion, the child shall be released immediately when there's no longer that serious risk of physical harm to the child or others. In subsection G, we have some time limits of how long restraint and seclusion can be used prior to a higher degree of clinical and administrative consultation and oversight. Restraint or seclusion lasting more than ten minutes requires supervisory approval and oversight. Lasting more than thirty minutes requires clinical and administrative consultation, approval and oversight. And we have language that the child shall not be held for more than one hour in restraint or seclusion without an in person assessment by a clinician and authorization by the administrator on duty. A child in seclusion shall be provided constant uninterrupted supervision by a qualified staff employed by the program who is familiar to the child. Nothing in this section shall be construed to include a locked bedroom during regular sleeping hours and a secure residence as seclusion. Page 27, conflict with a law providing greater protections to minors. Subsection I.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: Just before we leave this whole section, definitions for child ages vary in this document. Some go up to 23, some go up to 18. This section here, what's the age? I assume it's in the 33 VSA, 50 on 30, someplace that defines it. We

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: don't have a list of age ranges specific to this. But it's broad because it means any child or children in the department's custody.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: So So a 21 and 22 year old, three fifty pound male child, violent, would fall under this?

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: If they're in DCF's custody as a as a child, then yes. Yeah. Interesting.

[Rep. David Yacovone, Member, House Appropriations]: Dave? Just because someone's three fifty pounds doesn't mean they're dangerous, does

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: I digress. Is there

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: a violent need to be restrained, perhaps? Regardless of their weight and Yep. This doesn't prevent restraint in a situation where there is safety of the individual or others involved. I just wanna be clear about that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Okay.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: Subsection I, notice when there is use of restraint or seclusion shall be provided to the department, the individual's parent or guardian, child's guardian ad litem and the child's attorney, if they have one, if applicable, within twenty four hours. And J, the program or staff member using seclusion or restraint shall document its use and provide a copy of use reported use of seclusion or restraint, including a copy of any audio or visual recording to the commissioner. Upon request, the audio or video shall be provided through a secure means of transmission and shall include blurring to protect the identity of other children in the program who are not in DCF's custody. The documentation is to include a description of the child's specific behaviors justifying the use of the intervention. The department shall forward the complete documentation of each use of restraint and seclusion to the child, youth and family advocate within two business days. K requires that DCF collect data on the use of seclusion and physical restraint by placement type program in age, gender and racial background of the child. So the data collected, specific types of seclusion or physical restraint used and the length of time that it was used. In L, prior to contracting with a program for the care of a child in DCS custody, the department shall conduct a review of any records from the prior five years regarding the safety of children in that program's care, including any violations of the program's licensing status and any resulting remediation. Subdivision two, the department shall remove any Vermont child from risk of harm and shall initiate a search for alternative providers if an out of state residential provider is determined to be in violation of the standards and contract regarding restraint and seclusion or violation of the state's licensing entity. I'm just going to pause here at this L to say, in the next section, we amend this subsection L to add a new subdivision at a later date. So I just want to flag for you where that's happening in the context of this section. M. Notwithstanding the rule we looked at to begin with, a child who is detained in a secure residential program may be restrained with mechanical restraints for a momentary initial hold to enable relocation of the child for a less restrictive method of intervention, if necessitated to prevent serious harm to the child or others, except that under no circumstances shall a garment adjacent to the child's body that restricts freedom of movement or mobilizes or reduces the ability of the child to move the child's arms, legs, body or head freely be utilized. The procedures and standards established under this, including notice and reporting requirements, apply. Another exception in subsection N, child detained in a secure residential program may be subject to a strip search if a pet search has led to probable cause to believe that the child has possession of contraband that poses a threat to harm of the child or others, and the child has refused to voluntarily turn over the contraband. The child shall be given an opportunity before and at any time after the commencement of the search to voluntarily relinquish the contraband, a suspected contraband, whereupon the search will be discontinued. Notice and reporting requirements shall be the same for the use of restraint or seclusion, and body cavity searches are not permitted under any circumstances.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Remind us again of how many children are in DCF custody, approximately. I don't have that number off the top of my head. It's a few 100, maybe?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Yes, it's several 100. But this particular piece that we're looking at right now are children who are in residential programs. And residential programs has a distinct meaning in DCF. And that's fewer children. Much fewer children, yes. And I do want to let folks know that we also need to be thinking that or understand that some of these are out of state residential, where there are less frequent eyes on by Vermont So this law would apply to those where our children are in Yes, our I can tell you that Katie will explain the delay in implementation dates that effectuate that. And yes, so the answer is yes, but not right away.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Okay, thank you.

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: In subsection O, the department is to post on the Family Division scorecard or another prominent location on its website the rates of restraints used on children and licensed programs and the number of uses of secure transport and of restraint used during transport. The Department shall update this information at least annually. And

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: then

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: we have a rulemaking requirement in subsection P, the department in collaboration with the child, youth, and family advocate in consultation with stakeholders. Adopt the rules addressing requirements for staff training, standards for supervisory oversight, recordkeeping, reporting by residential programs, oversight responsibilities of the department, and any necessary standards. Page 30. This is the section I was referring to before that there would be a change in this section at a future date. And here is the new subdivision that's being added. The Subdivision 2 will come on at a later date than the rest of the language that we just walked through. So this language is that when contracting with an out of state program, the department shall include a requirement that the program adhere to the provisions of this section. Section 14 is a one time report coming back to the General Assembly on January 1 from the Departments of DCF in Corrections. Written report regarding the use of restraint and seclusion on minors in DOC facilities and potential means of reducing physical and psychological trauma from restraint and seclusion. In preparing the required report, the department shall consult with a work group composed of the Child Youth and Family Advocate, Office of the Defender General, Juvenile Division, Voices for Vermont's Children, Vermont Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Disability Rights Vermont, Individual with lived experience of being detained in DOC. That's it. And then we have per diem language. So if somebody is participating not in their professional capacity, then the payments are made from the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate budget for not more than five meetings. Next, section 15. By November 1, DCF is to submit a written report in consultation with the judicial branch to the policy committees with recommendations for court oversight processes that meet federal requirements to allow access to federal funds for programs that may support youth up 20 to one years of age and that ensures sustainable use of judicial resources. The report is to include any recommendations for legislative action. Last substantive section, the prenatal engagement and family support working group is created. Purpose is to examine DCF's practice of using a pregnancy calendar to monitor and track certain pregnant individuals in Vermont and provide recommendations on alternatives for this practice and ways to support pregnant individuals in need of services. E lists the membership of the committee. C is the powers and duties of this group. They're making recommendations. D is the assistance. They'll having this group has the assistance of DCF. A report is due November 15. Information about the structure of the meetings, compensation and reimbursement This is why we got the bill. Is also is also coming out of the per diem and reimbursement is coming out of DCF's appropriation for not more than five meetings for individuals who are not participating in their professional capacity. So in fact, it's

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: just going to come out of their budget. We're not appropriating a certain amount of money either since one time. Well, we're getting confirmation from Noah, and it

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: says check the thing. I don't know if you want me to go through all these effective dates, but as promised, are very.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: But thank you. We're going to have a patient, have an effective date. So we appreciate effective dates. So why don't we ask Nolan to come up? There's another chair you can join.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Madam Chair, could I just give a couple of introductory things, just overview things? As you can see, this is the accumulation. It's an omnibus bill. We had five different bills on our board that all dealt with youth in transition and DCF. And DCF itself had some things that they wanted to tackle. And so two members of my committee worked with DCF over the summer, and we've worked extensively with them on this bill. And part of this milieu of effective dates recognizes the fact that they're really, I think the only major difference of opinion was around the use or the inclusion in out of state contracts of the restraint and seclusion provisions. They were fine with them for in state and felt that they didn't know if they could readily incorporate them right away for out of state. And as the policy committee, we felt strongly that we should treat all youth the same so that if you were in the state program, you had these protections. If you were in an out of state program, what was being proposed is that we not provide those protections, that it just is governed by that state's laws, which people are placed all over the place right now. And so we felt as a matter of policy that that was certainly not a good idea. And so, but we did allow, as Katie went through, a different implementation time that's extended out for that section. But I do wanna thank the department because we did, as I said, they were very helpful and this was a collaborative effort. Also, the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate was very involved and a number of other different witnesses. But there's it a lot of different policy areas in this. And so I appreciate the committee's attention to the issues and your consideration.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: It seems like it's a child protection bill. It is, pretty much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Thanks for that overview. I can really give a share too.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: You all can't state Nolan. I should tell all the people that are waiting that we're not going to have a spreadsheet. Not yet. I'll have some comments to make, but we do not have a spreadsheet. Just to all let you know. And now my committee knows too. But I'll have comments. Okay. Hi, Noah.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Hello. For the record, Nolan Langwell, the joint fiscal office. I so badly want to fill a joke right now, but I won't on the record. If it's 04:00, the room is really quiet.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: It's a

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: bit sleepy and hot. I don't know what to do to wake you up, except I talk about jokes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Right, and then we will, when we go off live, hang around and then we will hear your joke, because we will probably still need a joke.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah, I've got one in the queue, don't worry. I appreciate your talk. Right, actually, let me share my screen really quick. I can find it, there it is. So this bill was in ways and means today, but we did not talk about the whole thing. I only talked about sections five and six and seven and eight, which were the E waivers. But this bill is actually in here for more than just the per diems. There's actually some costs. So section one eliminates the asset limits for reach of eligibility. Currently that asset limit is 9,000. According to DCF, if you get rid of the asset tax, there are more people would become eligible for DCF, for a reach up. They don't know how much that would be, but based on a proxy, they looked at fiscal year twenty five, there were 18 cases where people were denied because their income was over the limit. The average case per month is about $646 So if you use that as a proxy, none of 18 cases, it could be as much as 140,000 impact in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. So the answer is we don't know. I honestly think that's a budget adjustment issue and not a one that you necessarily need to budget for at the moment. Section three, this is the one about social security benefits. So what this does is it would prohibit DCF from using any portions of the child's social security income benefits to offset the state's costs. Currently, the state uses that money to pay for the services for those kids. The DCF books that money as part of their budget contract. If you put this language in, it creates a $700,000 hole in their budget that you do have to address in your budget. So there is a fiscal impact on that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: In the following fiscal year

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: '20 Actually, no, it would not, sorry, take that back. It would be a '27 issue. So you wouldn't have to do it in this year's budget, but if by doing this, it would have to be part of the fiscal year 2018 budget, my apologies. '28. Yeah, so you It's

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: '28.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yes, it's '28. I apologize.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Wrote it incorrectly.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: I did write it correctly, yes. Yes, I said it wrong, but I wrote it correctly, correct. So this is a fiscal year twenty eight issue, but you need to be mindful of it. And then DCF said that they would need an additional FTE. Again, that would be a fiscal year twenty eight cost for the position. Again, that would be one of those things if you pass this bill, then if they truly feel they need a position, they would have to put it in their

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Decided in the next fiscal year

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: and They not

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: would have to, you'd be committing them to do it. If they feel they need a position, they would put it in their budget construct. But as an appropriations committee, need to be mindful. Yes, we appreciate it. Oh, wait, real quick.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Sorry, I realized I got one of the seats next.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Is the

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: first time I testified with, oh no,

[Katie McGlynn, Legislative Counsel]: wait, I think I testified with you before.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: I just wanted to point out we actually have some data from DCF on the number of appeals. So in the last year, they've only filed one appeal. And they don't typically file for benefits. Child either usually comes with benefits at some point in time, and it depends upon the length of time that they have the child in custody, whether they go through all of that process. So, one appeal was filed. And in terms of the SSI and any paperwork that they might've had to do around survivor benefits, there was a total of, I think, it's either 51 or 54. I can get you the exact number. But they're doing all of that with current staff right now. So I just wanted to provide clarity that-

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: That's helpful to have some.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Thought it might be.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: So what that means is that we're not sure that there is the need for a staff member for that purpose. Okay, thanks. I think, Dave, did you have a question?

[Rep. David Yacovone, Member, House Appropriations]: Yes, you know if Vermont uses any of the social security benefits from the children for whom it's a payee to draw down any federal matching funds,

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah, title I understand the question. I don't

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: know the answer to it.

[Rep. David Yacovone, Member, House Appropriations]: If so, the 700,000 number could be understated.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: This is a number provided by them. So I would think that they would try to incorporate that. Incorporate the maximum Good question though. It's a fair question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: The other thing, this is a current federal initiative as well. Other states are already doing this, and at the federal level, they are issuing recommendations to states at this point in time. They have not made it a formal policy, but they have issued a formal letter to states stating that this is the way that we should be moving. And also, this says, as we just said, a different effective date in order to have the department be able to budget appropriately for this.

[Rep. David Yacovone, Member, House Appropriations]: Dave? Is it stated in the bill, would the child's funds go for a future date to create resources for them, or would it

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: be

[Rep. David Yacovone, Member, House Appropriations]: spent on current maintenance needs?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: Please. Okay. We have worked with the treasurer's office to enable the establishment of ABLE accounts. And also, the department already is the representative payee for children and youth in their custody. So that's not expanding their role there. And what the bill says is that it would be saved for future use unless there is a need to essentially spend down so they don't lose their SSI. Thank you. In which case it would be for the child's benefit.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Should we continue on the Sure. Just the report.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Thank you. Sure. So, sections five and six, this was about exempting these unaccompanied youth from having to pay the $10 fee for vital events, such as birth, death, marriage, civil, unity, or divorce. Section six exempts them from having to pay a $29 fee for a non driver ID. Again, these are de minimis. Section seven and eight, motor vehicle and motorcycle licenses and learner permit fees. Again, this is very de minimis impact. I think I did a back of the envelope estimate. Maybe it reduces fees by $1,000 a year, But we won't know, but it's very de minimis. Okay. And then section 14, this is for per diems. Not more than five meetings. I think the cost could be absorbed within the Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate, given the small number of meetings. Again, impact would be de minimis. And then section 16, this is the prenatal engagement and family support working group. Again, these costs could be absorbed with a DCF given the small number of meetings and the assumption that most of these participants would be in this working group are working within their professional capacities. So again, I think impact fee is de minimis. And finally, just have the fiscal summary. And then I just sort of flagged that there might be some additional administrative costs associated with the bill that have not been identified because sometimes after the bills come out, sometimes agency departments go, oh, So it's just flagging, because this is a very broad and complex bill. Yeah. So

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: no significant FY27 potential fiscal impact for FY20.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah, and again, the issue about the asset limits, that's an estimate. It could be the 140,000. It could be more, it could be less. You could capture in your budget or you could wait for BAA. You could put 140,000 for BAA for now and then they might have to fix it in BAA anyway. So that's your call whether you say we're going to account for it or we're going to see what the actual number is. Okay.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: All right. And so there was a conversation about judiciary looking at the bill, and I've been in touch with Martin, And they weren't able to finish everything. Thank you, Nolan. They weren't able to finish everything. So they're going to finish tomorrow morning. And I said, great, can you come in and talk to us when you're coming in at 09:15 to talk about the landlord tenant? So he will do that. We'll have his assessment of whatever he needs to talk about at that moment in time. 11:15, whenever it is. It's very late. And thank you, Autumn. That's why we have you here for one of many reasons. We're all getting tired. So I think we're done with this bill for now. Thank you very much, Chair Wood, for coming down. I appreciate it. So committee, a couple of things. One minor thing, maybe not so minor, there's going to be a public hearing. I think House and Senate judiciary are having tomorrow from nine to eleven across the hall in Room 11. It is in relation to the incident in South Burlington last week, and so they're having a public hearing. So Sergeant at Arms has warned me about this and said it may be very loud and noisy outside for a little while until they get into the public hearing. So that starts at nine and then when they end at eleven we think maybe there might be fifteen minutes of crazy, but we should be on a break from eleven to 11:15 anyway because Martin's coming from there to here at 11:15. We'll get the chance to breathe. But just be aware, there's going to be a lot of people around. I mean, I would expect there

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: will be a lot of

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: people around tomorrow. So where we are on the budget. I don't have something to give you just yet. I've been working with Jane Fiskill, who are all waiting for me to come back over. It's a lot harder this year for a number of reasons. It's just not as clear cut. We have a lot less money this year. And we have almost as many requests as last year, but less money this year. So we know that's hard. And one of the things that we're talking about I'm talking about with JFO that we all need to think about. And I'm talking to the advocates and all people who are affected by the state budget as well. We are going to have even less money next year. We start with the provider taxes kicking in. We're going to lose $18,500,000 just off the top next year. So we are starting in the hole. We don't have the consensus revenue forecast, obviously, for August or January I mean, July and January. So see so far, revenues are coming in where expected, not above. We're not going to have a big contingency like we had last year to go into the next year. So I need people to understand that. Everybody is listening. And so one of the things I worry about is we have lots of small requests, which is lovely. And there are so many important requests that we have. And I don't want to set an expectation that if we can do it this year, we can do it next year, even if it's $25,000 We just can't have that expectation that we're going to have any amount of money next year to do things. And so I'm trying to look at this with that in mind. You all do wonderful things, and we want to support you as best we can. And I also need you to understand how hard the following year is going to be. And so just keep that in mind. I don't have any great words of wisdom beyond what I'm telling you now. So that's part of what I'm working with Joint Fiscal about. We've gone partway through. We haven't finished. We're sorting some things, and then we will, I think what I want to do is rather than keep you here till 06:00 until I can figure things out and we can get you something, is we'll send you an email tonight, committee members, with something to look at. Then you'll have a chance to look at it. And maybe I'll write some other thoughts on that email so you'll have a chance to think about that. And then we'll be talking about it again in the morning. I can't remember what our schedule is. It may change again. I'll send you a text. I know that Tiff and I and Nolan and DCF have a meeting at 08:00 tomorrow morning. So we won't be meeting from eight to nine I know Brady is starting to work on some language. We've talked about some other language things. If you have things coming in from your folks, don't wait till Friday afternoon and say, oh, I forgot we read this language. Work on the things you need to work on. I know that some of the advocates have come to talk to me, they may want to talk to you. And I've said, go back and talk to whoever the budget portfolio is, so you may hear from folks around. So that's where we are. That's where we are. Any thoughts,

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services]: comments?

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Am I going off the rails here?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Appropriations)]: So that's thank you for sharing that awesome information. Dollars 16,000,000 in the whole start is still much less than what we started with this year. Mean, we have more money coming into this year, but anything we add like with the proposed buy downs, if those things happen, that will add to that deficit, correct? That starting point. So if we put whatever, just pick a number out, if we use $50,000,000 of the 105 to buy down property tax increases, that too will be part of it.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: It could be another pressure. Yeah. So it sort of depends on what happens. And I know they're struggling with this in ways and means. There's a lot of committees struggling with what to do. They're struggling with the yield bill right now. So the $105,000,000 one of the proposals is to use that to buy down over three years, in which case there wouldn't be an additional hole. It just the tax rates are gonna change over three years. There wouldn't be an intent to put more money in next year to make up for that. If we were to use the whole 105 next year, there'd be a huge cliff for this coming year. There would be a huge cliff the following year.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Appropriations)]: Well, that's just what we're dealing with this year where all of the money that we used last year Right. Is 50% of the December 1 proposed increase, which I mean, I know

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: that the yield will come out differently.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Yeah, so if we were to pay down everything, we're not going to have that money next year to buy down property taxes again. If there's a softer landing when you use the same money over three years, we won't, there wouldn't be, in my estimation, we wouldn't be then saying, well, we put in 35 next year, so now we have to sign another 35 to make up. It would just be a gradual buy down. We put it all in and just let it sit at the bottom line. And then use it over three years. Right, right. So there wouldn't be new revenue coming in for it. That make sense? It does. So I don't know where they're going to land on that.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche, Member, House Appropriations]: We're going have

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: to fix it. But we need to have

[John Kreya, Legislative Counsel]: a problem. We know we have a problem.

[Nolan Langweil, Joint Fiscal Office]: Then there's the Senate.

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: Yes. And we can always end with, and then there's the Senate. But yes. So that's what I know at this point. And you'll hear more from me. Even when I send it out, as you know, it's not going to be finished. But I wanted to share with you the things we're thinking about and what I'm worrying about. And we'll continue this conversation tomorrow. We have two more days, so it's going to be really busy. Bring food. I don't know how long we're going be here tomorrow. I just have no idea. I think we could have two late nights tomorrow and Friday night. Just plan on that. If it doesn't work out that way, then hooray. Charlie, sleep tonight. So get some sleep tonight. Take good care of yourself. They are still on the floor. If you want to go back, yeah.

[Rep. David Yacovone, Member, House Appropriations]: I'm to say, let's

[Rep. Robin Scheu, Chair, House Appropriations]: keep me here. No, keep them all working. If you have budget things to do that, I'm suggesting that maybe you can review things. Tomorrow, we should start marking up the language, the parts that we can mark up. I'll talk to Autumn about starting on some of that. It was a little difficult to know because so much of it is related to the money. And if we don't know what the money is, all we're going do is say, we have to come back to that. So there's all of that going on. So that's where we are, folks. Let's go off live, then Nolan can tell