Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, good afternoon. Well, was a lot of excitement this morning. Know, a lot of sitting around, being instructed to use our cell phones.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Really. I get in trouble. I in trouble. I did too. I stood up and talked to Mr. Rep, the nice guy next to me.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: He asked

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: me about the dog.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: He can't distract me about that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't ask about the dog.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I got told to sit down. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So this afternoon, the first thing that we're going to do is to take up the last of our budget testimonies. This is with regard to Department for Children and Families. And earlier this session, we had had an overview of the supervised visitation and the big gapping hole in the middle of the state where it doesn't exist. And so DCF Family Services Division budget team has recommended that we hear from the Vermont Network that is going to outline for our health protection needs. I think, Charlie, are you gonna be the one who's sitting in the top chair?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Welcome. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Welcome back, I should say. Appreciate it.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I'm Charlie Lesserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And I just wanna thank this committee again, especially Chair Wood and Representative Donahue for their focus on Vermont's system of supervised visitation. At the committee's request, we are submitting a revised budget request for your consideration. The Vermont Network is requesting an appropriation of 2 and 40 Wow, 249,300 to be allocated to DCF to support a statewide system of care for supervised visitation. This includes funding for community based supervised visitation services, as well as a small allocation for statewide coordination of services and standards. This request has been revised down from our original request. We originally requested 7 Wow, my apologies. I am getting over a cold here and numbers are escaping me, which is tough in budget testimony.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: originally requested a bit over $700,000 for this system, and we recognize that that is what it needs. But in recognition of our current fiscal climate and what might be feasible, in FY 'twenty seven, we feel that a little bit under 250,000 will be a really good and meaningful step forward. In addition to this appropriation, we are also requesting a fund transfer of a bit over 100,000 that exists in general funds that is currently going to the Center for Crime Victim Services that we would like to go to DCF. And the Center

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: for Crime Vocs Did everybody hear that? An agency that's receiving money is giving it back

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, as part of well, the had to mention that. Okay.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: They do. They support this request, and I'll share a little bit why this really doesn't make sense. So these existing general funds will supplement federal funds that DCF currently receives and consolidate the grants provided to supervised visitation into one state agency. So this will reduce the administrative burden on providers as well as the Center for Crime

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Victim Services, and it will just improve efficiencies and clarify lines of accountability between state funders and

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: providers. We understand that the committee is potentially considering some one time funding sources for supervised visitation in FY twenty seven. And to help ensure continuity of services, I think particularly for any newly launched programs, we would appreciate some kind of inclusion of legislative intent signaling a commitment to pursue ongoing funding and expand services in geographic areas like that Center of the State Chair Wood mentioned, where gaps will remain. So we provided a cost analysis that is an example of how Vermont's supervised visitation system would benefit from the appropriation I detailed. But ultimately, the very specific details about what program budgets look like and usage of funds would likely be determined by the programs themselves and DCF as a funder. I am happy to go through the cost analysis in more detail. I sent it to Laurie, and I'm not sure if it's possible to pull it up on the screen, if that's something of interest to you all. I can also pull

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it up. We have it. Well, we have your, what says budget request. That's probably the document. Okay. So I will say this isn't doing what I want it to do. Beautiful. No, this

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: request isn't fixing any holes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, no, it is. Right.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Okay. Can't So see

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm happy to- Would describe how it fixes some holes?

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I would be happy to. So I'll talk through a little bit what this kind of appropriation would do for the system of supervised visitation. So this total request assumes eight supervised visitation programs statewide. So right now we have six. So this appropriation would increase the funding that goes to the existing six programs, and it would also provide startup funding for an additional two in counties where supervised visitation programs don't currently exist. And so what that would do is prevent closures at the existing six programs by providing that funding. And it would also encourage two additional programs to open and serve areas of the state where there is a real lack. And then the other thing that this program would do is have a little bit under a half time position, point four FTE, at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, who will serve as a supervised visitation coordinator for the state. So this person will work in consultation with DCF to support the system, to support those two new programs in getting online, and in the future, continue to build out programs where those gaps exist. They'll also support in training for supervised visitation programs, as well as ensuring that there are program standards for them that ensure that high quality services are delivered statewide. I will note that because we had to revise down our budget because of the realities of this year, this would fund approximately a salary of $42,000 for each supervised visitation program. So right now, the average full time domestic violence advocate salary is a bit under $50,000 And so there's about an $8,000 gap there. But it is a really important step forward and one that we appreciate and would be a meaningful opportunity for programs to gain stability in this time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Questions? It isn't

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: a question. The thing that concerns me is I thought there wasn't enough research yet to know about the other two locations. I was under the understanding from higher ups that the other two locations, they don't even know if they can get people to go there. They don't know how they're going to get them there. So why would we put money into it?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So maybe you can talk about the coordinator position role and how they're

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: going to engage engage in identifying those. Absolutely. The reality that we see now is that some of these programs are getting $16,000 in state funding total right now. And so this current fiscal system is why it's so difficult to identify providers in those counties with no services, because they can't sustain a program with that kind of funding. This will really change the calculus for those programs. There are a few organizations that we at the Vermont Network have connected with who said, if there is an opportunity, if there is sustainable funding available to start a program, we could be all in. So that's enough. And so this appropriation for programs, as well as this appropriation for supervisory station coordination, that's the kind of person that they're a community based employee. They can really connect with those other nonprofits, identify providers and support them in getting online. So I have a question because I realize we have a couple of areas that cover more than one county.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that would seem to make sense given perhaps the volume in those spaces.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: how will it be determined where these two locales, how will that be chosen?

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So I think right now, Representative Donahue and legislative counsel have been working on some language to outline what this kind of request would really look like. And right now, that language is specific to counties where services are not currently offered. So that's what we're working with right now. For families who are in counties where services aren't currently available now, they either seek out an informal supervised visitation arrangement, like a neighbor or a family member, or they're referred to their closest program. And so I think it would likely be some analysis, looking at the map and seeing for those families who are going to be referred to their closest program, what location would best serve them, especially in this bridge period where we know there is interest in growing programs in the future. And also, I think would go by where interested providers are available.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, and see, that's the part that bothers me. Because that's how some of these housing decisions are made. Because somebody decides that they wanna do it, that might not be a place where it's necessary.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: When you see the language, I think that might reassure you. Okay. Because it is specific to a needs assessment and identification of where those, the first two and then the subsequent ones.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Go ahead, Representative. It's not a question. Right now, we have questions for the witness. After the witness is done, we're gonna have budget discussion and then we can take it up at that point in time. But it goes with this, though.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Well, I'll I'll wait. Let me

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just know. That'd be great. Any other questions for this witness? So I wanna make sure I'm understanding. So it would shore up the existing program so that we won't have any more closures and it would expand into other areas of unserved. And I don't mean Franklin Grand Isle or Northeast Kingdom. I mean the central part of the state. Yes. Okay.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That's exactly right. And so Franklin Grand Isle does currently have a Supervised visitation program that serves there. And so this would be counties where services don't exist. And there are different arrangements that we have with existing programs. Some programs serve multiple counties, some programs serve one. And so I think those kinds of details could be properly assessed in a needs assessment to support DCF and Yeah. I just wanna

[Rep. Esme Cole]: make sure it's based on

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the need, not based upon, you know, well, okay. Well, we have a provider who says they'll do it here. And so then we're gonna you know, that's where we're gonna go because sometimes it takes a little bit more effort to organize around a specific area that has needs, but maybe doesn't have an identified provider yet.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And the target date is January year, for the actual starting, so that there is that time to the needs assessment and identifying potential partners. Okay. Go ahead. I just have to say, I don't want anybody to Of think I'm not

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: course I am. Of course parents deserve to see their kids that they're incarcerated. But I hate to put a lot of money into something that's not going to happen like the safe injection site. That's all. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think what we are hearing is that there's a commitment and an agreement to do that. That's why the network, even though you don't operate as a visitation provider, you're kind of the glue that is holding things together, particularly with this point for FTP.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I appreciate that. It's a very important services for a lot of kinds of families, including survivors of domestic and sexual violence and their children. And we're just so grateful for the committee's consideration. Thank you. Any other questions for the witness? All right. Thank you, Charlie. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So you probably have seen by now I changed the agenda yet again. Not since this morning, but this morning I did. So we are going to now move to discussion of budgets. And I have a standing appointment with the appropriations committee on Thursday next week. So my goal is that by the time we leave here tomorrow, that we have a general sense of where we're gonna be in terms of priorities and in terms of what it is that And we'll I recognize that there are gonna be some pieces, like I can think of the housing piece at economic services and OEO that we won't have answers by that point. That's my gonna testimony is that we're still working on that. So I think that we will start with the health department since the health department can help us get our heat wet. And it's It's not gonna be exciting, but Sometimes it's the least complicated sometimes. In

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: this case, it's very uncomplicated.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So what say you people?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Throw together the quick spiel, we finished everything off. So I'm gonna turn it over to Zon, and then I'll jump in on

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is just your initial thoughts. If you have additional thoughts, this isn't the final chance. It's just

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Do you want do you want to look at the document? We have material we have, stuff in the document. You or should would you prefer we just talk?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Actually, if you have stuff, why don't you get the Zoom link? Is that alright, Laurie? Are you okay with

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: It's it's just the document that you've sent. It's that structure. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Or you can if you wanna send it to all of us, then we can look at it while you're talking about it.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: How's that?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I can send the link to everybody's top of their box because it's the same link that you sent. Yeah. I will send it. Well, don't, do we need to?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, we don't need to put

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: it up there. No, we're just gonna. We're just gonna look

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: it up.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Look at add it on your email.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I just.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: If I Theresa budget, it's the first thing that comes up.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I just resent it.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: You resent it. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And just as an FYI, I have asked Ray to be the guardian of the template. And so

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So I need to get some other stuff here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Formatting. Yeah, that's all good. All right. Okay.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: You'll see Page

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: nine, the health department.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, thank you for letting me know that.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: The Department of Health is at the very bottom of Page nine, yep. Page nine.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Page nine of the document.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay, that's not what I'm looking at, but whatever. Okay. So we have three, we're looking at B311, B312 and B313, and then we have one proposal. And most of what we bumped into in talking with the various folks in the Department of Health, there are a lot of these, a lot of net neutral situations where it looks like a lot of money is moving around. I guess the big upshot maybe to say, let's step back, I'll try this, is that the Department of Health as an overall is posting $3,000,000 in savings to its previous budget. So this year in section three eleven, that they are proposing almost $6,000,000 in decreases. And then the other two in twelve and thirteen, they're proposing slight increases. So it I don't it it doesn't make sense to me that we would go through and talk about it in great detail because there's lots of $4,000 so there's a $68 shift, for instance. But there are a number of what they're calling net neutral adjustments. Apparently, I think we are all understanding, what we're saying, the agency is budgeting and reformatting the way it budgeted. And so there's a lot of adjusting of dollars from here to there. Does it make sense? Yep. So for instance, an example is in the grants department of the grant section of section three eleven. There are six grants, four of which are just being transferred to another place. So we'll see those budgets in other places. So for instance, health care quality assistance of $660,000 looks as a savings in this part of the budget, but it's being moved right over to three twelve. So we look over

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the question I'm gonna ask, because since we've been sort of highlighting a couple of different things to end so a net neutral, generally, is exactly what it sounds like. Okay? They've decided to budget it in one area versus another area. However, we've been alerted to that. Some of those things that look like net neutrals are really cuts to particular programs. Particular grants, yes. Right. And so that's what we are interested in. From your meetings, are you seeing that they're beyond the ones that they point out, like AHEC? What are you seeing for those net neutrals? Are you seeing that the actual service is going to continue, but it's now going to be budgeted in another area? Or are you seeing that there is actual reduction?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: At least the ones that I can make sense of, it looks to me as if they're just moving them all to we're gonna the services will continue. I don't see anything unusual.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Good. Are you coming from the that not neutral or are you speaking specifically in the grants?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, some of them some of them are in grants. That's what I'm asking.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: The the grants that were showing the cut, we did engage with them and kinda get a a greater understanding to some of them as requested, and they had to make some difficult decisions in regards to what the ones They had for instance. They more or less expressed the ones that they cut were less impactful in considering others is the response back. And are you in agreement with that? I'm only in agreement into it because I don't know how impactful all the grants are. I don't know what all the outcomes were within the grant. So yes, in regards to I'm gonna take, if that's what they're expressing, I believe that they're being transparent, and they really did their due diligence in deciding which grants were gonna be the least impactful to cut in lieu of keeping the ones that will have had a greater impact.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I will say that I think we've heard in testimony of not just in this department or in this section of the budget, but all around. I'm concerned about general cuts in programs for prevention or education across the board. And that dollars seem to be going to where it's more crisis related, where there's more need because it demonstrates there's more need. And so in the case of, for instance, AHEC, it's a program they're cutting that would educate young people about entering health fields, work won't be done. And so it's sort of part and parcel of what I think is a trait that I'm understanding anyway, as I listen to these, to the various testimony we've heard that there are a number of reductions in places where investments are actually the cheaper kinds of investments to make, but they're not perhaps as impactful, is the way to say it. Does that make sense?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Uh-huh.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So I think they're getting their standard growth for cost of living increases and the insurance and all that kind of stuff is talked about. The two big issues that that strike me are the the they're they're expecting because of this new of the of five forty five, the passage of five forty five, if that happens, that there will be an increased expectation and budget for the immunization program. And that's in section three twelve. I don't know what it was last year, it's an 1,800 a $1,800,000 increase over the previous year. And as I understand, this is they're looking also for authority to this increase is a little bit larger than it might have been because they're clearing up some authority issues in passing out previous grants. We bumped into that in a number of different places where the grants are not well timed, where they're not all completely taken care of. So there are attempts throughout the budget here in our part to begin to tighten those up. For instance, on section three twelve in grants, line 602,102, there's a $300,000 emergency medical services expenditure. And that's to bring the grant payments, spending authority up to speed so that everything's in the right place. There's some drag on that. Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: go ahead.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So I'm just curious, the immunization line item that you were talking about, just wondering where that's reflected on the methionphet table that we're all looking at. So

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: then that would be three twelve under grants. Let me see what it says there. Though it's it's represented as those two spending authority catch up items. Items. Can, in fact, I will right now, I can add that that's the immunization program. It becomes- So

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: the 1.6 total increase is what's gonna be the increase after the decreases to kind of make that cover the cost?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Yeah, so that total increase of 1.6 is B312. So it's all three of the personnel upwards.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: And that includes that immunization? Yes, includes.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So you can see that even though we have the $1,800,000,000 increasing in the immunization program, in that section, there's still a loss or a decrease, not a loss, a decrease. So used to reading red as a loss. I don't know if this is helpful. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: did you get any further specifics on the education loan repayment program?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I can't speak to that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: That was the one I was speaking of in regards to their response was they had to make those tough decisions and they felt that removing ones that were, and I wrote down the exact term I just used, less impactful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, so we need primary care doctors if they're gonna get rid of tuition loan assistance. During testimony, they told us that they had hoped that that would be at least partially covered during the Rural Health Transformation Grant. And so what did you learn

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: about that? Very little in the rural health

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: grant.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So did you confirm or not whether or not they are gonna be able to

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: I did not. I'll analyze

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: follow-up. Yeah. So we would need some follow-up on that. So it seems like we heard several things that they thought, well, maybe we can get this covered in the Rural Health Transformation grant. And then as we've begun to learn the specifics of that grant, well, no, we can't do this, we can't do that. And so I think before we go ahead and accept that recommendation, I think we need to know what the implications of that are.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: We do know that this loan repayment plan, they're forgivable loans. I don't know exactly how they work, or maybe it's just a reduction in costs that they're paying out. The loan, I don't know. But I'll go ask more questions.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do we know whether or not they have made commitments to individuals that they will continue to carry out?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Yeah. That's the one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Or are they just gonna

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Well, I believe they did. Yeah. No, I believe the testimony that was, and I will have to go back and I remember that question being asked. And I believe the response was they would continue who is ever in there, but then, no, excuse me, no, it gets cut

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: immediately. Yes.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I think one of the things that we need you to follow-up on is if there are any applications that have been approved, but are now gonna be rescinded somehow, what the value of those are, because that doesn't seem fair to the people who had commitments made to them.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: then we had also asked what percentage of, it's roughly, what, about a half

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: $1,000,000 cut to AHEC?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: My recollection, what percentage is that of AHEC's total funding? So we may still end up having to agree to it, but I think we should know we should be able to convey to the appropriations committee that this is gonna it could mean the end of AHEC, or it might not. It could be a 5%. I really don't know what the

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I think it's a total I think it's a closing of AHEC.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it's a elimination of the Department of Health funding for AHEC, but there are other sources of funding for AHEC. So you would need to be contacting AHEC.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm presuming they came to everybody, but I've gotten lots of emails in support of AHEC in particular as being some of the reasons that people decided to practice medicine in Vermont. So I think it makes a difference.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, personally, I'm very concerned about that cut.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, it needs to

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: better access for primary care in the state, and just want to get a better picture of what has been the impact. Like, how many primary care physicians has the program been helping, how many applications are being terminated as a result of this cut, the potential impacts of what we're gonna lose would be helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Dan?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Excuse me? Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so, and then did you follow-up on the program that asked you to follow-up on as potential source of funding for AHEC, which is some pharmacy quality improvement thing?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yes, the fund. Yes. And again, we didn't go away as far as to request that I had it written down as a no. But again, I went back to what they had expressed right from day one in regards to when making these cuts because these were the most, the least impactful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. What is that? It it it was a line item in there that was

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah. It's underneath the the grants, the health health care quality assurance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I guess before we move into substance use services, I'm interested in understanding from the rest of the committee, is do you have any particular input on the two big things in this area are AHEC and the loan tuition repayment.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: As I mentioned, and Eric, you just kind of brought up the fact that the health department is indicating that these were not impactful programs. I would like to see data on that. What does that mean? How many people have they served? Is the administrative cost too burdensome where it's not a value? Where are they basing that statement on? What are basing that on? I think that would be really helpful, because I feel like if we have said we want investment in an area where we know there's a gap in this stage, and if we have a program that is not impactful, I would hope to see some ideas of how to make it impactful before cutting it, because we know this is a gap. The gap is not going to go anywhere. This might just make it worse. So it would be helpful to kind of understand. Absolutely. Have they done anything to try to improve the impact?

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I think about it, impactful to me can't just be a matter of the number of individuals who may be taking advantage of this program, because there's a multiplier effect by us having a stronger cadre of primary care providers in the state that we currently do. For a program I had never heard of before, this budget cycle, it certainly has generated a lot of concern from the community about the impact that it could have.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So what I'm hearing from the committee and from the chair is, we're do a little bit more deeper, get this all clarified, and then we can come back.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I think on AHEC in particular.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Absolutely.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then understanding, I guess, getting confirmation from them, have they gotten confirmation that the Rural Health Transformation Grant will be able to be used for that tuitionloan repayment? Because that's what they testified to. But I know that that's an ever evolving- Yeah, mean, literally every day. We had joint fiscal committee testimony a little bit ago, and literally every day it's changing when they are in contact with the grant officers at CMS. So I think that I'm sure was a perfectly valid statement when Doctor. Hildebrandt made it. It might have changed. So we should just double check to make sure that that's gonna be an allowable cost. And if not, then we should be pointing out that it would be helpful to know how many health care professionals, because it's not just physicians, that was other, it was nursing,

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: specialists, was, yeah, for the loan repayment, how many have been impacted. And I think there's actually a report. I think there is a report that outlines that. We'll see if investigative reporter Morse can find it. I don't think it came to us, but it might have gone to healthcare.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It may, even if there are rural health transformation dollars, it may change up who's receiving the funds. I don't know what the breakdown is now, because my understanding is if Chittenden County is not included, it's where our largest medical hub is. And so I don't know how many AHAC recipients are based in Chittenden County and whether the Rural Health Transformation dollars will be able to fill that gap.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Well, they did not say for Rural Health for AHEC. AHEC and the tuition reimbursement. It repayment. Was just the So AHEC is out there on its own. Think that's why I'm asking for a little bit more detail there. I guess I haven't given up on

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: AHEC yet. That's, I

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: guess, that's the problem.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And the Rural Health Transformation grant, if they can use that for some of that loan repayment tuition reimbursement, then I'm willing to give up on that one. Although our healthcare committee may have a different idea about that. Okay, let's move on to substance use. And just for folks, so we're seeing stuff like the net neutral, where they do up one and down, we don't need to put that on the sheet.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So much activity. You know what mean? There is.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Have a lot of stuff. And there is a lot of moving parts. The only time we would need to actually see it on the sheet is if it's actually resulting in a termination of a grant or something that we And want to personnel services, unless we're making some notation about the number of positions, like in the DCF economic services budget, where we know they've got 21 positions in there, was relatively modest. It was a couple of positions in and out for the health department. So we don't need to this is as much not just for the health department team, but for everybody, that we don't need to put that personnel services. The ADS allocation change, don't need to put

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: that kind of stuff in there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because it's all over state government. We don't really have any control over it. We can't say, oh yeah, no, we're gonna take that 1,600,000.0 ADS, and we're gonna put that into loan repayment. Yeah, we don't get a chance to do that. Apparently ADS is having all sorts of budget problems all on its own. I think that's why we're seeing some these big shifts here. Their budget problems become everybody else's budget problems. So teams, when we're filling this out, let's just concentrate on those things that we are going to have a potential impact on. So let's talk about substance use.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Well, to say it, that B313, in operating services, it's in net neutral, but it's a big number, dollars 1,200,000.0. Just don't get alarmed about that because it's one of those moves from another space.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: From another space, In

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: the grants part of the three thirteen substance use, again, there we have it again, a substance use prevention is a Oh, wait.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: But that change reflected the increase, yes.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay. So again, of these, this is the $1,400,000 It's not reflected exactly like that, but there is a $1,400,000 line item that is the cannabis excise tax fund. And that's represented in that $1,200,000 because there's a savings of almost $1,000,000 in the grant section as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So according to Did I have word this to you? I don't know. He just handed me this. I don't have it electronically. This is something Nolan gave me. I don't think I gave you guys a copy of it. I'll give you a copy of it. So this is the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund, special fund. So with that cannabis excise tax-

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: 30%. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: According to this, in FY '26, so there was 4,000,000 to the Vermont prevention lead organizations, 1,750,000 to school based prevention services, and then a million to field based prevention staff. I don't know who the field, I don't know whose field it was, but And then there were one time appropriations for the recovery residences of 300,000. That's what we were talking to Jeff about yesterday.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There was 800,000 for recovery centers. Again, that's what we were talking to Susie about yesterday. And then there was 200,000. We haven't heard, oh, from Mentor Vermont, but last year we gave him 200,000 in one time out of the prevention fund. So this year, so that was $8,050,000. So this year, the Senate is proposing 228,000 to recovery centers in budget adjustment, which we haven't completed yet. And the health department is saying they wanna increase the lead organizations from 4,000,000 to five. They want to increase school based prevention from 1.75 to three, and the field based prevention staff from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000.0. So they're allocating $9,500,000 in substance misuse prevention.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yep. What Administration estimates the amount available for 2020

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's about 5,000,000.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: That's what's represented here. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I'm just refreshing our memories here that we have said, well, that's all fine and well and good.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: We also want-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we want these three programs to be funded out of So prevention that needs to be reflected here in your recommendations.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So we should put that, okay, that would come from that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because we've already made that decision.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I see.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Isn't that it? No.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, that's No. Not No, it's the three. One was for Elevate. There were three smaller programs. From From the OSAT. Yeah. So in order to do that, we have to reflect that here. What we're saying is we're redoing. You guys make a copy of that when

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: you would- Great, thank you.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Actually, was there four?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't don't have 06:60 open in front of me. Brenda, what the, you're a big reporter on six sixty. What were the things we said to fund out of the prevention fund?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I don't want to measure that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Double bay youth services. Double

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: bay youth youth, 288,000,

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: change for debate youth, 125,000 to Greater Falls Connections, 200,000 to Interaction Friends for Change, and 26,027 thousand dollars to So those

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: four things need to be reflected in your recommendations here.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'm making a note in the table for you, Zon, what you just said. It's not exact, but you have it all Thanks

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: very much. I appreciate that. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what we are saying is out of that 9,500,000.0 that the department is allocating out in the way that they want to do it, we are saying, well, we're we're we're saying, okay, except whatever those four things total up to, we're recommending that these be funded out of the prevention fund. Yeah. Alright.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Did we ever find out why when the ski's not using their own thing?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know the answer to why municipalities are We talked a little bit about that. We don't get to govern what municipality. Right, right. But that is something that the committee could have said, go back and talk to your business. I mean, they knew that, that committee probably didn't even know until that article came out, how much each municipality was getting. I know, I didn't have any idea. Likewise, yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: You like to see, should that be as part of the, just a separate recommendation?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's standard prevention, whatever, I'm not sure what B number prevention is.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay, so I'm gonna move that when you get done there. Leave it alone.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, thanks.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, I need to get my copy back.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I only made one copy.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Here, I'll do another one of the pieces.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, all right,

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: well here. I'll get

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: it from him afterwards. Just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to be clear, what we're saying is the department has recommended these three areas for the prevention, and that's all in base, by the way. We're saying out of that 9.517, we have four programs that we have recommended. And you can take the numbers from the age six sixty. It still leaves them with money to allocate out there. I think at some point we need to have the prevention. BDH has a very good prevention lead person, and we should have her in to better understand how that because it's it's adding up to real money now. Okay. So

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: where Then I think the only other thing sure. No, everything else is square then.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we have 800,000 for recovery centers. Yes.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay. Well, thank you. I'm sticking with the budget. Yeah. So listen. Go ahead. You can talk about that one.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah. That was our recommendation. I mean, the and recovery partner is coming forward and making their request for $800,000 to be restored. We put in there a recommendation of $400,000 recognizing that we were going to look to see if we could obtain it from the prevention funds, but also recognizing that budgets are tight this year, things are tight this year. And believe me, I would like to see all 800,000. We came to the decision to just look to see if we can get them to split the difference and have and make a request for 4,000. Okay. It doesn't say that here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It says Level Fund 800,000.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: What do

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: in the table. On your table.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Well, Matt, level climbed from what we had done last year.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Which was 800,000. He just said 400.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Oh, oh, oh, I see. Let's switch it then to 400,000.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Well Well, if you hey. Listen. You know, would say we were looking at all things from the from the reality of where things are at and because if we

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: could at

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: least apply half of it and go from there. But if

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, so let's take Who's got $6.60 open? Who can tell me that number those numbers?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I have it opened. Maybe Doug does as well.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We just need the four and up, the exact amounts for the

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: These four and flat bottom four?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The flat bottom yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Okay. Elevate is 289. I get exact, 28893288935.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright, wait a minute, wait a minute. Yes, want exact, just a minute. 288 what?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: 935.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, she's got to say

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: 35. 935.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 5, yeah, it's about 8.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay, next one is 124999. Okay. Next one is 200,000. Even? Yes. Uh-huh. Next one is 26,697.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's it, right?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Total is 640,631.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so the total of that with the 800,000 is 1,400,000.0. So that's within the nine, that's within the 1.5.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Substance use. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That does not leave them any additional. I mean, leaves them about 100,000. So I'm fine with that. Just wanting to make sure that everybody's on the same page.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So what I'm hearing is good with the request of 800,000?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's level funding them. It's no increase. And I think that when we're talking about recovery, I don't think we should be decreasing those funds.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: You're not going to get an argument out of me on that.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So is that level funding at 800,000 actually is the fourth column, or it wasn't in the governor's recommend?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not in the governor's recommend, no.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I see, so you could put all of these recommendations here like this, and you get there eventually.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, so it's why I sent along what the chart looked like last year, so that we could fill it in this year. They could fill it in like we did last year.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: That doesn't mean it's happening that way.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's rough draft.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: I want to attest to the outstanding work Zon has put the majority of the work into this. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, thank you. Thank you both. And thank you, Zon, for leading the charge here. Okay. So what I am I'm just I'm gonna summarize now. So the the draft recommendation that we're making at this point in time is 800,000 to level fund the recovery centers. And then those four other things that we put in $6.60 since we've already voted that bill out. So that's a total of one million four four zero six three one. So is that what I'm seeing as consensus around the room?

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Coming from the prevention funds?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All of those things would be coming from the prevention fund. Yes. Okay. And that's within the governor's I want I want to point out that is within the governor's total budget. Right.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not increasing the governor's budget. Right. Brenda, did you hear me say that? Mhmm. Okay.

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I'm jumping on it if I did.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know, that's why I'm making sure. Okay, so do you have anything else in substance use services?

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: No, that was it. That's it.

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

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Just quickly, Chair. So mainly come back with clarity in regards to what was discussed previously with AHAC and-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And the tuition loan just getting confirmation about the Girl Health Transformation grant. Reconfirm. Alright. Okay. And, yeah, it it it'd be helpful if we had some data on the which I I I think there is some data out there about who has accessed that tuition payment. Mostly, I'm like I said, mostly, I'm concerned about AHIP. And as you indicated as well, it's not something that you were wanting to agree to either. Right. I hear you. Alright. Thank you, health health department team. Appreciate that going first. Who wants to go next?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah. Beat that, folks. Who's next? The child development community.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Child development.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'll get us started with an assist from a phone or friend to the table. Beneath it. It's actually relatively simple comparatively speaking, I think,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: to some of what the rest of

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: you were dealing with. So we're starting at the top, page one of that chart. We had included this, but we'll do it very quickly. The personal services and operating expenses for agreeing with those recommendations is a little bit of information on what those are. So this is all in B318. Getting to grants, it's a net decrease to the budget of just over $2,000,000 $2,049,043 There were a couple of net neutral things that we referenced in there. We can take those references out, share to clean that up. One was within CDD, one was between CDD and FSD. The big item there, also net neutral, is over $6,000,000 from the childcare special fund, now going to be in general fund. So getting on to

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Wait a minute, say that other way. So it's from general fund to

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yes, sorry, sorry, Other way around. Yes, it will now be in special fund.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's not net neutral. Are you talking about the 6,200,000.0 you have on here? What are you talking

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: about? Yes, that is not a net neutral.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not net neutral. That's additional general fund. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: The off base. And I thought it

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was 8 and a half million.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Well, there's 2.5 above, which in Are you thinking of the tax department dollars rolling in That the tax per

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: went to the tax department, that statutorily should have gone last year, that they didn't account for. Oh, That's $2,500,000 that's for administration. We have a note to actually dig a little bit with the tax department to find out why that's, it seems high.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: It seems high, maybe.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, for administration of the program. So that's 2,500,000.0. This 6,200,000.0 is just the coverage of the benefit. The benefit, okay. For childcare subsidies. Okay, so is that 2,500,000.0 two years worth?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: I think it's a one. It's one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It gets one? Yeah. So I think we need more digging on that. Yeah. And I don't know who's got tax department for budget in this place. I'll find out. Is it Ways and Means? Probably Ways Yeah. And So that would be good to check-in with ways and means budget, whoever is going to budget in ways and means, because that seems like a lot to administer a small payroll tax.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And it also seems a nice round number, like something they speculated, and maybe they've come to the conclusion it doesn't take $2,500,000,000 now that we're a full year into it. With respect to specific grant cuts, they're listed here, and our recommendation is to agree with those cuts. The largest item there you see is one point one hundred and ten thousand strengthening families. We discussed that some during testimony. That was a program that was helping a very limited number of programs, 20 to 24 programs that are over 1,000 childcare programs statewide. And so there was not equitably being distributed and that was sort of being sunsetted.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Also, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it was also Medicaid dollars.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yes, I was gonna get that.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Because we were wondering, well, you're not spending 1.1 here, are you spending it elsewhere? The answer was no, Medicaid dollars are no longer available. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is that 1.1? Yes. So, okay. So it's only a portion of that that's general fund.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Childcare Okay. Capacity grants of 100. Sorry,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I said okay, but I didn't know if you're okay. In my head, I said okay, but I feel like I need a little more information about that. So is that, it it

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: says strengthening families, but it was about strengthening childcare providers? So I can give details on what the program was. Strengthening Families framework is a framework that was implemented, supported by this $1,100,000 There are very specific grants going to about two dozen childcare programs to implement this framework that has to do with resiliency, family engagement. There's like five other the protective factors to help families. So the plan at the division for about two years has been to shift the model of just using the money to apply it to a very limited number of programs was to broaden the reach. So they would provide more training for the rest of the field to be able to take advantage of the framework. And thus, these two dozen programs were notified about it six months ago that they were not going to be receiving the specific grant anymore because there was another plan for this funding, and then the funding disappeared. So now the cuts to the programs were going to happen anyway, and they were notified that they weren't going to receive the funding. And they were going to use that money in a different way to broaden the approach. But now that's been put on hold because that money is, they don't have the spending authority anymore. And, okay, so

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: programs that had grants, they'll get to finish out the rest of this year?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. Okay. And will there be, is this gonna be, is this sort of, this is a framework as you were saying, is it something that is supported by the PDG grant? So the framework is supported in the new STARS system, in the Quality Rating Improvement System. So now programs that are in the STARS and engaging in STARS have options to get the training and the support and the TA related to this framework, and that will have them improve their quality.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is there anything else we can cut out of this? Just I mean, I'm just giving you know, there's there's a couple of, you know, big grants that the division has. I'm just wondering if there's is there I'm trying to figure out if there's any way we can help out in any other areas, like in we made a bigger cut to

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: It was only 1,100,000.0.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, not that. I'm thinking about the I'm thinking about so the capacity grant reduction. What I'm trying to figure out is if there's any way to support any of the other things we're gonna see in some of the other

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: areas.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'll just kinda keep that in the back of your head a little bit. Okay. And so what are our thoughts? Well, we've gone

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: all We'll keep going. Sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Dollars 100,000 cut from child care capacity grants. That was $900,000 still remains. The division believes that will be sufficient, but otherwise, they'll look to some federal dollars they believe may be available if they need to augment it. But that's them just trying to find some money in this budget, and we agreed with that. The emergency financial relief is a utilization cut. They still have budgeted it for more than has been used. So they were able to identify comfortably, they believe it's $123,000 they can cut from emergency financial relief. And then the $100,000 in child care eligibility agreement efficiencies, that's out of a total of 2,500,000 will remain after the $100,000 decrease. The division shared with us that these partners have not drawn down the funds in the current awards, so they were not concerned that they would be coming up short with this cut. Childcare trust fund program, It's a little confusing in documents. It says in the budget documents $180,000 It really is just $100,000 There was $80,000 in federal dollars that actually had not been going to them. It just had not been cleaned up, is what we understand on the books. It is a $100,000 cut to the trust fund program. I will note that the trust fund program still does receive about $60,000 from tax checkoff, and we otherwise felt that this was an area, not an easy cut, and they do a lot of good work giving out mainly smaller grants to community organizations, but something that we thought could be absorbed. We have an addition for the parent child centers. We're recommending the $180,000 for the concrete supports included in the Parent Child Centers overall budget allocation, and we are taking our recommendation is to decrease the school aged childcare funding from $2,000,000 to $1,820,000 to find that 180 ks. There is some and now, I think word was just received in the past week or so about some federal funds that will be helping school age. So we are not concerned about the decrease from that line. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so you're recommending, absolutely clear, You're recommending out of their their proposal, the 180,000 whoops. Yeah. Mary, yes, a $180,000, not the 500 k. And you're offsetting that with a reduction in another line area for school

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: age CCFAP. And just want to note that that's accurate. And just want to note that the portion of the PCCAS that had to do with benefit assister were silent on because that overlapped different budget areas. I think that

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: We're going to be a wider discussion.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, we'll talk about that sort of in And

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: our direction in this document, in this SHAP document on the 500,000 was try to be in keeping with other conversations at this table about cost of living.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Colas, please recommend me Colas this year.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You can recommend them, nobody's getting them. Let's put it that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: way. I

[Rep. Esme Cole]: do have one question with this. I mean, we got a note too about how many houses or precariously house families that PCC serve. And I think, I don't know. I don't know if I see it as a COLA in this case with the PCC staff. Just understanding what kind of margins they're working on to do the extent of like, honestly, this is the case management that we're working with at the moment for housing security for families with children. This is a pretty significant chunk. So I don't know. I don't know if I can sit comfortably with that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, I think I totally hear that. And I know they do incredible work, and the need is so great, given all the other cuts that are going to families that are in poverty, which is why we prioritize the concrete supports that is actual cash in family, like direct family money. So, as we all know, it's a really hard budget year. So thinking about where we can take money and where we would have the most impact, It's our opinion that having the concrete supports funded is a bigger priority. Not that one is more important than the other, but that's something that will at least get more supports directly to families. That's a direct as they testify, that goes directly to families. So we wanted to make sure that we were able to cover that.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Go ahead. No, that's all. I just wanted to put that up there. But thank you for that response.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Was just trying to why don't I see their stuff in here? Did they submit something, Laurie? I thought I had a handout.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So that Parent Child Centers, they did

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yeah, I don't see it

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on our webpage. They did, I

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: saw it. Wasn't it an email? Wasn't it an email? It's under Elevation Street. Okay. Yeah. I saw it. Was it an email?

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Is there something specific from it that you're

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: can't spell it. That's it. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'd like to see what they what they called the 500,000. What was it under?

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: LH. LHMSTAS.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. No. We don't have anything on our website. Okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: One question.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I can forward you what I'm looking at if that would be helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sure. Well, I just wanna make sure it gets on our website.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: On

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Wednesday. Right? Tuesday. Tuesday. Okay. Thank you. There we go. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Alright. Maintain stopping levels at Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Yep. I think that's a. Okay. So at this point in time, what the committee is recommending is to go is you're prioritizing the concrete support request. Other questions or comments about that, and you found the funding source for it. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: And I will note that this morning we received a memo from LG Chem that has been posted, but I have honestly not had time to look at that in detail. I don't think Bishop has there. So that is not incorporated in any of this.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. I read it, but I think it's essentially just wanting to make sure that the money is solid.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, don't think there was any specific No.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think well, I think they might want to point the piece of the I think the language. There's a language Yeah. I'd in forgotten that we actually put that language in last year, to be honest with you. But

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I gave it a very quick look. I do think there was also a request with respect to the upper limit of the percent poverty

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: level. Nice try. Not while I'm around anyway. Sorry. Okay. Anything else in child development division?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: No.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. We should have started with you, that would be easier. You want to go, Anne? With what we've seen

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: so far, there's still some things in the air.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: the

[Rep. Esme Cole]: big overview,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: as I think people heard from the presentations, that the really significant cuts that are the biggest concern are in prevention, one of those being the child abuse prevention program with 50% cut, and then the other one being the post adoption or long term guardianship permanency program, which is really another prevention. Those are efforts to support people involved in difficult place, adoption or guardianship, who need that support to be able to make it successful and not end up in the system. The savings this year of $620,000 from less need to take children into custody for foster care, which could have then be used to continue to support the prevention that keeps them out of foster care, those numbers would have about balanced. But instead, any areas of savings all went into the very highest end of care, out of state psychiatric treatment, residential treatment, and most specifically the two, Red Clover and West River Haven. And just to give a perspective on those two budgets, the daily rate for a child in inpatient hospital care at the Brattleboro Retreat is two thousand eight hundred and twenty five per day. The daily bed rate for Red Clover is two thousand eight hundred and twenty five. Same cost for inpatient psychiatric care with psychiatrists, etcetera, as in the secure temporary facility. The daily bed rate for West River Haven, is expected to open shortly, which is for three kids. The per kid daily rate is $3,927 So we have some concerns. We have some concerns about those and we are continuing to try to drill down. It's been difficult because those are all just listed as a grant out to the agencies that are contracted to run them. So trying to pin down what is that money being spent on. We're still working on, we have another follow-up meeting. So the three areas that we have recommendations at this point are that in terms of the prevention cuts for child abuse, which is 01/4373, that that be supported by taking that very small amount out of the extreme most highest amount in the budget, specifically the $3,900 per day per child for the new program, which is a pretty minute amount of that cut. The second area, which was a big concern, is the post adoption permanency program. And in that area, they were proposing a 25% cut. You heard testimony here, it's in their budget book that 25% represented not providing services to kids who were getting adoptions or guardianship, long term guardianship privately versus those who were through the DCF system. In other words, their kids who are DCF involved. Now, the non DCF involved, it's not as if that's not critically important prevention because these are also struggling families. They just haven't been in DCF. And if things fall apart, they may well be. It's not as if they're off like the private adoptions you might think about. They may be grandparents adopting and so forth. But we did focus on that, the DCF group, because what we heard from the agencies who do this work is that 25% of their clients are not the private, the non DCF adoptions. It's a much smaller number. So if you just use 25% as a financial number, you'd actually be taking services away from the very kids that DCF testified. We're not taking away money. We do not want to take money away from that group. That's not the plan. So we had discussions with the department who has now recognized that that 25% was not an accurate figure. So our proposal at this point, it's probably about half that. Our proposal at this point is to, given funding situations this year, to not object to or to agree with the cut that actually matches no longer providing the supports to the non DCF involved kits, which brings it probably about to half of what they were originally projecting. We don't know that exact number, but DCF needs to figure that out because that was their error with a number. So that's where we are on that one. And the third area is the supervised visitation program, which the governor's budget did not include any resources. We had asked last year and got the report back on this really significant problem. The existing sites get things like 8,000 as the contribution to help support the program. Some of them have closed. They're hanging on by their teeth. And then we have, that's for the six that are still open, and then we have the other counties that have no support at all. So the Center for Crime Victim Services, which had been involved with this program all along, met with us and discussed the proposal that they thought would really stabilize the system and bring online the counties, the geographic areas that don't have them currently. That full piece would have been about $1,000,000 Right now, there's about $2.50 that's currently going into the program. So that just this year was not something viable. And so instead, we looked at providing some base funding to the existing programs to stabilize them and then providing funding to get two new ones started with a plan to try to do two a year. Hopefully that's purely intent if money allows, but two this year and then two a year till we have all the counties covered. And those two would be developed and then by mid year, hopefully operational. The selection, the identification of the greatest need sites and finding a willing provider and getting that underway would be part of the job responsibilities of the coordinator position, which is, as you've heard this morning, a 0.4 time position. Position would be coordinating among a long term best allocation of funding so that it's not just the same amount to each, but allocation of funding, including as new ones come online, but starting right off with that needs assessment when the deputy commissioner testified to us after the report, about the report, she said, well, they didn't put any money in, they didn't have the money, but also they thought there needed to be further assessment on what are the greatest needs, what do we need? And so that will be basically the first six months that coordinator is going to focus on getting more data, getting more information, and through that, those first two new sites that would start in January. So you heard the total figure. Oh, I have the old one. That's two and change, yeah. 200 and change, yeah. And the source for that, because we're not proposing new money, we're not proposing raising taxes to do it, is a fund that was appropriated to the judiciary several years back for working with CHINs, in other words, with the same children in the custody of DCF, the court involvement, family court involvement. That has not been, very little has been used out of that fund. So we're proposing, I think there's about, I think there's right

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: now about 8,000? No, no,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: no, the total in that fund is somewhere between 1 and 2.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, close. Were 1,000,000.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: 2,000,000, roughly 2,000,000.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We were on the same deal that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, 250,000 out of the 2,000,000 that's in that fund. That's already been appropriated several years ago. So it's existing money we'd be transferring the money for the proposal from that fund. I need to talk with you a little more about the mechanics. Nolan and Katie are trying to sort out how to write that up. But conceptually,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that proposal. Okay, so to summarize, you're recommending restoration of Prevent Child Abuse Vermont, and you're recommending taking that money out of the high end residential, the new program. The support for adoptive parents, the number will be about half roughly, but you're supporting the cut as it is to non DCF, non state children and youth. And then the third thing being the Vermont Network proposal around supervised visitation programs. And again, the location of those resources being the CHINS money that was already allocated several years ago. Sorry, can

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: you repeat the second thing?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The second thing is the subsidized adoption support for Easter Seals,

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: LUND and NFI.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And Katie is working on the LUND because that requires language even though there's no money shifting around just to be explicit that we are agreeing with the intention as expressed, what the department says the cut was gonna reflect rather than the money line Only they had

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to impact those non DCF chips. Since I'm the guardian of the table, I

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: noted those under your section, those three things that I highlighted them. Thank you. So if you can just fill in the details. Will do the formatting, just It's not working, it's like even having to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: access these the cloud, shared documents. Oh, I'm sure

[Charlie Lesserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: it's Is that what you

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: and I can sit and do it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, great. That's great.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Thank you. I know this is ours and I feel bad, but I still don't think, I was an accountant, I like concrete numbers. Like to know how much we're paying the coordinator, how much she's getting insurance, how much that is, how much this outside person, I guess that want to give money. Well, I know you got it from the Chittenden money, but that's still that big We

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: can meet. That was the meeting you missed. We have the chart with that breakout of money. So I can catch you up on it. I didn't go into every detail Sure. Yeah. Like see

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: if did this. Think I sent them that checks and balances. I'm not a willing only just give it to them because we're taking it from somewhere else. It's still about for a dollar forever to take it from.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'll let you know the timestamp on the email. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. Let's take a fifteen minute break, and we'll come back and tackle Dale at Colorado.