Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Cool. Thanks, Emily. Okay. Welcome to Thursday of crossover week in the House Human Services Committee. This morning, we are going to take out H657, our omnibus DCF bill. And then we're going to move to another DCF bill on homelessness, seven sixty six. It's not really seven sixty six, but you know what I mean. Katie, has had a busy How many hours it's been since you got back from vacation? I don't know how, but it's been busy for you, I know. And I know we've kept you busy with lots of versions and we're only one committee and you've got lots of other things going with other people and places and committees. I just really want to say thank you for sticking with it. We are so very fortunate to have somebody who has been in this topic area for such a long time that it feels like you can sort of read our minds to some extent. So No, really. And I realize that not every committee is as fortunate as we are. They have new folks. And those new folks are great, but having people that you've worked with for a long time who are so competent and do the job so well is really, we consider it an honor to have you in Thank our you. That's interesting.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Now let's get to work.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I was waiting for that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Know, it's well Dan. Dan's been waiting for a long time. Okay. So you should be able to see on our website now version 6.2. So I'll just say

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: I made some of the changes. I made a checklist as I was going, what I was able to do and what I wasn't able to do. So there's items on the list that have not been addressed yet.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I was just going to print out a copy of the list so that I had it.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I have it. I have it. Printer is genius.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You've got the list.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You print to the It's okay. Thank you, Brenda. Yeah. All good. Okay. Oh, there we go. I don't know my Sorry, I'm trying to get to our committee's webpage and my iPad is not cooperating. So one moment here.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Can we also talk about the reach out section at some point? Do we wanna go back over Changes made there? Just Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're gonna go through the whole thing again. Yes. Alright. All Okay. Else works. Fails and

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: okay. Draft 6.2.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Are we looking just specifically at your sections right now on 6.2? Or you want us should we just start from the beginning? Up to you. Well, this is the day that we vote on this bill. So let's start from the beginning and go through and make sure that we've gotten everything or if there needs to be additional discussion. Okay. Okay? Yeah. So it'd be great if you could pull it up on the screen. I've sent it to link, but it's Okay. It's not going. I just got it out. Okay. Got

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: it. I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I always say because we're the, the furthest away from some server someplace that we must our internet connection doesn't seem

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So once I turn it on and off,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: and it works way better.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Does it? Yeah, people miss settings.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can they do it? Yeah. Shut it on.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is draft 6.2, tints highlighted in yellow. The first section was the removing of the reach up asset. We went back and forth last time we met about whether b should be struck. I think I was convinced after that conversation it should be struck, so I went ahead and did that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. So this is where Jubilee some place.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I guess

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: now it looks like I'm wondering if you could explain it to me. Because it looks like to me now there's nothing in statute, and the commissioner just decide they make rules. And so those rules could be there's a $500 asset limit. Don't understand really,

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess, what this means. So this is eliminating the asset limit in statute. I don't think that would necessarily give authority for the commissioner to create one rule. But if there is concern that that could happen, you could replace this language that's being struck through with an affirmative statement that says there shall not be any asset limits in this program, something like that.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I think that that's probably a good idea.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Let's do that. Alright. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Next is the Social Security benefits for youth in foster care. You have your definition section. And then you have the language itself. You rewrote the subsection B to read upon the request of the child or the child's foster care provider, the department in its capacity as representative payee for a child may use the child's social security benefits for the child's unmet needs beyond the amount that the state is obligated, required or agrees to pay for the care of the child.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So Dan, do we have revised language here? Because we're supposed to have revised language here from the department's feedback. You were gonna get Katie?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm sorry.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On the staggering, the implementation.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, we were gonna Are we just gonna We're gonna implement the whole thing in a year.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, and the effect Not

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: down the bottom. I'm sorry. I Okay. Missed where you were going with that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. No. That's all. Yeah.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It should is it down the

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: It is. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. Okay. Great. Alright. I'll go. Thank you.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Sorry for the delay there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. No. That's alright. I was like, Something was happening. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: happened. Sorry.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Was down the bottom. Was like

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Where is where is it? That's just in response to the department's Mhmm. Request. They were requesting trying to stagger implementation with different ages, and we took a simpler route by saying, you know, let's just put it off so that they have an opportunity to plan for it. So we put off the implementation.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And I believe that is in section 16, line 50.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you. Next is subsection C. Believe in languages, in its capacity as representative payee for a child and with the assistance of the state treasurer, the department shall now there's a new four, appeal any denied application for SSI benefits submitted on behalf of a child. The change in five, provide an annual accounting of the use application or conservation of the child's Social Security benefits, including any payments made under subsection B of this section to the child, the child's parent, legal guardian or counsel, and Family Division of the Superior Court in the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: So I know another

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: point that came back, feedback from the administration, was that they do very few applications even, and that they don't currently have the staffing capacity to even think about doing appeals.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: If So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: possible, do you want to? I guess I saw that. And I guess my thought about that was that because there are so few applications that they do, that filing an appeal shouldn't be that onerous.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, we're not saying you must appeal for, you must file for every- For everyone,

[Esme Cole (Member)]: we're saying for those

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that you've applied for. That's fine. So, I was okay with it. And I just want to be crystal clear with members. So this is our walkthrough, our final walkthrough of these sections. So that means if you have an issue or a question, got to bring them up now. Okay? Otherwise, it's presumed that you're okay. Or at least that you don't have a question. Okay.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Next is the unaccompanied use. Some changes in this section. You move the language without the consent of the parent or guardian up in Subdivision 2 instead of having it appear to other places within the text. So without the consent of a parent or guardian, a certified unaccompanied youth may use the completed Form two. And then that language has been removed from this list. And instead of obtain a student loan, you have apply for a student loan. Subdivision E2 for the purposes of implementing subdivision C2I of this section, which is the banking, the commissioner of financial regulations shall instead of may ensure the minimum youth certification requirements are met for the purpose of making it legally permissible to bank, for a bank credit union or insurance company to contract unaccompanied youth without the consent can't remember what the previous word was, of a parent or guardian and with the understanding that the unaccompanied youth may not have a permanent physical address. And then is hopefully in the correct section now. Nothing in the section shall be construed as altering the interstate compact for juveniles. I had it in the wrong section yesterday.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, it is. Yes. Success. That, for folks, that again is feedback from the interstate compact officer, the Department for Children and Families. Section

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: 4a is the criminal aiding of a runaway child. You had a lot of conversation about this, but didn't ultimately make any changes to it. Next, at the top of page 11, if that's helpful, are a series of sections allowing unaccompanied youth to obtain different services and documents. So the first is the vital event certificates. Section six is the non driver identification cards. Section seven, license and privilege cards. Section eight, learner's permit. And that brings us to nine. So now we're in the mechanical restraints

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and transportation. Any question on that whole area?

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: I think gonna call this just transportation of children because I think it's now broader than just mechanical restraints. What page is that? 16. I'll be more technical. Lose it.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Are you talking about the reader assistance or you

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the Yeah.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Reader assistance. It started as mechanical restraints, and I think it has expanded. So now we have our definitions as A. I realized why I did it, it's because it was an existing section. I was just topping it down at the bottom, but it was easy to change. I don't think there are any changes to the definitions themselves, just the order. And so now you see highlighting because everything has been re lettered, but no changes to b itself. See, we have some changes. Mhmm. And I yeah. What the change on 1516 was from the the email this morning. Representative Donahue, you're tracking what we have caught and what we haven't caught. So the Commissioner for Children and Families shall have the authority to designate the professional or law enforcement officers transporting children and shall authorize the method of transport. A contract for transportation services shall include the requirements in this section. Transportation services with non contracted law enforcement officers shall only be authorized in emergency situations or by court order.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If there's some slight tweaks that'll come to this only because I forgot to highlight the parts when I sent them to Katie. Do you want me to give a brief background on the because sharers'

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that's this part. A moment. Laurie, did you send the Zoom link to Sheriff Anderson's? Okay. He's not on though, right?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, no. He Oh, okay. I just wanted to make sure that he had the opportunity. Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just as an FYI for folks, the sheriffs approached us after our hearing yesterday and had some feedback and input. So, Anna took care of it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. So the way he read some of the language, he was very concerned about, and it turned out it really had a lot to do with structural clarity for the sheriffs rather than a substantive. So I took his input, discussed it with him, got it to Katie. She did the redraft. There were some tweaks in some areas, and then the main part you'll see is around the documentation and focusing on guiding the sheriffs through the steps that need to be taken rather than it being kind of where the documentation comes attached to different pieces. He saw the language that Katie had done, was very pleased, And he said he, first of all, offered if during our discussions when we're on that part, there are any questions for him, a quick phone call and he will link on right away with the contact. He'd be happy to do that. He also said he might try to sit in for parts of it, but probably not have the time to sit in for all of the markup. He just

[Esme Cole (Member)]: entered the

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Zoom room. He entered the Zoom room. Oh, timing. Okay. Want me to pull this down?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just for a moment. Yeah. Hello, Sheriff Anderson.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: Good morning, Madam Chair.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hi. Represent Donahue was just going through the conversations that you all have had, and we are just entering the part about transporting children. So your timing was perfect. And Katie McLean has a new draft up, so you'll see it on the screen momentarily. And it's on our webpage also. It's draft number 6.2.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening on YouTube, which is how I was clairvoyant and when to join. But I heard representative Donahue's discussion and certainly agree with everything she said so far. And I'm happy to not say anything unless you need me to.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, thanks so much. I have a question for him. Let's go through the section first, okay? Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So I gotta pull it up. I gotta

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: go print it out. I didn't know, I cut the wrong one. Okay, go ahead, Anne.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay, so as I just referenced that the lines 14 through 17, there's another little, I think there's still a little tweak there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You wanna give it to

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: me now? It was part of the list last night. Maybe you've done it. Number one?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think I have that. You have that.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Contract for the Department for Transportation Services shall include the requirements of this section. Yes, that's right. Is that right?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Okay. Great. Yes, thank you. I don't have my notes, so I couldn't tell. So the main part, and then the next part is actually about the education materials. Just to clarify in terms of the contractors that it made it sound as if they had to verify that they took some other training course as opposed to that they reviewed the materials sent by the commissioner. So that's that clarification on line one of page 18 and then lines three and four. Lines five through seven, I think that was just moving language to make it consistent. I don't think there's any change there. The major change is really beginning with line eight. In order to make the flow more logical after the part about the policy of the state of Vermont, that's where we moved the exact language about soft restraints being the first option as part of the policy of the state. And then with line 14, Peggy, I don't know if you want to take over the walkthrough, which is

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Sort of dealt with that to intro it. Kind of in between. Go

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: ahead. The restructuring is with G.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Well, you have more context than I do. So G is a restructure. So the entity that is contracted pursuant to C shall provide documentation to the department for the use of restraints when. And this a list that is or, so there are different situations. Number one, the entity believes that the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others requires the use of soft restraints before or during transport, including a description as to why less restrictive interventions could not reasonably be attempted or why the attempted use of less restrictive interventions was unsuccessful. Or the entity believes that the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others was such that soft restraints were not adequate for safety and shall include a description as to which restraint was used and why soft restraints were deemed inadequate for preventing the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others. Or, the use of waste shackles was determined to be the sole means of preventing serious physical harm to the child or others and shall include a description as to why waste shackles were the sole means of preventing the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others. And then subsection H, we have language about documentation of the restraints. So documentation for the use of restraint shall be completed prior to transport unless the circumstances that required their use occurred during the course of the transport, in which case the documentation shall occur after the completion of the transport.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And then I did have another note. I think we're gonna flip j and I just because of the logic of the sequencing. This is the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is the flip. Oh, did I do

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: the flip in the wrong section? It's I. I might have flipped it in the Yeah. J should be before I. Okay. So talking about the use of waste and then afterwards is the supervisory review. So when we get to the restraint and seclusion section, that's the INJI flip this So we have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to unclip those. So I have a question. So I'm just curious about why the specificity or when documentation

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is done. I can briefly, but then if the sheriff wants to weigh in. The way it was worded before, it wasn't clear saying, well, you're saying we have to know in advance if something may happen during the transport. We have to know and document then how would we know that in advance. So we wanted it clear that if it's a decision being made prior to the actual transport based on behavior or the individualized factors, they would document then, we made the decision we had to use soft restraints But if it's during the transport, they thought everything was fine and then all of a sudden the child starts doing something and they have to do it then, they wanted it just clear that they wouldn't

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, that that's the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: right thing. Wouldn't have had to predict that, nor would they have to pull over when they're in the midst of the crisis and make sure to document it. That circumstance would mean they would do it afterwards. So they wanted that reassurance that they wouldn't be in trouble for not pre documenting. So my basic question is, why do

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we have to have a timeframe? I don't mean the distinction between before or after. Why aren't we just saying documentation has to occur? Is it important about whether it's before? Just Well, really, it's just

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: a question. Think it's that intentional thought process and documenting it, then

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: rather

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: than an afterthought after the fact. Right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You're supposed to be making an intentional decision. Yeah. Okay. And that's their existing it works with their existing form. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it's nothing gonna be able to do. Sheriff Anderson, does that capture the concern that you raised about mid transport circumstances that arise?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the record. Mark Anderson, Windham County Sheriff. And I think I'm here in my capacity as the past president of Vermont Sheriff's Association. Yes, it does generally address the concern. The question you raised, Madam Chair, is one that Representative Donahue and I also discussed. I'm agnostic to the approach. We just want, as a current practice, DCF already tells us when sheriffs are involved in a secure transport, what they believe is going to be necessary. We have a history of self harm, harm of others or a risk to run. And so we may make considerations based on the use history or their present demeanor of how things are addressed. And that's the process I would defer to DCF how they assess, but they already do tell us that in advance. When the event occurs and it's not expected, then we want to be able to respond. And that's part of the reason and the service that shares provide. And then these limited niche services, you've already received testimony of how limited it is that we're actually involved. But the reason we're involved is usually some of the most critical and in some cases manic issues that DCF is dealing with in some of these populations. So, we have a unique skill set and unique laws that apply to sheriffs that don't apply to other providers, which is why we are still operating in this space, even though the policy in the last twenty years has generally shifted to other providers doing some of these things because it's better for trauma informed interaction with youth. So, yes, it does. But that said, I'm also agnostic if there's a different way to look at it. Hear it. I just don't have words to provide that may make it better for others, but I'm also not upset with how it's presented here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I was just like, I think you both answered my question. Okay. Thank you very much.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, and I want to say in part, Jay, I actually added something based on our discussion, but not based on outside input. And so just to be aware of it, because there was a lot of concern about allowing any use waste shackles, and that included the language that was discussed yesterday about age. I added for the possible that only designated law enforcement agencies because they're the ones trained. And my understanding, which could be contradicted, is that the private agencies who do this, they don't even carry them. But just to make it clear, they are not authorized at all to use waste shackles because that really is a highest level. It's an elevated restraint.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then also, I just for readers, I and J here will be reversed. So it covers all of the documentation. Okay. And so that seems like a good spot to represent Steady if you have a question for Garof Anderson.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Garof Anderson, I've been working with a sheriff in another county and he had concerns that a 12 year old, he said, is bigger than them. And do you remember, I don't want to say any names, about a sheriff that was hurt a couple years ago when I'm trying not to say any names. Restraints were considered and then they were put into a particular and a sheriff was hurt. He said 12 year olds are extremely large and sometimes larger than him, and he's a big man. And so he was concerned about the age 12. I just wanted that on record in case in the future a share does get hurt.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Is there

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: a question

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for The

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: question is, do you feel a 12 year old this is a good age? That's it. That was my question. Do you feel 12 is a fair, accurate age when another sheriff is telling me that some of them are bigger than him? That's my question. I won't say the sheriff I'm working with.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: That's okay. To answer your question, on behalf of the sheriff's association, I can't give you a definitive answer because I have not asked that question of the association. That said, from my personal experience, I have interacted with youth as young as six years old and this is extreme. It's certainly an edge case, but youth as young as six years old who are as tall as me. I'm six feet tall.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. That was point wanted to times

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: that if we use an age similar to like airbags, if we use age, we can run into things where it's like, well, we have a six year old or an eight year old or a 10 year old who's tall enough to sit and heavy enough to sit behind an airbag. But is it also a good rule that don't have you sitting in the front seat where an airbag harm them and use discretion. I'm certainly a fan of allowing discretion for law enforcement. We do not normally testify to before this committee but there is a significant depth of training policy management done for the law enforcement profession and so, if there is a policy decision of this committee to say that there is an aged line and so be it. Happy to

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: I just wanted it on record. And and for the sheriffs and for the children because they can hurt themselves. Thank you. Okay. Anne or Katie?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, we're back to you, Katie. Okay. Let me pull the document back up.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So we did I and J. That brings us to the reporting in k. You wanted this report to go to the office of child, youth, and family advocates, so that has been added. And then the request was made instead of child for it to read or children for it

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to read minors for the purpose of the report? It just that was one I may have misstated yesterday which section we're talking about. My understanding is we wanted to use minors for the other sheriffs to distinguish the state's attorneys, this contract, because that's how they address it. But that we wouldn't have changed the existing because DCF and all of our other definitions, it would be child. So even though that would make the reports different, the language different between those two reports, if we would keep child here and use minor for that next section. Okay. People following. Know,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but I guess I am Oh, have age as a requirement. So it can say child. Yeah. Age is reported, so it doesn't, so you don't. Oh, Yes. Yeah. Active children? Yeah. Okay. Subject, I just wanna make sure people understand what we're talking about. So this is one report. There's another report by the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs that we asked for a little bit later. And we specifically say minors there because the number 12 that they gave was only those minors who were not charged with one of the big 14. And the big 14 crimes they treated as adults, even if they were minors, because that's what the law says. So we do also want to know, that's why we use the term minor in that, because those are only court ordered transports.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Katie. And then in Subdivision 2, once the department has upgraded its technological capacity in a manner that enables it to collect responsive data, the information specific to B, C, E, and F on the list above of this subsection shall be collected and included in the annual report. Then subsection L, annual report from the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Added on the list of who receives this report is DCF and the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate. The contents of the report has not changed, so you do have minors here. And one. Next is subsection D, report restraint in transportation of children. I don't think there are any changes to this section. Section 11 is the use of force policy, and you removed DMH from the consultation list and added Dale.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And for people in the room, we only removed DMH because they

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: already have this appendix. Right, we removed all the references to mental health transports because that's

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: already covered. And that brings us to section 12, which is the seclusion and restraint section. And there was a request to make it more apparent that this was not related to transportation. So I just took care of that in the heading non transport related restraint and seclusion. And I'm gonna catch up on that. Okay. So we again, we made the flip of putting our sub our definitions first. So that's what you're seeing here with the relettering. There's a new definition of seclusion, and this does track the emails from this morning. So I think this is the the latest. Means involuntary confinement of a child in a segregated room or area from which the child is prevented or reasonably believes that the child is prevented from leaving, whether the door is locked or not. Seclusion does not include a voluntary time out under staff supervision for a short period of time in an unlocked room at the child's request. I think the sentence structure is a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: little off. The first part is okay. So means involuntary confinement to the child in the segregated room area from which the child is prevented, or from which the child reasonably believes. It's the child that reasonably believes that they can't leave.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Or from you'd say from which again, from which the child. Okay. Let me just read it over.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, mean it would, it needs a little bit

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: of wordsmithing. From which the child is prevented, from which the child is prevented or from which the child basically believes that the child is prevented from leaving. Yeah. Okay. I can make that change. So this is just re lettering. You opted to use the phrase risk of harm to the child or others instead of another or another person. So you'll see that change throughout this section. In subdivision d one, you ask to have two sets of language there to compare them, so this is a decision point for you. The first option is absentexigent circumstances, a staff member shall attempt other less restrictive interventions and determine that the less restrictive intervention was unsuccessful or likely to be ineffective. The second option, a staff member shall use other less restrictive interventions unless less restrictive interventions have failed or would be ineffective in stopping imminent danger of physical injury or property damage.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: My first reaction seeing these last night was that the second one, I think, is sort of more standard language, and it takes out the confusing piece that was in the prior section. I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: don't know if the department probably didn't have

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a chance to see that, But I think that's more standard the way they function, and it addresses the problem we've had with the vagueness, I think.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Second one. I also have Yeah. Doctor. Rutland.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then I added language about the adjacent garment. Sounds like this is not the right location. So we could look at the language and

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: then maybe talk about where you'd want to put it. Right. I just think it belongs with where we talk about the exception that allows a restraint in the secure residence rather than putting it up here where it's- Context is a little bit- It's not quite the right context there.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so the language itself is under no circumstances shall a garment adjacent to the child's body that restricts freedom of movement or mobilizes or reduces the ability of the child to move the child's arms, legs, body, or head freely be utilized. So that's pulled from definition. So now It's like garment adjacent. So why don't Maybe when we get to the place where you'd like it added, you could flag that and I can

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Will do. Make a note of where to move it. Okay.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Subsection E Survey made with that language. Yeah. Go ahead. Since our conversation yesterday, I was wondering if there were further conversations with the department or other groups about this adjacent garment piece, just for more context?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, just the discussion we had yesterday. Nobody really came from firm or what it's but we don't want to just remove it from the definition because then that would imply that's okay whatever somebody imagines it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we're being explicit.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But we're being explicit that no, you can't do this in any circumstances, including in the secure residence where there are some limited uses.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I'm curious if it will end up changing anything in practice that is happening today, I guess that's my lingering question, but I think it is good.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I not in good conscience put forth a bill that can strap a child to a wall. So if they're using it today, they won't be after this is passed. Hopefully. Right. Nobody- They don't believe they're using They don't believe that it's being used. Which is good.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: And subsection e, so it's re lettered. The change in one is just the conforming language or others. Subsection f, re lettering, conforming change or others. Subsection g, this is the use of administrator on duty. This had said the department, which I caught and struck, and I had a typo yesterday to say administer on duty. So now we have an administrator on duty.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So and I do need to inject an update for here because when we redrafted this language for the version you presented we looked at yesterday, Originally, we matched, you know, the department's regulations have restraint in one section, seclusion in another. So that's ten minute and thirty minute, which is their exact language, is in two sections, one for restraint, one for seclusion. Since we're combining them, Katie added restraint and seclusion for each of those. And so she also had restraint and seclusion for the one hour requiring the assessment. And I said, Woah, restraint, I mean, that's not something that's going go an hour. We shouldn't include that there and make it suggest that. So that was removed. The problem is removing it then implies, well, there isn't a one hour restriction at all, and there's no supervision required. So it was a little bit of a dilemma for me for wording. And I asked late last night, got the response first thing this morning, how we should address that. And their response was, you can't just, it's at thirty minutes it has to be re reviewed. And then what would you say? Then at what point? They just said they thought restraint should go back in there, that they can't be held for more than one hour in restraint or seclusion without that assessment. And the likelihood is pretty remote, but the only other thing would be to put some kind of artificial, okay, here's the time limit. So that's the suggestion. I'm comfortable with that, but- So, I mean, if we say restraint and seclusion lasting more than thirty minutes, an hour is more than thirty minutes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I feel like it's already covered.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, but I think after thirty minutes, it requires clinical and administrative consultation. But if we don't have that in person assessment to go beyond an hour, it's just okay, after thirty minutes you have to have the approval. But then after that, if you get approval for the restraint to continue, there's nothing that says the restraint can't then go on for five hours.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Your other concern is that by putting restraint in there that that enables it to go on for an hour.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, without it, it enables it to go on for any amount of time. Putting it there puts it at the same standard of there has to be an in person assessment and authorization. So unless you wanted to do a parallel one that said not more than forty five minutes without or not more than forty five minutes period as an absolute rather than I think it needs something else as what happens after the thirty minute approval. I think it can't just be silent.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: My opinion is it takes a while for youth to, because I used to be a substitute teacher, calm down more than forty five minutes sometime. They're they're so wound. It's dangerous.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I I see This is

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a physical strength. This is holding

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: a child for I know. But if they're still putting out they could put harm at themselves. They bat their heads against the wall. They do everything. You want to protect the child too. So if they're still in that mode, they could hurt themselves. I'm just saying sometimes it might take more than forty five minutes for them to calm down and not keep batting their heads at night. I've seen it. Back into the You're just worried about the child too. I I don't want people to think I'm being mean, but I've seen it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, I think that's a chair suggesting that we do.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. And if they hurt themselves, it is sometimes the child's reaction to being in restraint that causes that as well. So I just sorry. Felt I needed to say that. But it's

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: a catch 22. Yeah. It is

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a catch 22. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. Let's move on. Thank you, Katie. Yeah.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: No changes in subsection. Subsection H. Different comment.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Oh, I'm sorry. I do, unfortunately, because I don't want to linger on something too long, but I still have one question about the garment piece. We're going back

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to it because we're going to where it goes in.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Whatever the time is appropriate. Good.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection H, nothing in this section shall be construed to include a locked bedroom during regular sleeping hours and a secured residence and seclusion Conflict with any law providing greater additional protections. Subsection I. Do you want to go over the ones that are no changes? I. No changes. J. No changes. K. No changes. L, this was a decision point. You had discussed yesterday looking at the contracts and prior contracting with a state licensed facility, the department

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: should help. We can. Do. So we'll come back to this in a second, but there is, I forwarded to folks, we got a copy from the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate and as well from the department about what language, some fairly standard language is. And so hopefully you've had a chance to look at that. This is the decision point about whether we require them to out of state entities to follow Vermont rules, essentially. And we we have a thought about maybe how to thread a needle about that. And I will say that the department does not want to include it because they say that will limit their ability to contract with out of state entities. And I'll be honest, I personally have a problem with that because if it's not okay in Vermont for the children we are serving here, I don't think there should be that feels like discrimination to me for children who are served out of state. But we have some potential thoughts about it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We can go ahead with this. It was just the continuity, because we actually are going to move N and O sequentially to go with the other restraint and seclusion specifications. So I was going to jump to those, but we're into this now. Let's go ahead. It's going move to be later just to be the right sequence, but we can go ahead now. So the proposal that I want to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: make is that we actually do require the department to include it in their contracts, but that this piece would not go into effect for two years. So that would give them an opportunity to have negotiations with the people that they use now. But I just can't have a double standard for children who are out of state and children who are in state. There's no treatment sense that makes sense about that.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I would add, we are moving towards, for instance, with the PTRF, more children back where they will be here. And if people are worried, well, what if that means they can't come up with Well, by having two years, the legislature is back in session. They could come back and say, here's what we We cannot do it, and it can always be amended at that point, but this really says this is what we want to have.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is the policy that we should have, yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Structurally, I think what we would want to do, Madam Chair, if you want me to Just because I sent some things to Katie, that the first sentence in what's number two, we actually would want to maintain, that's having to do with any contracting, for instance, for a company that's going to come into the state and run our residence or whatever, that we do want that due diligence piece. And then number two, it would be striking that second sentence and replacing it there with saying the contract shall require adherence to or restraint. Any contract. Right, any contract. And that part would go into effect in two years. And then that that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: M next, would No, probably it would say in state and then it would say out of state. Only the out of state would go into effect.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Sorry. Is that right?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, no, that's

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Number two only applies to out of state because in state it's already required. And then M,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so why don't you, I think Anne, you can deal with Katie on the sort of like order of things. I think that we don't need to do that as a committee. Okay. So

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: then what I was referencing before, N and O are the parts about the special secure residential exemptions. And so those are gonna move to be together with the other restraint seclusion. And we've

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: got momentary initial hold. Okay, we're down on line 18 on that page 28. Okay.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: And M, it talks about M, line 13, not subject to the department's rules. It sounds like that wouldn't be the case anymore. Do you want that? Sorry, which? Page 28, line 13.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, we're gonna go back and talk about

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: the Okay. Test Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Chair wants us to talk about and work out afterwards and bring back.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And notwithstanding subsection B, a child detained in a secure residential program may be restrained with mechanical restraints for a momentary initial hold to enable relocation of the child to a less restrictive method of intervention if necessitated to prevent serious and immediate harm to the child or others. So that's language from the definition of the prone restraint. Subsection O, updating the cross reference and using the conforming or others. P, the department is to post on the family division scorecard or another prominent location on its website the rates of restraint and seclusion used on children and licensed programs and instead of including the number of uses of secure transport and of restraint used during

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: transport. Q,

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: this is the rules that the department would develop, and you added yesterday and any other necessary standards, so it wasn't exclusive to the list that you had come up with? And that is the end of that section.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't if you're gonna did we say that yesterday? I mean, I don't remember, but I just want the the yeah. We'll keep going.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, you're right. You're on the next section. I was gonna explain it, but Katie hasn't got there yet.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So okay.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Keep going, were you going to go back to the adjacent? I'm sorry. Oh, I've

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Where does that go?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That goes immediately after the section that where we just the let's see, section N is the special exemption for mechanical restraints, and the garment was part of the definition of mechanical restraints. So we go immediately after N or maybe as a continuation, that sentence, however it works from a strathing point of view. That's the spot where we need to say, regardless of this exemption, no garment attached to something or no adjacent garment.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Esme. My question, I think I've answered for myself, but I was a little bit confused at first looking at the garment section and being concerned about seat belts because in some cases in DOC, I know that they think they're considered seat belts for transporting predators. I was reassured that the title of the section is on transport related. Then I was like, okay, we're fine. That was exactly what

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the sheriff had been concerned about is like, are you gonna are these gonna affect what we can do?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I see head nods. We're good.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I see see head

[Esme Cole (Member)]: see

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

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Section 13, this is the report Children in Correctional Facilities. There is a work group that the departments are to consult with in coming up with the report. And the addition to this group is a young adult with lived experience of being detained in a Department of Corrections facility.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Just for folks to understand, you saw the language, this group, I shared, this is the the language that I presented to the corrections and institutions committee and we discussed here had that, but I had forgotten to include that in what I sent Katie.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's why I highlighted it

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: as new. Yes. Okay. It's supposed to also say appointed by because you have to say who's finding that young adult. Okay. So that's going to be selected by the youth, child, and family advocate. And I don't know the protocol, but I think that when somebody is not an official dump and therefore getting a stipend, that you need to have a language strength, the reimbursement piece. Okay.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Let me add the reimbursement.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That was a much later email last night that I was thinking about and sent.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It applies to this one and the one that we talked about earlier that Jubilee worked on.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, the reimbursement. I don't think we'll put it in separate places. Sorry. Okay. Next is the Oh, there's The reason why this 14 is highlighted is because we took the section on the scorecard and we put it out of session law in a standalone section and into the section we just looked at. So we've lost a section. Proposal to extend supports for children over 17 years of age, No changes. This is the working group. Curious what So the feedback from Nolan about the appropriation was that it would be less than 1,000. And he thought that it could just come out of DCF's budget instead of having to do a separate appropriation for it. So I could do per diem language that just says from DCF's budget without appropriating anything. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let me make a note for myself. It's less than $1,000 That

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: would be applicable to that, the

[Unknown Committee Member]: one we just discussed too.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, yes. And just to give DCF one, the relief piece, in terms of the young adult on the correction group where it needs the same language, the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate has volunteered for that to come from their budget. Okay. Once asked. Oh,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they volunteered. They volunteered. Yes. I thought you were just asking it.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: No, was just verifying it before I said it.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Is their budget have any state funds? Yes. It still be the taxpayer dollars.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's no new money. It's new money.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's being taken from what they already have.

[Katie McLean (Legislative Counsel)]: But it's still taxpayer dollars. Yes. Thanks. Okay. Effective dates. So the effective date section itself, section 10, which is the report on restraint and transportation, section 11, which is the use in force policy, section 13, which is the report on children in correctional facilities, and 14, which is the proposal to extend the supports for children over 17 years of age. Those pieces take effect on passage as drafted. Section nine, transportation of a child, and section 12, the restraint and seclusion, takes effect on 01/01/2027. And it sounds like there's a piece of that that will take effect later. So you'll have a new section in the new draft, those effective dates can work. Section three, which is the social security benefits takes effect 07/01/2027, and all remaining sections take effect 07/01/2026. So the section three is the represent the SSI? Yeah, but you know two should take effect on the same date because that modifies it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let me take another look at that. Okay,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: folks.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's gonna be that Anne will work with Katie on that one section. And then there's a little bit of reordering. And so I've asked Anne to work with Katie to come up with language that implements the requirements to include this in out of state contracts within two years. And we are going to address the video question in that. So that should be plenty of time to work out how to get that to happen. So at some point later today, we'll be voting on this bill. I don't know exactly when that'll happen, but it'll be later today. And thank you for all your work on it. People who have been spearheading it, I appreciate it. Done a walkthrough of the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: book, so I'm going to step out and try to work on that language to suggest for Kate. Okay,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so we are now going to shift gears. Thank you, Sheriff Anderson, for being here. Appreciate your flexibility and all the input that you provided.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff; past President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association)]: Thank you for your time, committee.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. We are going to shift now to our homelessness bill. And hold on just a second because I need to get

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: my notes out from last night.

[Unknown Committee Member]: We're still going, madam chair, with the document as posted yesterday afternoon? Or morning, remember that was.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Does that say four point one? So, what has happened in the meantime? There's a bunch of

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: non choleated. Oh, okay. You'll have to break them out. They're like, stage one, one, two, three, two.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't mind breaking them out if you want to organize

[Esme Cole (Member)]: them or whatever.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Laurie, why don't we go off?