Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, welcome back, folks. After a brief break, we are taking up H 6 57. We left off on the discussion around locked bedrooms. And I don't know if people have had any further insight during the break. Tyler, are you able are you there? Are you able to come on?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I am. Hi. Hi. So,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: were you able to find out about fire?

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: The fire doors, no, I did find out about that earlier on about the adjacent materials question, if that's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: still Let's burning deal with that one. That one might be easier. Yeah.

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: I think, so it wasn't very clear to even our licensing group what that did. They did a Google search to try to figure out what it was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: referring to,

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: referring to straight jackets or like a sheet or something that is put around somebody's body. It's not something that we use in practice.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. That's helpful. So I think we should Because it's prohibited, but then there are certain things allowable. So we have to figure out a way, Katie, to remove it from what's allowable when it's allowable. So maybe we just separate that sentence and then say, In no cases shall adjacent. Yeah. It's referring to things that are attached to walls or the floor or something like that. And I think it's just an antiquated terminology So and I think one of the things we're recognizing is that there'll have to be some rule changes at DCF in regard to some of these. While we tried to incorporate as much as was consistent, but there were a few things that would require that. All right. So just to summarize, folks, we're going to figure out a way to say that those are not allowable under any circumstance.

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: With regard to the fire question, you were asking about the keyed entry into the program. So those are manual

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, right. Forgot you said that already. Yeah. And what's the staffing ratio, like at Red Clover and West River Haven at night?

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: Well, West River Haven isn't open yet.

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

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: So, don't know what the staffing pattern exactly will be, but I can say at Red Clover, we're looking at a three, there's three staff on in the overnights. During the days, there's at least six line staff on, and then there's of course the administrators, the nurse, the education professionals, other people as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: At that, so given the cost of things, I'm going to presume it's comparable at West River Haven because given the total number of staff and the cost, If it's something less than that, then that would be It's higher.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But just to point out that this locked bedroom issue only applies to Red Clover because West River Haven is not considered a secure residence. It's a staff. It's staff. So this exception does not apply to West River.

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: Okay. And the doors are not locked in the bedrooms at West River Haven. It's only at Red Clover.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is, but Red Clover is a temporary facility and this law is not temporary. So I think we need to think sort of beyond That's right. Whatever other secure situation might be put in place in the future. And I'm just gonna be forthright. I'm struggling with this on the locked door situation. And are the three staff awake overnight staff or are they sleeping?

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: I believe they're all awake all night. There might be a one sleeping potential, two awake, one asleep. I'll have to check to see if that's what they're still operating under, but I think all three of them are supposed to be awake. One is staffed outside the four bedrooms, so they're seated at the end of the hallway so that they can hear if any resident needs to leave their bedroom at any time.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Uh-huh. Yeah, because they don't have bathrooms in the room.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, I know, I remember that. Yeah. Well, I'm interested in hearing from other people. Help me make up my mind. It's not just my mind, it's all of ours. I mean, think we're all struggling with this a little bit, to be honest.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Folks. Tyler, you could sort of describe a couple of the scenarios you mentioned to me. That have been coordinating at Red

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: So there have been some situations where we've had youth, there have been turbulent points at Red Clover, we've had youth try to arrange themselves so that they're all at the same time knocking on the door to leave their bedrooms at the same time. I think this was identified, or this came up specific to times when there was other types of elopement that was happening or attempted elopements that were happening from the program. And then we've had situations where youth were able to or trying to disable the locks to the door. So that was another thing that came up where in the overnight times, they would try to break the door handles so that they could all elope all at once. So there is, you know, whatever the plans for that they had in mind, whether that was to be assaultive of each other or of staff or to elope the program, I think they're knowing that that is a vulnerable point where there's less staff on, less capacity for quick response. I will also let folks know that we do house youth with adult criminal charges at Red Clover if they're under the age of full criminal responsibility. So, youths under the age of 18 sometimes, we have housed youths with murder charges in that program. Not to say that the charge defines the care need of a child, but that these are youth with high acuity needs and all of them have delinquency status.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Go ahead. Tyler, what's the youngest child who's been there since it's been operating?

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: I think we're set for 14. I think the youngest we've 12, but the youngest we've had in there is 14, has been 14.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I'm gonna have us move on so that we get through everything, and we'll have another opportunity to consider this when we look at the the full revisions. Okay? And while we were off, we realized, thank you to Matthew, that there is no definition for seclusion. We will get one. I could have sworn I pulled it from the DCF because I remember a discussion about how it's not seclusion if the door isn't locked and

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the child can leave, but it is if they are under the impression they're not allowed. It's pretty detailed. But neither of us could find it during the break. If it's not in the DCF regs, it's pretty standard. We can pull one off

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I just want people to know there will be a definition

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: for Yes, the it come and I don't think there'll be any dispute about it. It will be a regular definition. Okay. Oh, okay, we do have it. She found it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, well, that's great. Well, we'll look at it in the next version. If you forward it to Katie, that would be great. Forward to Katie, yeah, super. Thank Forward you, thank you, Hannah. Okay, where are we at, Anne?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So we are now at H. H is a consistent current reporting item. I think it may add the child's attorney, I'm not, I don't even remember that, but there was, was a it no, but I mean, don't remember if the old one already did. Oh, oh, the old policy. This was in D. F. Policy and I don't, but there was no objection to that part. The Office of Child, Youth and Family Advocacy, thinks they should be also part of the twenty four hour notice. GCF felt they do get notice, they do get the full report in two days, and that the department has an interest in making sure that it's not a report that is misdescribed in terms of categories and could be misconstrued. I'm okay with this. Yeah. Yeah. So just for people to know that Okay. There was a Thank you. And the next one again is existing practice, but it's putting it into statute. And this is the documentation that's required. There is an addition of including access to audio or visual recordings because that's been a concern. And this was all census language, just putting it into the statute. And the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate had had some concerns that they testified about not getting things timely, and this is specific within two business days. And then there is actually also J is requiring the data to be collected about specific items, again, to require that in statute. This is not something they don't do now. Then we get to the next part, which I do need to give a little background on, and this is K and L. So the issue came up about, well, what about other places, out of state placements, or other programs in the state which are not under DCF regulation. Because under the language that would say child is in the custody, what about a child who's going to a non DCF program? And DCF doesn't really have the ability to impose. I had this idea that, well, we could require them in any contract that you make for services. The contract has to apply all of our regs. The problem is that, for instance, let's say the inpatient unit at the Brattleboro retreat, they are under all sorts of regulations by CMS and by the Department of Mental Health. And so overlaying another, that would become a very complicated interdepartmental, who's in charge of this program sort of thing. It's even more complicated in terms of out of state because those are programs that we are contracting with because we don't have the ability to provide the kind of care that they need. And they are not readily available and don't readily accept children unless they fit their program. So it's kind of a very limited pool. And the department said, they would not be able to get a contract of placement who was expected to follow the rules imposed by the Vermont Department of Children and Families, that they are operating under their own state's rules and so forth. So that idea that I was trying to get in here because we couldn't include contracted agencies as part of the definition of a child and DCF facilities did not seem viable. And so the alternative was to put some statutory requirements around when they deal with any contracted placements. And this would apply to both in state and out of state in the same way. This ended up as maybe in some cases reluctant agreement, but this did end up as nobody saying, no, that's not viable. DCF was comfortable with what we ended up with, and it was preferred to what we were trying to grapple with earlier. So this requires several things. Anytime they're gonna contract with another program that's not under their supervision, this is requiring a review of five years prior in terms of violations of that program's licensing status, safety of children, and a written agreement that they will inform the department directly if restraint or seclusion occurs on a child, regardless of, it actually should say restraint, not just physical restraint, because for instance, the Oh, I'm sorry. The Rattler Retreat is permitted under CMS to use mechanical restraint and does on children. It's another whole issue and area, but Okay, so I have a question about Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna put the out of state folks aside for the moment. I do not understand why a Vermont facility should not be required to comply with Vermont law. That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think we probably could choose to do that. Yeah, well, but I think if we did, we would probably have to hear from those other non DCF, because if it's not, I mean, it could start being, well, would be contracted. So it still wouldn't include hospitals because they don't contract, but they contract with the retreat

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for bed. I'm not talking about things that are governed by, like CMS or their own set of rules. I'm thinking of Brookhaven, I'm thinking of other places in state.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Aren't they regulated by They're regulated by DMH. They would have to comply. If they're regulated or licensed by DMH, I mean by DCF, I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sorry, They do comply. And so what in state program would these not apply to? And I'll be honest, I don't really understand because I know that as a standard operating procedure at Dale, any program that we contracted with outside of state government, we put that they need to comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and laws of the state of Vermont. That's standard operating procedure, even with out of state contractors. So I don't get why that can't be included in contracts. I'm just- Oh, okay, you're asking that. I'm seeing head nods over there, so I'm trying to understand better.

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: For the record, claims revenue and testing services, we do not have any contracts with programs that we do not regularly. So what you're saying is already in practice. Any program you're contracting with is already required to follow our regulations and laws. I think there are programs when we don't have a contract and they are not regulated by us, but they are completely outside of our universe.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: When you say they're outside of your universe, do you place children there? No. So you beg to differ.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: My understanding was that there are some places where there's contracted beds for DCF custody children, and the examples would be the bread over a retreat or the new PTRF, whatever initials, that's soon to open are kind of an example of or the residential school at the retreat. You don't have contracts with them?

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: We don't have a contract with the hospital, the Broward Retreat, but we do have a contract for the Abbeil Rockwell School, for example, which is through the Broward Retreat. And so they are contracted through us and regulated through us, but the hospitals, as you know, regulated through

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay, they are contracted. They would, but- Abigail Rockwell would

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: follow this, what you're saying-

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because they're licensed. Because they're licensed, yeah, we have a

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: contract with them, but we don't control Broward Treat Hospital program, and the PRTF will be regulated through Dale, I believe, through that whole process, so we will use beds there, but they

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: won't be regulated by residents. Okay, I misunderstood this contracted bed piece in terms of spaces. So this may not apply to any Vermont facilities. We could say including, know, we could make it clear that it's contracted in the state is included. Well, you don't contract with anyone unless they're regulated by you.

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: Except for those examples you gave of the retreat. Retreat, yes.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Then,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so when there's a youth who is sent out of state, is, you know, you're, is there a contract? And do you include in that contract that that provider needs to comply with all rules, regulations and laws?

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: I'd have to look, I mean, they get all of the standard attachments to all state contracts. And so there's a piece of that. We don't require that they follow Vermont residential licensing regulations, but we require that they follow their own state's regulations. We require that they are licensed, we have all a lot of language like that and we're happy to share with you what that language is if you're interested. But we don't require that they And so what is involved, like what's included in those standard attachments goes along with those contracts in terms of our own licensing regs. We don't require them as they follow.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, so I get that we wouldn't require them to be licensed in the state of Vermont. They're licensed in their own state. But I guess it would be helpful to understand if there is guess we would like to see if you could pull that up so we could see the language like with a, you don't need to, you can de identify it, but language that you would have for an out of state placement, typical language you would have for an out of state placement. So we can decide about, because I mean, this honestly is putting a lot of, not a lot, but I'm guessing they're not a huge number of them, but it's putting extra work on DCF that if we require them to comply with our regulations, I get the licensing is different, but the regulations implement, don't know if Right. The regulations then I don't think that we would need this piece. Right. So that would be great. Thank you, Heather.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: A question, as I look at the contract to ensure the program informs the department directly of restraint and seclusion. Trying to recollect now from the Office of Child Youth Family Advocates annual report was referenced to an out of state incident in Florida, I believe, where Vermont staff is required to go to Florida to view videotape.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Doesn't seem right to me. So That they can't share electronically material that's relevant to the care of children and Vermont children in their custody.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If if you want, madam chair, I could explain what Tyler explained to me about the issue around transferring video and audio. And that's actually why even with our own, it says access to rather than physical out of state is an added piece, because that's raising

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the issue. Mean, I'm gonna gonna get it Tyler's on, so rather than you interpreting Tyler, I'm I'm just gonna ask Tyler to explain that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If these regulations all were applied to a contract, what would that issue be?

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: Yeah, I think one of the questions is once the material is sent out of that state, of that program specifically, they don't know where it will go. They don't know how that will be disseminated. So that's some of the concerns with sending video files or audio files attached to it. The other question that comes into play there is in these programs, there's typically other individuals, other youths being served and that's protected information from them. So that's the other part of that, that kind of is the backing and that's the argument by which they feel uncomfortable with releasing video that has other residents potentially put at risk.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I get the other residents saying that the secure transfer, that's a outdated thought. I mean, I'm just being honest. I mean, are many, many video transfers of files in secure encrypted ways that can happen. But I I get the other residents, and that's wouldn't be under the purview. But if they can go see it in Florida, I'm not sure why they can't see it in Vermont. I don't I'm not that's not really the issue here, I don't think.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: But I guess I I raised it because it talks the language in here talks about being informed. And it doesn't seem like we're fully informed if some materials that may be relevant aren't accessible. It was just something that struck me when I first read the OCUIFA annual report.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So there really are two, and it and it's a combined issue. There are two issues because the current documentation part even for in state says access to rather than provide for the reason that just generically that that Tyler was given. And there's no reason for Vermont where it couldn't be provided, but we just generically made it access to. But then we've encountered the problem that we're not clear that we could impose our regulations at all, in which case Well, I guess that would be imposed on the out of state, and that's that's a problem. That's what we're discussing.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess contractually. I'm not viewing it as a regulation. Contractually, you know, we've got questions about new facilities opening in Vermont and some of their practices out of state before they've come to Vermont. And, like, if they're really adequately providing services, to me, that concern is only heightened if it's actually a Vermonter who is in a facility out of state to have access, it seems to me that something there's an attempt to opuscate something if you're unwilling to share materials that are available related to an incident that's relevant to a Vermonter. And whether that's the intention or whether it's the intention to abide by privacy concerns, I don't know. But Madam Chair, as you said, if you can view it in Florida, I'm not sure why you can't view it here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Matthew, just a minute, and then you'll get an opportunity to, if you want to ask a question, would be okay in a minute. I think first off, we're gonna leave this section till we see what the department comes back with, to see an example of what their actual contract looks like, so we can see the language and see what we would need to do or not do. But I think you've brought up sort of a different point for me that we may want to address in this actual similar way that's outlined here. And that is prior to contracting with an organization to run a state program, that that type overall review is done. I'm just going to use the example of West River Haven. I think we all got some questions about the entity that was contracted with. And I think that we do want to make sure that due diligence is done prior to contracting with an organization, whether they're in state or out of state, to run a state funded facility.

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: Is that

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: covered in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not really.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Part of the K?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I didn't well, licensed they by the state. And it may be that we want to say for state licensed programs, want them to do this review in advance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Which was what considered. Right. So we have moved away from state employees providing these kinds of services. So we're going into what some might consider. I think there's debatable, but some might consider a higher risk situation when we're having to contract, and particularly when there's very few entities out there who perform this kind of function. And so I think that Vermonters need to be assured that due diligence is happening prior to those contracts being entered into. So I guess I'm not feeling like it's explicit enough.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So I think that needs to be its own section because this wasn't even contemplating that specific- Yeah, can work that out with Katie because

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it would be a little more than on the spot. Yeah, that's just the thing you brought up for me, Doug, was that I'm still not sure that we've been convinced that that was sufficient. And we only know what we read and what we Google.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So the sentence requiring that free review before contracting for anybody to be running

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a program. State license. Even if

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it's licensed. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, Matthew, you have a question?

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I wanted to provide some insight to the committee on this issue, because I think it is really critical and maybe one of the most

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: important Okay, Matthew, parts of I'm really sorry, but we're not taking testimony.

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: I'm not trying to testify, I'm trying to provide responsive feedback to what was already said, which is that this has been a critical issue, including this week. Regardless of what the contracts say, it is rare for DCF to request or obtain a copy of a video. And the request, the reason why this is we know this is an issue is because this is a central piece of our office, and we have asked multiple times for these videos, and we have not gotten a single one. And it is not I don't think because of ill will on the program. I believe it is because of sort of general liability legal advice that these programs get, which is not to share these videos. This issue of there's other kids in the video happened this week on a request we made. And I think frankly, is a convenient excuse, but I don't think it's a real issue in 2025. It is very easy to obtain software to blur the faces here. So Madam Chair, I just, to keep it relevant, and I feel a little tense here because I don't feel like we're getting the same chance to speak on these issues as DCF is. And I think this is critical to our mission. And to the reason why you created this office, but this is just a key issue and requiring programs to provide the videos. I think it is a key contracting issue given how much money we're spending, how much general fund, how much taxpayer money we're spending, given the critical child safety issues here. And I think that the committee should not move too quickly to say this is not possible. I think it is quite possible, and I think it is critical to this part of the bill that it be a requirement that if the state of Vermont, and if we are contracting for these services, that if there is a video, it should be provided. I think that should be a baseline, so I appreciate. I also have some data that's responsive to the question about the ages of kids at Red Clover, but I will let you request that, but just so you know, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Does it differ from what we were told?

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: So quickly, the youngest child by our data placed at Red Clover was 12.4 years of age. Then there were two 13 year olds and eight 14 year olds that have been placed there through the end of calendar year 2025.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I'm seeing Tyler nod his head.

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: And I wanna verify that that is accurate. I ran the numbers too, and I misremembered that 12 year old. And so I apologize for my earlier

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: testimony earlier Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we're put a hold on this for right this moment because we're gonna see the language that's in the contract. And I think that there's I guess there's I think what Matthew is presenting is actually a bit of a different issue. And I'm not saying that it's not something It's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: connected, but different.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Maybe we should address it here. But I also I want to see what the contract looks like first.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because the underlying question is what can we impose as part of the contract on out of state? And that's what we're looking, which would then maybe include this as a piece of it. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, then we're on L.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, L is connected. L is what happens if there's an out of state that's not subject to the rules, but is violating evidence based. So this is really connected with, Kay and Eller together with seeing what they- Yeah, and I will say again,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: well, I guess I will just wait, but I know that it is very possible and very common practice, even when you're contracting with somebody out of state, say you have to abide by the department's rules. So I don't really buy this. I'm not subject to the department's rules.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And I would be very happy to be corrected and learn that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, saying you're gonna be corrected. I'm just But

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: corrected with what I understood still So, from

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: okay. So, great. We're walking

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: into the next and actually next to final one where there was a significant disagreement. Okay. This section is specific again to the residential program, I mean, the secure residential. So Red Clover and a future secure one, where the department everywhere else, the standing rule from Part A, subsection A, is no mechanical restraints. The department was very concerned about a complete ban on mechanical restraints and described, as they did with the locked doors, some particular situations where it could be really important. And the specific thing was where they had to do an immediate physical restraint, but that with an older youth in detention, then getting that child into seclusion, which is generally perceived generally, I mean, seclusion is less restrictive than when you're restrained. You can move around in the room, you're locked in, but that what they have done and what they think is important to be able to do because it's rapid and can move the child to seclusion, to less restrictive rapidly is to put handcuffs on that child to then transfer them to seclusion. And without being able to do that, moving them from another space in physical restraint that just wouldn't be able to do that to get them to, so they'd have to stay in physical restraint for longer. So that was the concern they had and so that's why this was written as a potential, an option for the committee to consider, which is worded for the minimum amount of time required to enable relocation to the child to a less restrictive means of intervention if necessitated to prevent serious and immediate harm. And this is one where the youth and family advocates strongly opposed to having this. So that's on the record in terms of that issue. So,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Tyler, sorry I keep putting you on and off. I'm sure you're trying to get other work done.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Do

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you have data on the number of times that this has been, you know, this circumstances have been required to be used?

[Tyler (Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division)]: I'll have to compile that data. I know we had no mechanical restraints for several months of operation, but we have had mechanical restraints used several times since, so I'll have to compile the numbers of how often that is. It is typically as Rep. Donahue used to describe, to transport a youth from a milieu where there's others present into a space of their own where the restraints are immediately removed.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I would make note, think it's important that this is not permitted under current regulations, but is being done at Red Clover per room of testimony.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, I guess my question is,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: wondering why this is necessary if we already have the exclusion for the child's safety.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Not for mechanical restraints. There's no exclusion for mechanical. This is mechanical because it's using handcuffs. And the perception that even a soft restraint would not rapid enough to do it. So, is very specific to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And Matthew, what are what are you seeing as the objections to this?

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: I'm madam chair. Could you be specific about exactly which section and what you're talking about?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We are on page 25, line 14, section m, paragraph m.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's talking about the use of mechanical restraints to move move a child into seclusion, essentially.

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: And and what is your specific question?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Donahue was saying that this was a point of contention and that your office was had concerns about Yes.

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: I mean, think it's the breadth in terms of the way this was written. A child detained in a secure residential program may be restrained with mechanical restraints for the minimum amount of time required. That section in particular, who decides that and exactly what that means. Appreciate the intent of the language, I think it's a good starting point. But I think that was our concern, was just whether this was written in such a way that it wouldn't actually provide the protections that it is designed to protect because it's just not specific enough.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The thought is that minimum amount of time is subject to interpretation?

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Correct.

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

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can anybody think of something that's more specific, but

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Briefest amount of time. We use language for, what was the other, oh, prone restraint.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Wait, to turn them over. Yes, we used a pronunciation

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the term used. Let's cross reference the prone restraint term phrase that we used.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Momentary initial hold.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Momentary is more specific than minimum.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's consistent. It matches language that we've used. Alright, move on.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And just as an FYI for folks, I know there's a lot of stuff happening at lunchtime today, if you're involved with Farm Bureau luncheon or the early childhood education folks. So we're going to break at 11:30 today, okay?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: N is strip search. And this language as it ended up, I think did not raise significant concern because it is very constricted. This is again, this is the other exception specifically for secure residential programs, and this is the strip search. And it requires that it can only occur after a PET search. So it's not just, well, we have a hunched this kid, or we have a suspicion that they are carrying. And it's not just any contraband. It's not cigarettes that's contraband. It's something

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: poses the serious risk of bodily harm, that at that time, if there's probable cause to believe it, not just a suspicion, And the child is given the opportunity before and at any time to simply turn over the contraband that showed up on a pet search. But if all those things happen, then there can be a strip search occurring. Katie, on line four, I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think it should say harm to the child or others. Oh, yes. Instead of another. Great. It says another throughout. I thought it said

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think so. Really? Yeah, I think there's a lot of places where it says child or others. Well, I'm just gonna flag it. We don't need to spend time on it.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I have it about eight times another. I'll figure it out. Have Do a preference? You want others?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It feels like it could say another child or another something. Or another. Or another person. When Yeah. That's why I'm just using person, not another. Just one other. I think I should just say others. Others? Because it could be staff. It's not just other people.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess I hesitated from using the plural because it implies that they have to be hurting multiple people instead of risk of hurting one individual.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So Katie, both are used right now. So right now

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so I can go

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: through Child or others. Yep. And we have child or another person. So it should be consistent. Yeah. Either one. Okay.

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: Could others include just one person up to one person? I mean,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: potentially the plain meaning I don't know. I was getting stuck on it. The plain meaning was plural, and so do we have Yeah.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: There's clarity

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: scenes to do. I will do another person, and I will change it throughout. Does that work?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Sure. Probably, but I can't tell really without going back and looking.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But go ahead, go ahead and do it. Okay. If it makes sense to do it. If others make sense when you go back and look at it, that's fine too. I think the current regs all say, I think the standard is self or others to the child or others. But I'm I don't think others necessarily means more than one. You know? Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's any other. It means the same as any other.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Others. Okay. I believe it's others.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And it's long understood that way, so I think it's I think it's fine. Okay. And no body searches, body cavity searches. Right. Okay. Rules, we're up to rulemaking. So, obviously all of these are backbone outline. They don't go into the details, doesn't detail staff training requirements or supervisory oversight. This is just saying there has to be rules adopted. Although they have current rules under the licensing standards, there's a lot of changes that would be needed. And this is saying there needs to be a rule making process for this, whether they want to keep them cross referenced as being in licensing. Right now, can't even find them. I dare anyone who has not heard where they are to try to find those.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You just told us where they are.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes, I know. But if you didn't know that, if you search under restraints, conclusion, any of that, it's very difficult to find because they are only under the licensing standards. So, any

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: rate, they And we are talking about portions of this being applicable to entities that are not licensed by them. Exactly. Yeah. So that might not be

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So the licensing regs could say, and everything in the restraint and seclusion

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: regs. So, only other thing that I want to say is just to add in Section O, it's a finite list. So, I think it should be, say, some catch all for anything other. There might be other things that should be included. Oh,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: okay. Yes. That just aren't listed there. Implementing this section. That's right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It shouldn't just be implementing the section. It should be Well, says including that. I know that sometimes departments say, well, you told us to adopt them in these areas and that's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: what we did. No, you're right. Including is supposed to mean

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know. That's what we think in legislative language, but it's not always interpreted that way. I Okay. Just think we should say an up. Any other necessary And we've already done. We've done all of the separate. We'll be adding a seclusion one.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yep. All the way to the report. So this was big picture original,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if you recall what you last saw. Page 28, line 12. Just focusing people.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. We had another bill that had to do with solitary confinement that was actually really focused on children who were in correctional facilities. We realized that was not, that was a big topic of its own. But there was still an interest in saying, you know, those should be looked at particularly what things are we doing here that might be a practice that could be adopted. And so this proposal says a written report from the two departments to discuss restraint and seclusion and the fact that it can cause physical or psychological trauma, that they would confer, write a report, take input, consult with a work group. And so both the Department of Children and Families and Department of Corrections are very amenable to this, And because this is really the Committee on Corrections and Institutions jurisdiction on anything having to do with the Department of Corrections. I did present it to them just this morning. They are fully in support, that it's a good idea to do. And that's basically what it is. Questions? No.

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: Please go ahead.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yep.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The last one in this section is making the rates public. There was a part that I had in this that you've never seen that was removed, which the Office of the Advocate does not like it having been removed. And I will say this idea, which had not been in the bill at all before, was that the Department of Mental Health does this for restraint and seclusion in hospitals, where they're also trying to reduce them and minimize use. And it reports them by hospital. There are five, I think, that have involuntary patients. So this suggested both posting the overall rates of restraint seclusion and the numbers of uses of secure transport and restraint. On the website, there's a part of every website in the Agency of Human Services, a scorecard piece that gives leading data on leading indicators. A lot of them are very outdated. Yeah. So this would add that indicator and originally also said by program, and there was real concern by the department. Of course, there's a lot more programs they licensed. There's a lot of range of programs in terms of ones that only admit children who are very stable, who need support for a while versus highly troubled children who are maybe much more potentially aggressive. And so putting that data based on the program name without broader context, people could say, Oh my gosh, look that awful program, all those restraints, look, these guys do it with none at all, that that is not a good idea. I did not disagree with that and took that out. The office of the advocates thought that it should be included, But it's a new requirement. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think I would go with your interpretation or your recommendation on that. The one question that I have, because there are elements of this that are just for residential programs, but then there are elements for any program licensed by DCF. And so why are we just limiting the report on seclusion and restraint? Or it's not, doesn't do seclusion, oh yeah, it does, to just residential programs. Wouldn't we want to know? Any program licensed, any program licensed Yeah, by

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: yeah, yeah. No, that was not intentional. It was not intended to restrict it. It's a good catch.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Change residential to licensed programs. Licensed by

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: meetings, yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have any concerns with me moving this to the section on seclusion and restraint instead of having it in session law?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right. No, it should be on

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the scene. I'm seeing it with fresh eyes. I feel like it belongs there.

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: Okay, I'm

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: going to move it. I

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: just stepped up to talk to a sheriff that's actually working right now. He said to Philip, you know that 12 year olds sometimes are bigger than men.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Then we've got ten minutes before we look at revisions we might as well I think the panel chair go to this last part which has nothing to do with restraint and seclusion. But it was the one very short other part of this fill that I had worked on And this was the subject, we had testimony on it, about the loss of federal money because we didn't have a juvenile oversight, a court oversight, family court oversight of some type over these programs, maybe very minimal. And the bill started out saying, Thou shalt start a program and Thou shalt work out the details. And that all seemed very premature. And so this was rewritten to be much less specific, just more general, consistent with what Judge Zonet had said they'd be happy to do to talk and to just say, come back with a report with recommendations for court oversight processes that meet federal requirements to allow access to federal funds for programs. So it doesn't even name which program, but because the Department of Children and Families is much more familiar with where that might make a difference for accessing down the line. And let's discuss this isn't something that can happen right away, but we can find out ahead of time what might we have to do because it would have to be done in statute to change the jurisdiction of the court. All

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: right. So we've gotten all the way through this bill. And, Katie, thank you for sticking with it. When

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: do you think we might be able to see another version? I know you've been making changes as we go along. Yep. You can see I mean, I could probably just give this a review, send it through editing and have something for you. Are we

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: filming back at one?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: We are. I'm not.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're doing pre Q. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So that would give enough time for the editors to look at it. The piece that I'll just highlight in green is the piece that you haven't sorted out yet with regard to the out of state facilities. So there I'll just have a placeholder.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Right. And we need to talk about the department's feedback from this morning. There's a memo we can use this next few minutes to do that. Do

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: you want that appropriation out on the next draft?

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: Will ask for the interstate compact. Yeah. That's Would you add you put it in the SSI section, I walked away?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yes. That's where it is. I saw that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Did it?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. That was I'm sorry.

[Matthew (Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Figure out

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: what Yeah. No.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's on my

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Just wanted to can't see where It

[Heather (Department for Children and Families representative)]: should be in the unaccompanied homeless youth. I put

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: it in SSI. Will search that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's down the bottom. It's the last number. Thank you. Okay. So on our website, you can see the department's feedback on the version up till today. A good chunk of it has to do with the SSI implementation and phasing of that. So, Dan, you have some thoughts?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, so basically my thought was in c one, which is establish the trust for the children qualified able

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are we close to a page number?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Oh, yes. Sorry. Almost there. Right here. So it will be on c one.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Page four. Nine I haven't gone back far enough, obviously.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Nine and seven.

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

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Ish. Somewhere in there. Okay. Okay. Yep. Yep. So let me go back to my other document here. So to create a new one or two underneath that. So basically establish an account for the ABLE account. So children that are receiving disability benefits, start putting that into an ABLE account right away. And then secondly, survivor benefits, any child receiving RSDI benefits other than funds eligible for ABLE accounts, department should conserve those benefits in a manner consistent with federal requirements in the children's best interest, but delay this for one year. So this would be the second half. In that timeframe, the department shall implement procedures for the conservation of these benefits to develop financial literacy in conjunction with other stakeholders. I'm like, it could be the treasurer's office, the office of the child advocate, child, youth, and family advocate. And I've actually talked to the Vermont Bankers Association and they would be interested in helping with financial literacy or what this whole work.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Media action agencies do that as part of their regular So

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: can we just say, over the course of the next year, conserving these benefits by '27. So the ABLE ones right away. So this would be way down the bottom of the bill where we put the different timeframes

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and examples.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Implemented one would be, which would be section one, c one would be right away and then C2 or whatever it works out, I'm happy to work with Katie on this, would be following here. Okay. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that, so why don't you work with Katie on that language? And I'm not sure that addresses the whole issue that DCF was raising around on the SSI part of it, with regard to needing to think about that at, and I think you had maybe even mentioned this to me before, So different

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: instead of phasing it in over different ages, I was saying just do Break it into two chunks. So the first one is people that are eligible for an ABLE account, That would be done right away. And then That's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the concern that they have, though. Correct. Because the concern is the money. Exactly. Right. Well, and we can't create a hole in the FY '26 budget. So that can't be effective 07/01/2026. Okay. But So maybe it's I think they both need to be Put them both. Well, the reason I'm saying that is because they need an opportunity to budget And for the budget's already been submitted. I think we would be

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I was initially just saying, we'll figure out the able ones right away, but then But if you think that's a better thing to move it both out a year

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and do it. Think that the Whatever the four initials are, the survivor, that's actually an easier one to implement because there's much fewer of them. Correct. So if

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we wanted to implement one on July 1, it would be that one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then it's the able ones. The able ones.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Let's try that. So let

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: me just see where we are. Does section three of the bill takes effect 07/01/2026, but C1 and C2 don't take effect until 07/01/2027. Is that what you've decided? The SSI part, yes. So C1 and C2. Okay. So that means the section will be repeated twice to amend a year later to add those two subdivisions back in. So you'll have a new section of your bill amending the section you created in section three. You can't just say that it takes effect on a different date? Not within the same section. Not within the same subdivision. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Break it. Yeah. Because it's all embedded in the sections

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: and not, like, internal in the sections. Yes. Yeah. I'm trying to reach. I got some more information here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So I'm not sure about that because that adds confusion in a bill for people. I get the need to do it. So I'm just wondering if we can just

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Make the whole thing start in '27 to allow the budgeting to happen?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Why don't we do that?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Section three is 2027. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's cleaner. It's less confusing. Okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That whole section would take effect?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 07/01/2027. Okay. And we'll get a fiscal note. Nolan is working on a fiscal note, yes. Right. Okay. All right. That's going to wrap it up for right now. Okay. We'll be off until one, at which time we'll be back in Room 10 downstairs to take up a whole different okay.