Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome to House Human Services. This morning, we are going to wrap up most of our discussion on the Budget Adjustment Act Just to update people who maybe weren't here at the end of yesterday. We finished with our recommendations for the community partners and other folks who were here yesterday, and we made some preliminary recommendations that we will be looking at also now in the context of the administration's recommendations for budget adjustment. I'm looking for my piece of paper. So just as a summary for people, since we have a number of people here in the room,

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: those providers that were our Medicaid providers, the Area Agencies on Aging, and the tier one for the enhanced residential care. Our committee recommended the full funding of the request. We do have some clarification that JFO is seeking from the department. They say that they cannot do retroactive adjustments. Know that retroactive adjustments have been made in the past. So they say that they can only do an increase effective April 1. So Nolan is still getting more information about that. But this is for people sitting around the room to know what recommendations our committee made. So if that continues to be the case in terms of the department saying they can only do an adjustment going forward, then the plan would be to do the Medicaid adjustment as of April 1. And then for the nine months to issue a grant payment for the general fund share of what would have been the Medicaid payment for those two services. We also agreed with the Housing Opportunity Program providers, 14 providers, to restore the funding to FY 25 levels. That would be an increase of $1,322,141 And as we discussed, we will be taking that also up in the context of the department's request for $2,000,000 in funding, which we will be discussing shortly. We agreed to make a recommendation with regard to recovery centers of 210,000 which is half of what they requested. That would come from prevention funds, which is a special fund that is funded by the manufacturer, the drug manufacturers. The remaining requests, we did not fund. So legal aids request, the two eleven request and End Homelessness Vermont request. And those, when I said fund, meant recommend, we are not recommending those for funding in the FY '26 budget adjustment. And we are not doing that because all of those in our estimation really were not adjustments to the FY '26 appropriation. They were either a new request or a request for an increase that had not really been considered in the FY 'twenty six budget process. So, we did say that we would consider those requests in the context of FY 'twenty seven. So, that's where we're at in terms of summary of that. So now we're going to go back to each department's request. And I would encourage committee members to go to the documents page, not documents page, but our committee page, and to look back on Tuesday or Wednesday. It was Wednesday. To go back to Wednesday's documents, and you can pull up the the department's budget request. Let's take Dale first. It's a little bit more straightforward, I think. Skipping through all of the verbiage stuff. Okay. So we have The major things I think that are under discussion are right in the middle of the page there, $14500000.02500000.0 and 9,600,000.0. The cost settlement for the veterans home is something those are expenditures that have already occurred. We don't really have any control over the agency of digital service transfer. And this is the staff increases for the collective bargaining agreement. Those have already begun. So when it comes to the 9,600,000.0, I've asked Nolan at JFO to do a little more digging on that. We started having this conversation. You might recall that the CFO for Dale, Mr. Kelly, this $9,600,000 was accounted for in the closeout of FY 'twenty five and was carried forward. So I'm not really sure that it should be in the total, when they add up to the 28,000,000, I think that it's So it's not a request for new money. I think it might be related to spending authority. So just to be clear, that's not adding to our expenditures in FY twenty six, because it's already been accounted for in the closeout of choices from here. I think it's just about expenditure authority, but Nolan is confirming that. So then we have the 14,500,000 in nursing home pressures through emergency financial relief. We had a lot of discussion about nursing facilities. And I'm open to committee's thoughts about any recommendations that you have with regard to We really should be considering that 14.5 and the 2.5, because that really, it's all case safe and financial relief.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. I think that the auditing that goes into nursing homes by the department who are requesting EFR.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Division or rate setting.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, sorry, division or rate setting. From the report on EFR, seems like they really dig down to make sure that these these are funds that they need in order to not close, to meet travelers. And I just think this we need to continue to figure out what the cost drivers are and figure out how we can keep this going down. As you know, this is less than it was last year, but it's significantly more than it has been in in years past. So yeah, I mean, it's a lot of money. And the problem is that the alternative, even one closed nursing home is kind of catastrophic for the people that live there. So it's not a good place to be in, but we also should figure out how in the future through reducing travelers and some of the things that are in the report on EFR that we address those and implement that so that we can continue to see this go down or ultimately go away. But that's just my thoughts on it.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Yeah. Go ahead, Doug.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: A question. So last year's BAA also included a significant amount of money for EFR. We did not pass last year's BAA. It wasn't signed into law. So what happened with the nursing homes that needed emergency The

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: provisions that were not related to the general assistance emergency housing program were included in our budget, in the in the year end budget. So they got it.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: They got it just later in the game.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, we have a report coming in that we asked for as a result of sort of the continued pressures that this is causing at the same time while there's over 200 beds that aren't being utilized. And we definitely have a need for the use of at least a portion of those. And so I think January 15, I think, is when that report is due. So I think when we get that report, we should definitely take a deeper dive and we should ask rate setting to come in. Yes, please. And really go through what they do in order to make a recommendation to Dale. So there's really two entities involved in this. So the division of rate setting, which is made up of people who do this for a living. So these are people who sort of dig. Thank you, Daphne. People who do this on a regular basis. And as Dan said, it's a detailed analysis. And there are big and bigger things happening in the realm of long term care and nursing facilities. And the use of real estate investment trusts to buy up the real estate and then lease it back to the people at higher costs and big equity firms buying up stuff. And other states are starting to implement some restrictions on those kinds of things. And so this is, I think, a longer term discussion for us to continue to delve into, which I'm sure that we will. But I'm in agreement that I don't think that there's a lot that we can do about this at this time.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And when we bring in rate setting and Dale on this, we should also include the long term care ombudsman, just to get her perspective on What does it look like to her when you see distressed nursing homes? Like, is she part of that discussion? Or is the long term care ombudsman's office part of the discussion, making sure that even licensing protection to make sure that people are still receiving adequate care when there's financial issues going on? And what are we doing to make sure that people are being cared for even as these are in financial tough situations?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so am I seeing general agreements around the dollar figures, at least at Dale for right now? Okay. Okay, so we have a language request that we have not reviewed that I think I sent to you earlier from the designated and specialized service agencies. Katie, would you be willing to walk us through that language?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Sorry, had to meet with Patty.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's on the on your web page for today. I'm almost on Zoom.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: You have the link too? I have the link. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just a refresher about what the general topic of this is about. Do you recall last year, we took actually quite a bit of testimony from the department as well as from designated agencies around the impact of payment reform and conflict free case management and a lot of different changes that were happening simultaneously to the community based system. And as we predicted here in this committee, things are not going as smoothly as

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: one would like them to go.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That actually might be a bit of an understatement. There's a lot of stuff happening out there right now. And I know I've received emails from other colleagues here in the body asking, What's happening? I'm getting calls, I'm getting emails. We have been working with I've met with a couple of the designated agencies of Vermont Care Partners over the interim to hear from them about the impact that this is having. And so this is a request from Vermont Care Partners, which which is the organization that is the trade organization for the designated specialized service agency. So this is trying to essentially allow for a transition time and not having penalties occur to the designated agencies during this transition time. So, Katie. Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Counsel. So as you've already heard, this language

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would stipulates that if there's an error that occurs on the part of the DA or the SSA for various reasons, there isn't a penalty to them during the first year of implementation. So during implementation of the first year of Developmental Services Payment Reform Initiative from 10/01/2025 through 09/30/2026, An error made by a designated or specialized service agency shall not be subject to a financial penalty, decreased payment rates, budget reduction, recoupment or clawback of appropriated funds if the error was a result of system limitations or transitional processes outside the designated or specialized service agency's direct control, including service authorizations such as deficiencies in individual service authorizations attributable to system functionality, transitional processes or actions or inactions of the case management organization or a DAIL or both. Second, operational delays, such as the inability to complete required steps in a timely or accurate manner or delays, omissions or errors resulting from actions or inactions of the case management organization or Dale or both. Third, service continuity for pending cases, such as ensuring uninterrupted supports at the previously approved level through fiscal year twenty twenty six for individuals who have not yet been assessed or who are awaiting an approved exception. And lastly, data and utilization impacts such as incomplete, delayed or inaccurate encounter data utilization reporting attributable to system limitations, transitional processes or actions or inactions of the case management organization or Dale, or both?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It should probably be organizations. There's more than one.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, every time it appears. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think what you're seeing here in one, two, three, and four, things actually are occurring. And this is I'm just gonna be sort of frank. We have a couple of agencies that are at severe financial risk due to the transition process not going as smoothly as was hoped. And that is very significant.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this would allow that transition process and hopefully the department to get through all of the bumps that come with any kind of major systems change. And frankly, we anticipated last year and that they'd be working with the designated specialized service agencies, the people receiving services, the case management organizations to smooth out these processes. And I think that it's prudent upon us to ensure that there's stable services being provided to the people out there and to not have this sort of hanging over the heads of people as they're working, trying to work through the process.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Just a clarification, since this is going back to October, does the department, like have there been like decreased payment rates and like, budget reductions and recoupments?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Have have those things occurred from October to now? And does the department have the ability to kind of make like, retroactively correct those things from going back? The way the system is set up, they make these adjustments in the future that go back to those certain states.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So this would protect the organization? Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It would protect the organizations and the people receiving services. Now, do people have any questions about that? Amy, I might be putting you on the spot. People do. Amy Johnson is here from Vermont Care Partners. Do people have any questions about this? Can I see, by showing hands, people who are supportive of the language? It's a language. It doesn't cost any money. It's a language. Show of hands. Okay. No.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I just don't understand that. I'm just going

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: See, that's fine. It's my problem.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. No, but can we help understand? Can we help understand? Ask questions, fine.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, I think I've done it on private.

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: Okay. All right. That's okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: As long as there's no money, I'm sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Thank you, Katie. So this would be included in our memo that goes to the House Appropriations Committee. Okay, so we've moved, we've taken care

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: of Dale. Now, yes, go ahead. The memo, we all get looked at over and everything before it goes?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'll be working on it over the weekend, and then we'll take a look at it on Tuesday. Yeah.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: That too?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It it'll it'll be a draft. It'll be

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: a draft. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So encourage people again to go to Wednesday and look up the look up the it's probably easiest to look at the spreadsheet that was submitted by Megan Smetenden, the one that was tiny and you had to kind of like

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Oh, okay. Really large.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. That was funny. But it

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: was the most helpful, yes. Provided the most- By department and so forth, yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So they had a number of changes. So let's look at the major changes where we may or may not have any So the first one is in TANF. It's a net neutral. It goes in between different divisions in the department. Yeah. Against meeting on Wednesday.

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: Okay, I

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: got it. Okay? Mhmm.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you have any questions about that? I'm starting at the top. Yep.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Well, it's a negative, right?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, the top was administration.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're in the yellow. Yeah, it's a trend.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Oh, we're in the yellow, thank you. We're in pink, actually. We're in pink. Oh, we're in pink.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, Yeah. We backed up to pink.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: In order to- know what

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: the Brazilian

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: you were

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: talking about.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not yet, but we will. In order to understand that, you do need to look at the yellow as well. So, you'll see all this is really is transferring between admin and the family services division. That's all it is doing. It's a technical adjustment, I guess is what I would say. Okay? Alright. The income verification system, that's a request for $50,000. That's a system if if they're changing systems because the feds are no longer providing that free of charge. That's kind of something that's Yeah. A must

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: that a system that's used across divisions within the department?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know the answer to that question.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The learning certification, think it was, but

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because it's admin, I would say that it is. It's not in an individual division. I would say it's used across I departments, would say used but I would say it's used across DCF, the various divisions in DCF.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Do we expect this maybe folks who work directly? This is just a no. Is this an annual ask or is this just one time that we need to

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: I think it says annual.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I think the income verification is good.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: It will be annualized in their FY '27 budget ask. And they have to do this. It's like our other wise folks can't get benefits.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: So it's kind of like that. We have a handle statement. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's move down into family services. Again, we just did the TANF one, so we don't need to do that. The other one is Northwest Counseling and Support Services. Again, that's a neutral. You'll see that a little further down in child development services. It's just transferring dollars between the two divisions in DCF. So it's no new money. It's just a transfer between it's cleaning up the books, if you will, to make them more accurate so that money appears in the right division of DCF. People clear about that one? Okay. Then we have contract pressures. There's a million dollars being added. This is a new ad. We did hear about this last year during transportation, and Anne mentioned the report that we continue to ask for.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because, yeah, you may recall in last year's budget, there was a sort of staggering increase in the budget request needed for that. So this million dollars is in addition to a huge increase needed, And same explanation now is there are not providers getting into the business and there are very few providers that do it and therefore they don't have much bargaining position on the rates. But it spurred the question from us in terms of how is that impacting following our statute on least restrictive means? If they have less ability to negotiate, does that also mean inappropriate secure shackled transport, which we addressed in law fifteen or twenty years ago and used to get annual reports on that use. And so that's the report we wanted an update on and we're still awaiting. And I did get a response today that was, not remotely responsive, not deliberate on their part, they didn't understand the history of what we were asking for. So I'm writing back.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So these are must do kind of costs. There's no choice. Okay, the next is on substitute care caseload and utilization, which is down for the most part. Although you might recall, if you look at their description, there was an increase in out of state residential, but that was compared to budgeted. But the deputy commissioner said that it's actually lower on an annual basis. It seems to correspond with

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a reduction of the caseload in in state residential. Again,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think we have ongoing concerns about the use of out of state residential placements, and some of that stems also from our lack of in state alternatives. We have not gotten back to capacity in residential from COVID. If we were to look at that, which I'm sure that we will get that information. Yeah, I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think we need to dig deeper, but not in terms of adjusting And budget

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on the flip side, which I think probably is a good thing, they're seeing an increase in subsidized adoption. So more children and youth are being adopted than they anticipated. And those payments are being adjusted based upon the needs of each child and youth. So I think that's good news for those kids. Anybody have any questions about that?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We're on the $10,719,000? $7.01 9, yep. So why the increase? Because kids are getting adopted? I guess the adopters don't pay for their own kids?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: When kids reach a certain age, over a certain age, there is a subsidy that's given to the adopted So

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: they're really adopted, but they're really not there. Still But

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: be in order to adopt.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: In order to be willing to adopt, parents need support. They need some extra support. So we do continue to get some funding to help them be able to adopt because they wouldn't able to afford to adopt and we want these kids to adopt when it's a good home, but they don't have enough money to meet all of the funds.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: This confuses me because my friend said, I don't want the money. I'm adopting this child, and the state made

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: her take it. She was four.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, I don't want the money. I want my child. Okay, so that's what this is. Okay, now I can understand what she's talking about.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, let's move child development, the purple area. Those are all transfers either internal between DCF divisions or from another department. So, they're neutral. Let's move down to the B320. Just that fuchsia color. So these are all negative changes due to caseload or changes in the federal agreement. No. New money is being requested. Again, this was representative McGill brought up the question about, you know, do people know in this area and then also in the general assistance area about the availability of assistance? Yep.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: For several years. And we haven't made any progress on that. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then we move down to general assistance, support services caseload. I I actually don't understand why this was basically, it it need is lower than the budget in FY twenty but it's an increase.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Did touch on it. They're lowering in some areas and increasing in others.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so part of the, Okay, when we look at all of those things, some

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: of them are little higher. Do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, okay. So those are based upon actuals through the first several months of the year. So again, those are obligations that are being incurred. So I'm not sure that we have a lot of room on there. The personal needs and incidentals, again, that's a caseload. That's a negative reduction. And just to follow-up, I sent out a request. We had requested the projected end of year spending for the general assistance hotel motel expenditures and requested that by this morning. I've not yet received it. So I sent an email, which I can bring to all of you, requesting that information as soon as possible. So that will weigh into we may be banking a statement about that. I'm not sure. Does that explain your question, Brenda? You had had a question about that on the email that I'd sent.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, I didn't know what it meant.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what it means about the hotel motel program. They were supposed to provide us what their expenditures, projected expenditures compared to budget, and they have not done that yet. Okay. And this is the $2.69? No, it's not here

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: not on at here. Okay, that's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we asked for it. They didn't provide anything on it because they requesting an increase or a decrease. Oh, but you still wanna see it. I do wanna see it because I believe based upon the first six months that there will be resources left. But we don't know that because we haven't gotten their projections. Okay. Okay. So we're moving on to B three twenty two. I might just Yes. If it's okay to skip the

[Rep. Esme Cole]: last one, which the reduction based on prior needs case load, just don't want to lose sight of what Jubilee mentioned yesterday. I guess I am okay with reducing it because I know that outreach isn't going to increase. Know we've asked time and time again for them to make people aware that these supports exist and I don't see that changing unfortunately in this administration based on the test one we received. That's the only reason I would be okay with accepting this, even though I know the need is out there. It's really hard to see this happen because it definitely doesn't align with what we've been asking for. I'll include a statement in our

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: memo that we continue to ask the department for their outreach methods. Shelters are actively advertising for these types of needs that this covers, asking people to donate, and yet this money sits here available. That's a problem.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It would seem odd that shelter providers wouldn't know that it's Some do,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: hard work. The amount of turnover constantly happening since COVID, we're all dealing with it. So much institutional knowledge has been lost these past five years.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Just to finish off on that, some of the structures I think that exist when we are talking one on one with clients about We including know that there are time limits that a person in order to achieve efficiency on the phone. I think of course that would lead mentioning something like this as the last priority, even though that's a perfect way to contact somebody and say, Hey, this exists too. We know you're looking for resources. That would be a thirty second offer, but we know that there are other structures and other incentives encouraging staff not to increase the length of those conversations, I guess. Which I understand is case load is heavy, also this exists for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a reason. We don't know. We don't know, honestly, even what kind of training DCF staff themselves get on understanding the availability. It's complicated for the community partners, complicated for DCF staff as well. And it's kind of like you need to know.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We just have this whole thing with SNAP. Why were we not, as part of that, talking about this other option to get groceries? How many people were hungry while this money was sitting here?

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Good point. That's a good point.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So the next is on reach up. So, again, my recommendation is that these resources stay in the Reach Up program and that they utilize them for adjustments of the ratable reduction that happens. Just so you know what that means, that 2,200,000 would stay in the reach up as opposed to going to the bottom line here. So that was what I heard the majority of people here saying yesterday, that was two days ago now. But let's have a little bit of discussion about that because that's a big dollar amount. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I agree that as a policy matter, we should be pushing that and looking at that in terms of budget adjustment right now. Removing it puts it to the bottom line. But what that means is that other things that they are trading off and using this money for wouldn't happen. And it is the same as saying that we're asking for an additional 2,230,000.00 in order to that's why we're not bringing it up. Yeah, So I think we can do that at this point in BAA, I guess is what I'm saying, because many of these other things we agree are needed and we can't, well we can, but not likely we can get far by asking for an overall increase in BAA. And we actually are for a few other things in our memo.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'd just like to point out, though, that also the most effective economic tool is actually cash in people's pockets. And that is what this is. So when we're thinking about what's being funded, it's almost helpful to see like, if you spend this, you can't get this because we need, I would like to be able to see, because nine times out of 10, the cash in the pocket is going to be the most useful tool for any family in Vermont to make any profit. To

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: prevent homelessness, all those things.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I agree, but it's also, and it's all one big pot and you can't really, this could be money ultimately that funds something. So I just kind of pushing back on that because this is how, if we want people to be able to get out of this system, they need to be able to survive. And it's an anomaly to do that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It is a policy change. And I think it's a policy change we should be fighting for the broader budget, the BAA is not supposed to be about changing

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I agree.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I know. It's just I want you all to keep in mind when we're fighting for these policy changes, remember the huge cuts we've made. So when you see that big jump, it's because because of that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that big jump. It's an excellent point. But I do agree I with the

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: just wanted to get that out there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I it. I know

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: this will come up again.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. I just also want highlight that the administration has a choice of which number to use from the consultant, and they have consistently always used the lowest, then come to us and say, we didn't spend all the money. So a policy choice that the administration has a choice to do that we have recommended over and over and over again. Please, at least at the very least, use the middle ground because you come to us every year and say, We didn't have the need wasn't there. Well, I think if you

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let me ask a question, though. That would make this number bigger.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Bigger. I know, but

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: But if it's we're doing this rather than increasing the readable prediction. We're eating away and eating away and eating away at this money when we should have, you know, You're correct. It's slowly allowing them to chip away.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanna be clear though. This does not reduce the base. If it appears in the FY '27 budget, it reduces the base. This does not do people understand what that means? So it means it's a one time reduction, not in the base. It's not carried over. It's not carried over in FY '27.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So We've had this reduction every year.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, for the last four or five years, at least,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I know that they've done this. And Rey and I have some ideas about increasing utilization and eligibility for the program. All right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we won't be taking those up today. Okay. OEO. So just to summarize there, because that would be a policy change, which we will continue to fight for in the committee. My recommendation is that we not differ from the BAA as submitted. Okay, and then B325 OEO.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sorry, is it our responsibility to make a note of this conversation as part of this so that

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I always do. Okay, to appropriations?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. So that more than just us are keeping track of this.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes, and we're continuously educating appropriations about why. Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and then under OEO, I felt like I was asking a lot of questions on these positions, but I don't know what the rest of the committee is feeling. It seems, though, that what they are doing is utilizing funds now on a permanent basis for these still limited service positions. I don't know. I guess we would make a note that we would need to look at the FY twenty seven budget to assure that they are accounting for them. They shouldn't remain limited service if they're going to keep them on as permanent. It's not fair to the people who

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: are

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: employed. So I'll make a note with regard to that. But I think it's also important to note for the providers who are out there that that resulted in a quarter of $1,000,000 being taken out of HOT. HOT. That's the real Less money. And that's the point that we will make here.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Do Okay. Folks with limited service, if they then go into a permanent tenure, does that time served in the limited service position count towards their

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: overall I point believe the answer is yes to that. Can we confirm that? Well, can, if

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: you want. I can. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Limited service positions, they do get sick. They have healthy credit So I don't think you would get all those things if you weren't getting credit for the time.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I see how checking them.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I also, on these positions, just want to highlight that they are specifically for agreement management. And we've heard from various departments administration that there's a lot of problems and inefficiencies in the grant management. So I would just encourage the administration to look at process improvement when it comes to grant management and consolidation. So they're not just having people do paperwork for 250,000

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: These people who are just doing paperwork.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: No, no, no, I know. I do grant administration, but I'm saying I'd rather this money to go out to the providers to help the people.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's ways to consolidate is

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: what you're

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, there's efficiencies to be made. I'm gonna be

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: a devil's advocate because I'm affordability. The more and more we keep asking and asking for taxpayers to keep funding these things, we're going to put more people on the street and more people not being able to eat. So, it's nice you want to do all of this, but we have to think of the people that are paying for it, that eventually they won't be able to afford it and everybody will be homeless and have no place to live. So I would like to be more aware of making these increases, even though I realize your hearts and there's a need, but we have to think of who's paying for it. So I just wanted to put that out there. Sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I do want to note that this actually isn't an increase because if you will look down two lines, it's transferring money from the grants line. So it's money that's already been appropriated. It's transferring from grants, which is money that would have gone out to those 14 providers that we talked about yesterday. And it's putting it up onto personal services, which is for personnel. So it's not new money.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Oh, I was still talking about I was still thinking, and I if I didn't say something, I wouldn't be doing the people that voted for me a service when you were talking about adding back in the 22,000,000.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, okay. When

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: they said, let's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: cut it. Yeah, 2,200,000.0.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. Let's take the advantage. The professionals that are in these programs that are being paid to do this job say they didn't need that money, let's listen to them. Let's not add money in it they're saying we don't need it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we're not.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: We're not. We're not. I was still stuck on

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that when I was listening. Thank We're not. Okay. Now Permanent supportive housing. We can actually hear a whole bunch about that. But this is money for permanent supportive housing that was previously funded under COVID era money and must be the last of it because everything else has transitioned out. Again, that's money that goes out to directly help people.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And it's not general? It's global

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: commitment. It's a global commitment. Okay, next is funding adjustment for long term. Oh, we just did that. So now is the let's talk about this $2,000,000 shelter investment funding. We're grants under OEO. Shelter investment funding. So we had some discussion yesterday because our committee is recommending that the 1,300,000.0 that the provider community had reduced from their FY '26 allocations. And then the department's coming and asking for $2,000,000 more whether we would be recommending that before we provided additional funds there that we would, there was a recommendation put on the table. We didn't really vote on it. We said we would discuss it today, that the $1,300,000 that we felt should, as a committee, should go to reinstate to the providers, that that would come first from the $2,000,000 that the department was requesting for grants under the shelter investment. When we asked Lily Sojourner about what the $2,000,000 was for, whether it was for increased costs or the money that they Just to refresh your memory, we increased HOP for shelters. And was it increased costs? Was it more beds? She said it was kind of some of both. Wasn't actually really a fully complete answer, I don't think, but she said it was some of both. So what is your pleasure about this? So there's been a thought to put out to pay for the 1.3 that we are recommending out of this 2,000,000. I guarantee you the department won't be happy about that, but it's in the same line item. It's the same program. Frankly, some of it's going to the same providers.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: To do something different. To do something different. Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: It will help spur conversation with administration on 591. Setting out

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: 594.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: 594. 5594. Can set a path together then.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What do people want to do? Share your thoughts, Anne, because you were obviously being in the So

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean, I totally understand, and I think there had been sort of a beginning of a consensus that that should be done. I just am my focus in terms of policy and all of that is massively wanting to do more in terms of new shelters. So if it's one condition on the other, then I would withdraw my support for what we voted. I voted yes on yesterday, everybody voted kind of yes contingent on, and my yes contingent on, it becomes a no because I think this should stay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Have I'm just going to put it out here so we can move on because we have 11:00 agenda items. So people have had time to think about this overnight. So I see by a show of hands people who want to take our recommendation of the $1,300,000 going out to providers and fund it out of this $2,000,000 at the department. Who is recommending that? +1, 23456789. Who is not recommending that? Okay. So that's what that's what our memo will represent. Okay. And then last thing well, next to last thing is the crisis stabilization in Windham County. These are things that have been in development for years at this point in time, And we will see a budget ask for these in the FY '27 budget because they are finally becoming operational. And as Brenda pointed out and Anne did, this is a lot of money for a small number of people. So what's your pleasure? Believe, to be honest, I think that most of this has already been expended, because a lot of it has to do with fitting up the facilities.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I don't think it's really optional at this point but I am really Will not put a word on the record.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Your face tells a story.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think I've ever heard you growl.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: A growl for the record. How many growls do

[Unidentified Committee Member]: we have on here?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so can I see by a show of hands those who want to, hard to say support, but who want to include, allow it? Do not oppose it. Do oppose it at this point in time. And those who do oppose it? Okay. Thank you. And then the last thing on the agenda is the hotline expenses. This is the IT work to make it compatible. So again, we spend precious little on IT advances.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, why didn't we know this from the budget? That's my question, but that doesn't change need of this one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Anybody have any issues with that 150,000 for hotline? All right.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Sorry to throw one more thought in here at this point. We've offset funds that we're spending up to 2,000,000. And I'm just I have a thought in my head. It's not fully formed. But in trying to keep somewhat neutral as best we can to the the administration request, I wonder if we give any consideration for the money that we would like to see or believe needs to be included for enhanced residential care. Do we make a corresponding reduction in the nursing home emergency relief? It's a big sum of money. Do we try to offset that roughly $1,000,000 there?

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I'm lost.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Why not? We've already voted on it. We can bring it up again on Tuesday when you have a look at the draft memo. Okay. But I need to move on. Okay. So I'll be working on this over the weekend. I'll be talking with Katie on Monday, and we'll see a draft on Tuesday. Okay?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alrighty. Moving on from budget. We are moving back to the report on supervised visitation, and we are happy to have some witnesses. Thank you for your patience this morning. We have people coming online from the department. Is Judge Zonay going to be first?

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I thought we were going alphabetically, Madam Chair.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Well, that's okay with you, Judge Zonig, and I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: guess that's okay with me. Okay. Come on in, folks. Find a seat. And there's a couple of folding chairs there. Feel free to just pull. Erica, you might just take a seat right at the end of the And if you have anybody you'd like to bring with you, then there's a folding chair or two behind you. You're welcome to use it or.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I'm so used to seeing

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: you up there. It's so funny to see

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: you up there. I know. It's hard

[Rep. Esme Cole]: to really say hi to somebody when you're

[Erica Radke (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division)]: up there. It is weird. It's good to

[Rep. Esme Cole]: be in person. Yes, it is.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so have Don't forget, we have the report. It is Again, it's back on this page again. Thanks to our comrade in arms, Laurie. Welcome, I'll give you a couple seconds to get situated there. Thanks, Katie. I think we'll do a round of introductions since we have folks who haven't necessarily been in the We've had you several times here, Erica. Okay,

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: you used to have a bind for me. Yeah, I know, I never took them out.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You and Brenda

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: have got fines this week, and I don't know.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Just gonna say no. Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: welcome. If we we can do a quick round of introductions. So I'm Theresa Wood from Waterbury, and I also represent Bolton Buellscore in Huntington.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Hi, Rey Garofano, SXMS Exjunction.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You meet you, Amy Gelford, Portman of Windsor and Henry Wood.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Good to see you, Esme Cole, Edward.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: My name is Zon Eastes. I represent Guilford and Vernon. Doug Bishop from Colchester.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Rep Steady from Westford, but I live in East Milton.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good morning. I'm Daniel Noyes. I represent Wilkett, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Belvedere. And represent Anne Donahue from Northfield and Berlin, and then we'll go right around

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: the outside again. Interning for representative Noyes, my name is Brenda Steady Garofano.

[Hannah Harvell (DCF Family Services, Communications & Legislative Affairs)]: Hi everyone, again, Hannah Harvell. I'm the new director of communications and legislative affairs for DCF and Services.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So is that Lily's old, I mean, Nelly's old job?

[Hannah Harvell (DCF Family Services, Communications & Legislative Affairs)]: No, Nelly's.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: She's there. Okay. I'm confused because didn't Nelly used to have that job? Sort of that title at least. Yeah.

[Hannah Harvell (DCF Family Services, Communications & Legislative Affairs)]: She's a new position within family Services.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, just Family Services. Okay,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: all right.

[Julie Riley (Director, Domestic Violence Unit, DCF Family Services)]: Good morning. I'm Jubilee. I'm the Director of Domestic Violence Unit with the Department of General and Services. Good morning. My name is Lily Charckey, and I will turn you over to that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And right around here.

[Sam (Action Circles)]: Sam, I'm with Action Circles.

[Charlie Lisman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic & Sexual Violence)]: I'm Charlie Lisman, I'm the policy director with Vermont Network Anti Domestic and Sexual Violence. Thank you. Laurie Morris Committee Assistant.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And welcome to the witnesses and Judge Zon Eastes. Everybody knows you. Welcome. Feel free to introduce yourselves. The floor is yours to we'd really be interested in the process, what your conclusions were. And might've you been listening yesterday when we said that we didn't really feel you did what we were looking for and maybe some thoughts about that.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Erica Radke (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division)]: Okay. Well, I should check with Judge Zonnay. Did you want to start first, Judge, or should I?

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I will defer to you, deputy commissioner.

[Erica Radke (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division)]: Okay. Great. I'll get started then. Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. First of all, thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to meet with you today. For the record, my name is Erica Radke, and I'm deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division of DCF. And the folks have well, some folks have already introduced themselves, but joining me today are, Lindy Baron, the, director of policy and planning, as well as Heather McLean, our revenue enhancement director. And then you met Julie Riley, our domestic violence, unit director. We really do appreciate the committee's attention to this matter regarding a supervised visitation. And I did hear the testimony yesterday, and I appreciate that you all did a really nice job hearing from multiple partners across the system, as well as from folks with lived expertise. I want to go ahead and move into the report. The report before you was prepared jointly between Vermont judiciary and ourselves pursuant to act 27. And it does examine supervised visitation programs, which serve an important role and function for child safety when contact between a child and a parent needs to occur in a structured, monitored setting. So really at a high level, the report does document uneven access across the state, capacity constraints even when programs do exist, And then there are risks that can arise when families do have to rely on informal supervision arrangements, where there can be a lack of training or safeguards. The report also does reflect input from providers, to judiciary, CCVS, and the Vermont network. And it highlights the operational realities facing these entities. So I know Charlie spoke so eloquently yesterday, so I don't want to repeat what the committee has already heard. So I'm going to pause now. Now we'll turn it over to Lindsey to sort of walk through the report findings, particularly regarding child welfare in more detail. And then we are also very happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Thank you. Good morning. My name

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: is Lindsey Behrendt. I'm the director of policy and planning within the Family Services Division. I did tune in yesterday, so I know that you are interested in hearing the work that we've been doing over the last several months. Whenever I think about the topic of supervised visitation, it is one that is unique in that it does not fit squarely in one discipline or field. And there's so much cross cutting across the court system, across child protection, across the world of domestic and sexual violence, and other types of factors that families might be experiencing in the community. And so in order to begin addressing the funding question, we felt like we needed to gather information from folks on the ground, from the programs performing this service, from families accessing it, from our staff, and from community partners in general. And so where we spent some of our time and focus was on co hosting focus groups divided by discipline. And then also, we developed some surveys. And we went through a couple rounds of surveys to gather information from folks. We also conducted some internal information gathering from our staff, from our supervisors. Admittedly, supervised visitation programs, when I think about them, I think about continuum where folks in the community can access them without ever interfacing with our system. And they also serve a critical prevention and stabilizing function in the state, whereas if we have a child safety intervention and we are looking to close that investigation or assessment without further involvement, Often, programs provide some of that safety and continuity so that there's not further involvement for families. So we had some curiosity just speaking with our staff in terms of how they're accessing them, how they're navigating gaps in that system and making

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: that up.

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: We also wanted to get a sense of the national research and what other states are doing. As isn't uncommon. Typically, innovative, advanced, highly intriguing programs that are coming on ground in other states often reflect much larger states with much more funding than we find ourselves in. And so we often need to take what we can from that innovation and those unique ideas and figure out how to bring that here to Vermont within an economy of scale type model. And so I would say we're still very much interested in seeking federal technical assistance from some of those experts nationally and gleaning what is valuable from, say, Colorado, Connecticut, New York. Those were some of the standouts in our research. And we hope that is yet to come as well. We didn't view the report deadline as a one and done. We know that this work takes far beyond just this starting place. And so I thought next what I would share with you is just a couple thematic categories of what learned from those focus groups and from the survey results and then pause and open it up for questions and allow you all to shape the direction we take it in from there. And so as it won't surprise you, we learned that the demand for supervised visitation far exceeds capacity. We were hearing that programs consistently receive high volumes of referrals from both ports, DCF, and the community in general. Wait lists are common. Families are often referred across county lines due to those lack of services. And some have even accessed resources out of state. Second, underfunding limits staffing hours and safety. Programs are struggling to recruit and train and retain monitors. Nights and weekends are the most desirable time options for families because that is when they're off. That's often when they're available. And those are the most difficult hours to have staff who are available and able to serve. And the safety infrastructure so having a secure space, having separate entrances, having monitoring cameras, or any other type of safety measures also increases the costs. Third, we found that the geographic access within rural communities drives some of the costs. And so as we've gone about learning from folks and doing an analysis, we realized that there certainly an economy of scale at play, where there's some baseline funding for the space, whether that's rent or purchase, improvements to the building, general utilities and oversight, just overhead costs, and then minimum staffing to have the program functioning. And it is typically easier to expand from there as far as adding additional FTEs or adding additional capacity for slots, hours, and serving more families. So I already mentioned some families are traveling out of state or far distances to reach program that exists. The rural areas face much more higher startup costs just due to limitations in space and smaller staffing. There seems to be some feedback around inconsistent supervision and documentation. Folks were finding that there's not always report outs or notes. There's some variation in terms of a different training or intervention type of models, so depending on if something is happening or something perhaps goes sideways, I think there's question and variation on when a redirection or intervention or just support might occur and when it doesn't. Again, documentation of practices, how visits are going, and just generally reporting that out to the court. That varies significantly. And folks also mentioned that court and case planning decisions then, because that lack of documentation and notes, it's more difficult to have behaviorally specific case plan goals as well as court updates. Folks pointed out that quality programs require more than just supervision alone. So it's in the folder I was just referencing, but families benefit from their structure, expectations, skilled staff, and having relationships with those staff as well. Folks emphasized the value of individualized intakes, trauma informed approaches, opportunities for learning and coaching. We heard that these programs work best as a community based service, but with strong and appropriate system partnership with the judiciary and then with us in DCF. They valued the relationships that exist and also emphasized the importance of them their independence within the community. And I think they passed along the feedback that families often feel more at ease in the community. It's a heightened level of stress for parents when any type of visitation occurs in a court building structure or in the DCF office or that when possible and safe, they appreciate being in a community supervised visitation room. And then finally, and again, I know you're aware of this point, but it was emphasized through the focus groups and information that without stable funding, programs continue to be at risk for further closure. And we've already lost a few programs within the last several years. And so other programs are feeling on edge in terms of stability and continuity of funding.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I didn't know if you wanted to say anything other. No? Okay. I'll start it off. Just for some background information, could you give us just a quick overview of the structure of the existing program. So we know that there are different community partners out there and that the domestic violence center is in the middle. So do you provide a grant to the center that then goes out to those folks? Or do you have individual grants with those out there? Who provides the training that's currently done, even though I recognize what you were saying is that people feel like that is a continuing need. Can you just describe the structure a little bit? I'm not sure who was

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: So I can get us started, then I will also pull in Julie Riley. So we receive a federal grant through the Office of Child Support Visitation. Child Support Access Institution. Thank you. That is a consistent one time amount. It doesn't change over time. It's based on population. And Julie is the program manager for that agreement. And those funds go towards programs within the state. Julie, do you want to chime in on So how

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: we've had eight programs recently. We have seven as Brock closed this past year. And we administered this grant, it's $100,000 and it's based solely on population. And this is a federal grant that travels through DCF and we administer that to each of these programs. And there are reporting requirements to be reported as reports from those programs. They are certainly though much more managed by their association with the Vermont network and the facilitator through the Vermont network of the supervised visitation programs. So our work is distributing the funds, receiving reporting on that one particular grant, which again, we have that $100,000 they must provide it, it's a 10% match back on that. So And again, they'll provide quarterly reporting back to us, but the monitoring comes through reviewing of that, reviewing of then their request for payment, and then their general operation and support comes through the Vermont networks. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so does part of that $100,000 go to the Vermont network? Do you pay the Vermont network? No. So they don't get any money to do what they're doing?

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: That's right. From you at least. From the federal grant. From that federal grant, and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not through any other DCF source? Right. Okay.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Sorry, for clarification, that's a total of 100,000 divided among the seven programs?

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: That's correct.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Is it the value decode?

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Well, what we have done over the years, initially it was, we had had a set number, I want to say we had originally, this is before I came in at 12 programs and we had it as equally divided as we had attrition, as programs were closing. We then began to distribute the funds to other programs. And as programs were more active, try to look at who could use those funds most immediately. And as again, we just had brought close, we distribute those funds to actually bring up the programs who had lower funding to increase their funds first too. Primarily for example, many are at about $16,400 annually from this grant. And we had a few that were at 8,200. And so the ones who were at 8,200 when Brock closed, we added in the funds that Brock was receiving the lower amount. I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: confused a little bit. From the report, so we're gonna have to have the Center for Crime Victim Services in too as well, because they provide some funding as well. So are roughly all of the seven programs now getting $8,000 All

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: of the programs are receiving at least $8,200 but many of them are also at the level of of 16,000 people. So most of them are, and that is only one source of their funding. So this is the one single federal grant that we operate.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So does 100% of that $100,000 go out to the Yes. There have been times where there was perhaps a program did not draw down their entire amount and that small amount of funds can be redistributed in the stream

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: of cost. Primarily our goal is absolutely to get all that funding in for a person.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm curious, I'm not sure who addressed the question too, but I'm curious, so that as programs have closed over the years, what has the department done to try to reinitiate this? Mean, because I hear clearly from the testimony that you think that it's really important for the safety of children and the contact And with I'm just trying to figure out what the department has done to try to reengage providers. I know since I've been here, I haven't seen any requests for funding to bolster the program. So I'm just interested in your thoughts from whomever here.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I can say I do work with folks from the network and we discuss the needs of programs. Again, I would say that the program facilitator that the network employs to helps to coordinate the programs, really may be able to answer more closely their work with programs. I can say as a facilitator or the program manager for that particular grant, I am in communication with the programs and they're reporting, is there something that could be helpful to you right now? For example, working with Barth before they closed, they've shared it could be very helpful to have an increase in funding for electronic monitoring and or to allow families to have virtual visits. And so we were able to shift some funding and provide from this grant some funding that we were looking to distribute, hoping that a program would stand up that we've been holding for a bit, looking at being at least that we're trying to do that and we're not. So it's difficult. We've been told that we provided that to Robin. But unfortunately, another grant had fallen through for them that would just not allow them to continue to function. So to answer your question briefly, monitoring the reports that they have and being in communication with their staff and if we're able to just problem solve, offer some solution that unfortunately doesn't come with financial support from that particular brand. And that is truly, I would say, our interaction with the supervised visitation programs generally is through that administration of who worked.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, essentially. Questions from other people? Garofano. I have more, so I want to let other people have a chance. Go ahead, go ahead, Representative Golrang

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you. I'm curious about the demand side of things and how this is calculated and kept track of. And is it strictly a referral basis, or are there other ways that you're receiving influxes of demand?

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: I think this is a tricky one to accurately speak to because, again, these programs exist in the community serving families that may never come to our attention. And so we would defer to the programs and our partnerships with them to speak to what the demand, what the numbers are broadly. This may not surprise you. We don't have a great tracking system in terms of how many referrals are coming from us. There's not a place in our database that we would be able to access that. On the front end of our system, there might be a note listing a supervised visitation program as one of the referrals that was made prior to the investigation concluding, for instance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Go ahead, Representative Garofano and then Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for the information and kind of walking us through the report. So just to clarify some of what Julie was saying, in your view, is this a statewide program that needs to be administered by the state to kind of ensure? Because the visitations are ordered by the courts. So who kind of holds this program? And I'm hearing from you, Julie, that it sounded like because there's a blend of funding and programs are getting their funding from various places that maybe right now Family Services Division is only overseeing that $100,000 and that's where you stop your involvement. So I guess, and I didn't see this in the report, but maybe you can talk about, is the state interested in developing and establishing a statewide program to address this obvious gap, right? Because someone, like right now,

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: it's kind of like,

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: know, it is what it is, and some places have it, some places don't, but there's no coordinated program that's statewide to ensure access across the state. And I'm curious, like, do you, does DCF and Family Services Division see that as your responsibility to do that?

[Erica Radke (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Family Services Division)]: Now, that's a good question. And we haven't talked about whether that would be our responsibility or statewide function. But I think one of the neat things about it is since it's such across systems and there a number of children that aren't even in DCF custody that are making use of it, and how when Lindsay was talking about a lot of the supervised visit programs are in communities and they like it that way, I think that perhaps there should just be a way to streamline or make it more efficient, but continue the not have it so centralized, just make sure it's equitable and fair, but without having perhaps one main source of persons running it. And I think that might actually go over better with the communities. That's thought, but it isn't something we've, you know, discussed up our chain.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Bishop and then representative McGill.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Starting back to representative Cole's question about the on the demand, trying to figure out the demand. There is some information in here that I see it sort of addresses that as it refers to wait lists across the various counties. And as I went through that, it it raised question. I guess I still have and I think it gets to representative Garofano's question about sort of the organization of all of this, that it is kind of a hodgepodge system. And I still don't have a clear picture of who's actually providing the services. And trying to figure it out, I was confused when I looked at Chittenden County, for example. There's a halftime person with virtually no wait list. And it seems odd that a halftime person could meet the demand in the state's largest county. So are referrals simply not being made by anyone for supervised visitation in Chittenden County? Or what clarification might you be able to provide?

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: So I think you are honing in on one of the greatest challenges is that all of these programs truly are piecemeal across different funding streams. And what we've noticed is that the ones who are the most sustainable generally are housed within a larger agency within the community that provides a multitude of other types of services in the community. Again, I think it's the infrastructure of the economy at scale, the ability to tag in and out staff and have coverage. And so even as we're thinking about future funding models, it's intriguing to think about what does the cost look like if it is built within a larger agency versus if we are standing something up from the ground that doesn't exist, because that's much more costly. Julie, I'm not sure if you have a sense of Chinden County specifically in the waitlist.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I think to speak to the family room that you may be referencing there, the service that they offer is a bit of a limited service. It's not as a robust sympathetic education program. And so the referrals are very limited to that program because, well, should say because, I believe because folks can recognize that that is a very limited service. And so the robust service that actually can use just as substitute for other communities or open integrations are made. So

[Rep. Esme Cole]: to the

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: point that family room can't operate service, they are offering that, but it is not, I would say it's not to meet the needs currently of Chittenden. Can I

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: ask a follow-up question? Yes. So that's the family room. That's helpful. I wasn't aware that it was the family room in Chittenden County. Has there been any discussion with any network of providers like parent child centers to be sort of a backbone for delivering the program statewide.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: And I just want to clarify, it's the Danathon family room, there's a camper as well, another service. I think that is a discussion that for years we've been having of what could that look like, who could be offering these services and communities. It's an ongoing

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: conversation. Representative McGill? You've talked about this piecemeal funding. And I know a lot of this is federal funding. And some folks have some. And it sounds like some have lost some of the funding recently, and it's caused that shift. Is one of the barriers for especially some of these programs that might be struggling the federal application process, which I'm very familiar with? And are smaller organizations losing out, in Vermont in general, on accessing funds because they're not able to get through that really difficult process. It is a capacity thing. So for

[Lindsey Behrendt (Director of Policy & Planning, DCF Family Services)]: the funding that we referenced, the programs are not applying directly It's for allocated based on population size. Julie did share with me this morning that we did receive it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Charlie, can I just check-in with you for a moment? Does the network pay for the support that you provide to these folks doing the service?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So previously,

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: we received funds from the Center for Crime Victim Services through their Victims Compensation Fund. Jennie Coleman with the Center for Crime Victim Services can certainly speak more to this, But with the deficit that they saw in the Victims Compensation Fund last year, they were not able to provide those funds for our current fiscal year. And so they are coming out of the network's organizational budget.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Okay, I think we're gonna wrap up with DCF and we're gonna move on to Judge Zonay, but you're welcome to sit there since he's up there. Welcome, Zonay. Thank you for being here and hope your recovery is going along smoothly.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: As well as can be expected in week two, I am told

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's by my physical great. So we know you participated in the, that the judiciary participated in this process in providing this report. I don't know if there's any particular comments you wanna make, but I I think that there definitely are some questions that we have for the judiciary about it.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: So for the record, Tom Zonnay, chief superior judge, I think that DCF handled the report aspects and answered the questions the committee had. Certainly, if any members of the committee has specific questions for me, I did have an opportunity to review the proceedings from yesterday, and I heard a number of questions that led me to think, would the committee like to hear how this supervised visitation is from a judge's perspective?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Exactly, because that's fact you

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: have, because that's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that's one of my questions, so yes.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: So it would be my pleasure, and I kind of wrote some notes up on this to try to just take you through step by step if that's okay. I get too deep in the weeds on it, please stop me and say,

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: hey. Okay.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: So from a judge's perspective, we utilize supervised visitation in cases where there are significant safety concerns when a parent is going to have contact with a child. These types of concerns are frequently domestic violence between the parents, exposure of children to domestic violence, substance abuse, untreated or unstable mental health conditions, allegations of criminal activity in the children's presence, and other circumstances which could include where a child is highly resistant to visitation due to a past trauma. Often the supervised visit referrals are triggered because a custodial parent says, I'll allow contact but there has to be somebody supervising it or the custodial parent opposes all contact and the court determines that supervised visitation is a safe alternative and a better alternative to no contact at all. Courts generally and judges generally prefer supervision by a mutually agreeable family member or friend. This provides greater flexibility, lower cost, and a more natural environment for the child to have the contact. But that option is frequently unavailable in highly contentious cases, cases with heightened security risks, or if there can be no neutral and reliable person identified. Court judges, we view supervised visitation as extremely helpful. When we have the centers in the counties, and you have the map in the report that shows where we don't have them, but in the areas where we have them, what we know is that we have neutral facilities with trained staff, security measures, and structured environments that can help reduce parental conflict, control unsafe or inappropriate behaviors, and provide reassurance to children and caregivers. In the counties where we have them, judges try to use them. There was just a question asked, for instance, about Chittenden, and I checked and the judges say that they're ordering people to go there, so it's not a function of not ordering, it seems to be a function of Chittenden is able to handle what is being put there because there are orders being put out for the supervised center in Chittenden. But that is not the case everywhere. And again, you see the chart that shows where we don't have it. When we don't have supervised visitation centers in some counties, this creates logistical challenges for the families and it also creates inequities. In those circumstances, the court has to choose between ordering someone to travel long distances, often a significant obstacle here in Vermont, or appointing someone who might not be the most ideal supervisor or suspending contact until something can be located, a person or facility can be located. And I think it is fair to say that there are times where a judge in a county without a supervised center and the parties agree to order it for a contiguous county, and we know that it is likely that it's not going to happen because of the barriers, the weather, whatever it may be. We know that we would like to have it happen and we'll set that process in motion, but it won't happen. One of the questions that I believe was raised before also talked about the interaction between courts and the supervised visitation centers as far as information that we receive back. Type of information we receive is there's not a one size fits all model. It varies based upon the type of case and the program structure. Structure. In domestic cases for parent child contact, courts typically do not receive direct reports from the visitation centers. Rather, any information that we'll receive will come through the parties as part of evidence or within the proceeding. Visitation centers do maintain detailed records, I understand, and we've seen them in court. But generally, we don't see them coming to court in the domestic cases as much as we see them coming to court and appearing in the juvenile or termination of parental rights cases under subpoena to testify. In the juvenile cases, courts, DCF works with the supervised centers and we do get updates. So the information comes to us in that way and we can get more information there. But in domestic cases, the supervised visitation orders that are entered are often open ended and require a motion to modify in order to change or terminate the requirement. To create clearer pathways for progress, there are judges generally, to the extent possible, will try to set specific criteria that must be met before a party can seek modification. These may include, you have to show up consistently at the supervised visits. You have to demonstrate safe parenting. If there's mental health issues, you have to demonstrate completion of mental health or even substance abuse assessments and compliance with treatment recommendations. And if there's domestic violence matters, to complete certain domestic violence programs. That type of approach is more effective than simply saying, we're going to have a hearing in four months to see how everything's going because we give individuals benchmarks and it gives everyone the opportunity. It gives the parent who is having the supervised visits the benchmark to know, here's what I need to do. And it lets the custodial parent know here is what they have to do and if they have to do it you should expect changes moving forward for we'll say normalizing the visits, perhaps taking it from the center. They can also end through other mechanisms such as transition to supervision by a family member. We see cases where it starts off in a center and the parties say it's going well and we have identified a family member or friend who can now supervise this. Again, if there's a successful treatment engagement, if there's relief from abuse orders that may be in effect or no longer in effect, those are ways that it can stop. And also another way that we see unfortunately is sometimes the parents who are entitled to engage in the supervised visits just stop coming. And that can happen. Oftentimes, however, the parents who are having the visits are highly motivated to get the visits done, and that's why, again, if we have those progress benchmarks in the orders, it does help everyone involved. So to sum it up, from the judge's perspective, supervised visitation programs are important, though I would acknowledge an imperfect tool for trying to have parent child contact in a certain category of cases. When they are available. And let's be clear, we would like them available in every county, for every family that needs them and every child that needs them, because they offer a safer and a more neutral alternative to no contact, informal arrangements, especially in those high conflict cases. But what do we know about Vermont right now as the report indicates and as you've been talking is we have limited availability. We have, I think the word utilized was a patchwork of independent supervised centers essentially. We have transportation barriers and these deny equitable access and effective use of them across the state for everyone in all of the counties. And so from the judge's perspective, we support any initiatives that can be done to improve on what we have because we're all in this together and we all share the same goal of safe, appropriate, and consistent contact between parents, and these types of programs certainly facilitate that. So any questions?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sure there are, judge. Thank you. So I'm going to start them off, and thank you for that summary, and thank you for sort of the perspective of what that's like from the judge's perspective and understanding how that works. Was very helpful. I guess one of the things, and thank you for your very clear statement that you believe that it should be available to people in all counties in the state and that that should be happening. However, it's not. And so part of a previous speaker said to me, when you give a bill report, you should always start with what's the problem and what are we doing to solve it. And so I think it's pretty clear what the problem is. So there is inequitable access to this service that is not needed for everyone, but is needed in certain circumstances. And even though the courts may be ordering it, it's not necessarily provided. And so I guess I'm interested in, one, not to add to the piecemeal nature, but from the judiciary perspective, have have you ever considered contributing to the cost of supervised visitation or the contributing to the solution, so to speak?

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, contributing to the solution with ideas and working with stakeholders, yes. Financially, I don't see that within the judiciary's budget. Because this is something, our job is to issue the orders, not to provide the location where the orders are going to be followed through on. I don't see that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: When you're The problem problem oh, sorry.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Go go right ahead.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Sorry. I was gonna say, I guess the problem that I'm seeing is that I'm not hearing anybody say they think it's their real responsibility. And, yeah, everybody is saying it needs to be available. And so I guess maybe that's up to us to determine whose responsibility it is.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I hear that people say that the most effective use or the most effective thing, and I think that me personally would agree, is for it to be done in the community with community partners and the network that exists out there already. And not to create something separate and distinct, but to utilize resources that we already have. So I'm sorry, I didn't mean to We overlapped there, so.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, I think that you're correct. And that is we have resources, and the question is how can we use them? The court uses supervised visitation as one of the tools in its toolbox when we're dealing with parent child contact in the same way that we would utilize AHS services for individuals who have mental health or utilize other community services to assist individuals, whether it's substance abuse, housing, our role is to say, here's what we've been given and these are available. So if it's available, we want to use it. The idea of, okay, let's put together a whole statewide program, I understand that to some that makes, that that will be the gold standard, let's say, that would be the Cadillac, what we'd really try for, but the reality is it's unlikely. And so from my perspective, when we look at this issue, it's what do we have and how can we build upon it? And can we take steps to have each of the counties that are working together, even though they're individual, to maybe bring them together to have some consistency in how we approach things from the judiciary and how they approach things. And I'll use an example. Last session, there was a bill that went through that had a, or two sessions ago, sorry, there was a bill that went through that was looking at post sentence reparative probation and how that should look. We already had reparative probation, but how should we address this? And it brought together, I had the good fortune to chair the committee with members of the CSCs for coming up with how do we make it work better? Now each of the community justice centers are by themselves, but we were able to come up with a proposal which was submitted as potential legislation that brought everyone together and said, okay, here's what we're gonna try to do in all counties. And to try to have a consistency, whether it's use of forms, whether it is for admission to the programs. That seemed to be a step in the right direction. So that might be something your committee looks at to say, is there something that we can do to fine tune what we have? Then look at that gap right across the middle and say, well, we might not be able to get one in every one of those counties, but can we get one strategically placed? Is there somewhere that we can get something going? Because a supervised visitation center isn't just, it's not an idea, it's not a teams meeting, it is a physical structure with human beings there to watch it staff. So as the committee was talking I think yesterday, also if you need a physical structure, you need staff, the question is who's going to pay for it where it's there? And so I think one strategy that might be helpful and that this report has made me start looking at is are there existing entities who can be contacted to say, would you be willing to do this? And then try to work with them in that regard in certain counties to try to break down those big gaps of areas where we have nothing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, Yes, thank you. And I think that's what we would be focusing on. And think And we'll definitely bring Jen Pullman in from the Center for Crime Victim Services because they're providing a good chunk of money to support this and get her perspective on this as well. So I think more to come. I think that at some point in this process this year, we're going to be looking for what would it take financially to first put resources in that block of the state that doesn't have them before we would be adding to those others? So I appreciate the listing of staffing and stuff like that that might be required to fully meet the need in those other areas. But I think before we would do that, I think we would want to make sure that it's available to the people in that chunk of the state, to the center that don't have it right now. So I know that the network's been working on that and has given the department some information and will work with the Center for Crime Victim Services. But I guess what I'm asking is that y'all come together and think about that very specific piece that we could take a look at as we look at the FY twenty seven budget process. So, because we knew anecdotally that there were gaps, but seeing how big the gap is. And I live in Washington County, so I go to the annual meetings that I hear from our local domestic violence center and it's not good. The family experience is not good. And that means the child experience is not good. And so I feel like we need to find a solution. So I appreciate everybody's willingness to work on a solution. And I hope that when we call upon you next, you're able to give us some ideas. I recognize this is outside the governor's budget process, and we won't be asking for anything before January 20. But we will be asking for what it would take to fill that gap in the middle and then look at the rest of it from a systemic basis. So other questions anybody has before we wrap up before lunch? This is the last question.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: A question for you, Judge Zon East. You referenced the fact that sometimes supervised visitation is ordered by the court, but it just doesn't happen for a variety of reasons. Can you say a little bit more about that? I'm curious what that means. Does a non custodial parent just not see their child? Does one party risk being in violation of a court order and thus that harms them going forward? Anything you could share on that would be helpful.

[Hon. Thomas Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: So when we issue the order, one way for no contact to take place is that there's requirements that you have to go and sign up, both parties have to go and take care of the paperwork to facilitate and start the program. If one of the parties doesn't do that, then the supervised visitation is not going to start as it's expected. If that is the non custodial parent who's going to have the visits, generally, that's where it ends. In other words, if they're not gonna go, the court would generally wait until they file something because it falls on their shoulders to facilitate. If it's the other party, usually the court will get a motion for contempt or the court will then intercede to, when it finds out about this, to say you need to go and take steps to make sure that things are moving forward so that the contact can go forward. There are times where contact will start out and one party won't bring the child or the other party doesn't show up. And so the same process takes place essentially. If the party who is supposed to be benefiting from the contact and having the contact doesn't show up and doesn't go, will sometimes get motions saying, Judge, suspend this because we're showing up every week and no one's gonna be there. And that's not fair to the child because my daughter is getting excited about seeing their other parent and then the other parent doesn't show up and that has a negative emotional impact on the child. So it can be a number of ways that the contact doesn't take place and it comes back.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you, judge, especially given your recuperation. Thank you for being here this morning. And thanks to our other witnesses for being here this morning as well and for your work on preparing this report and particularly the outreach to the field and to the folks in the surveying. And it's helpful to see some of that specific feedback that you got back in analysis. So thank you all very much. Thank you. You. Okay, folks, we will be back. Why don't we say one fifteen, since we're