Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Hey, good morning. Welcome back, folks. And this morning, we are continuing our discussion on Pre K, specifically with regard to trying to figure out if we can do anything about fingerprintingbackground checks and recognizing it's a complicated topic. But we are fortunate to have deputy commissioner McLaughlin back to both give us feedback on the language that is in the current draft of the bill. And to I'm sure she's going to explain to us why that's not going to work. But she's going to give us a solution. Yeah, probably not. And also, we wanted to make sure you had the information that Beth had Ledge Counsel had provided to us, you were probably already familiar with. Just wanna make sure that all all of us were working with the same information. And what was when we were talking to the Sue yesterday from the school board, she was a school board's association, but on behalf of all three of the school board, superintendents and principals association, One of the specific pieces of feedback was about school employees needing to have two background checks and the double background check. And it wasn't our understanding that private providers needed to have a double background check. And now we understand why because of that provision in the statute that seems to address it going that direction. So we were trying to figure out if there was a way for us to make that easier.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: And

[Speaker 0]: so thank you for being here.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Yes, so happy to be here. So again, Jenna McLaughlin, Deputy Commissioner in the Child Development Division within the Department for Children and Families. And first I will say, right, I have not had time to coordinate with my colleagues at Agency of Education and the Department of Public Safety on this topic specific to the solution that you guys are proposing right now, but we have been doing, have had a multi agency work group since last June that has really been trying to address the issues related to fingerprint supported background checks. And so in terms of what you are, the things that you're thinking about right now, I would offer that there's both the legal considerations and the practical considerations, and then sort of what my understanding is of where we are in terms of current practice. From the Child Development Division's perspective, right, we know based on our federal childcare development fund standards that we need to do these pretty comprehensive background checks that have to include a fingerprint supported background check for both in state criminal history check as well as an FBI criminal history check. And we have to do that as a requirement of then licensing a facility as a regulated childcare facility in the state of Vermont. The only entity in the state that is approved to do the federal background, those FBI background checks is the Vermont Crime Information Center, and they also then host that in state criminal history check as well. Roads lead through the Vermont Crime Information Center here. And the checks that the federal government requires for childcare providers has at least one extra layer beyond what is required the school district, than what school districts are required to do. Now, my challenge is I don't know fully what are the federal standards, in terms of background checks that school districts are required to do. I'm unclear what are the federal standards that are guiding them and where that flexibility is. That's just so you know. I don't know that answer, I would, again, have to coordinate with my colleagues on that piece of it. But the practice right now is that all the school districts and our SUs, whoever the employer is, needs, you know, they are also getting a fingerprint supported background check for their employees. There's couple of that are different besides just the fact that there's an extra layer of checks. One of the things that is different is that school districts have ninety days, I believe, that somebody can be working with children, like before their fingerprint. They have up to ninety days to be able to still work with children. For a CDD, for childcare, right, you can't start working alone with children until you have the results of those fingerprint supported background checks. Whereas on the school side, they can start. They probably would have had other non fingerprint supported checks. So they have great information actually on those folks that are working with children. That's what we get, we do those same checks. But there is a little bit more flexibility on the school side for them. And then the other thing is that, and again, this is based on my understanding, I have spent, I would say at least one hundred hours learning about background checks in the last, and for your principals background checks in the last year. So it's not terrible information I think I have, on the federal level, or based on federal rules, state agencies are not allowed to share the results of fingerprint supported background checks with one another, right? But school districts actually can share results with one another. And so, right, it is so from the school district's perspective, right, it does feel like a big pain, right, to go through the CDD process because it is, it doesn't have this ninety day waiver, right? It doesn't have, you can't share results, right? Like it's like, and again, takes a little long. It does have an extra check on it. So sometimes the results that come back take a little longer. So there's a little context of like why they're like, this feels so different to us. I will also say that, but we have, I mean, current rules we have right now say that to run a school based childcare program, it needs to be regulated by CDD that was part of, or sorry, yeah, school based pre kindergarten program, right, is part of the rules that need to be regulated by CDD because that is the foundational health and safety standards for young children, right? And that we do actually have people that go out in the, that are going out to the programs, have the expertise on, is this facility safe for three and four year olds? Like are doing those checks, have investigation capabilities that exceed what was available for the school district. So that's been the process.

[Speaker 0]: Janet, those are all things that we want to maintain. So I'm gonna ask sort of a basic question. We understand that in both cases, the federal education level and at the federal child development level, there's requirements for background checks and they don't match. They're different. They have similar elements, but it's not an exact match. Question that I raised yesterday was in pre K, and I'm talking about childcare now. So we're not talking about a program. I'm just talking about pre K on the public side. No federal CDD dollars going into that, 100% funded by education dollars during the pre K time. Why do they need to meet federal CDD or CDD background check?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Yeah, so that it means so that has been a requirement of being a pre kinder, a pre qualified pre kindergarten program. And that was a decision that was made right when universal pre kindergarten when Act 166 was passed.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes, we could change

[Speaker 0]: it. Yeah.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: I just want to say, to change it, that's a huge decision. Just to be clear, just to change it, this is a thing that we absolutely want to have as part of these UPK alignment discussions that we've hired a vendor to work with us on. We know that this is one of the key issues. And this question around duplication is one of the key issues. And so that is absolutely a core part of that work, but to decide to not have, it would be a really big decision to decide that you didn't want to have school based pre kindergarten programs to be licensed by CDD anymore. That would change.

[Speaker 0]: That's not what we're saying. But they are saying

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: that can't be, if you're saying that they don't need to do the background, the CDD background check, then that is, then they can't be licensed. Are you saying it the opposite direction? Sorry, the bill has gone back and forth.

[Speaker 0]: It has, and we actually talked about the opposite direction of having the CDD background check essentially to be deemed to meet the education requirement. The difference here is how the the difference for us is how the services are being funded, and by whom. And that's the requirement that we have to meet. So there is no CDD funding, whether at the federal or state level, other than the, I will say, expense of your staff is a cost. But there's no funding going into pre K on the public side. It's funded 100% with public education dollars. And so the language that we're proposing is that it be deemed to meet the background check requirement for CDD licensure, if you will. Not that we don't have CDD licensure of pre K programs. And that's a very big distinction. And we're not making a policy decision about not We agree, and all the testimony so far, with the exception of the school people, have said to maintain joint oversight. And the bill is reflective of that, and we wanna continue that. But I think that we're I feel like that there is a solution that we need to think about from a practical perspective that doesn't impact the safety of children and still allows the CDD licensure. And for me, it focuses on who is paying for the service. And so I'm just asking you to think about that. And I'm not saying, we definitely get all the requirements that CBB has for the background check and are 100% behind you. If you can find some I know you're working and been working with this group of folks to try to simplify this. Doesn't make sense from our policy perspective to Just because it's a requirement of CBD licensure to say you now have to have them both done when there's no CDD money going into that program.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Yeah, I think I do hear what you're saying. Think there's two different, there's at least two different potential solutions here for that. And again, our AOE and CDD's intention was to explore this, right? In a

[Speaker 0]: realize we're getting out ahead of you, I understand that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, so

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: it's getting ahead of us there. But right, because one option, I mean, I think if you remove that particular requirement, then we probably need to create a different license type that's specific to public operated pre K programs potentially, like that would be the way to do it. Or another option would be to write in the health and safety requirements into public school rules. There's different options there that, again, we wanted to spend some time thinking through what those options would be. I would also say when I read the part of the law that Beth shared this morning, I read it differently, that's where I want to consult with my colleagues, because I see it as saying that superintendents, they can accept CDD's background checks, that that's already allowed because they own run public schools and headmasters or whatever, they are running a childcare facility, a licensed childcare facility. And it says that they don't have to do the background checks if they're licensed by us, which means they're relying on our background checks. So that's how I'm reading that. So I feel like that exception for the school way might already be built in here, but right now that's not been practical for the schools because of the timeline for the fingerprint supported background checks. And again, that is something that, again, we we, in RF, we made the plan, we raised the money, and we shouldn't be getting the request for proposals for the technology system that the state would need out the door in the next week or so with, based on our request for information, what seemed like a quick turnaround. So we're working on that, like the timeliness issue. And I will say when we had our multi agency group meet, we did decide that step one was working up, we decided to phase it and say sort of phase one was anything that we could do internally to streamline things. Phase two was let's get the timeliness issue. Have to get those, the timeline is happening. Need to extend it, the timeline right now is too extended. And then phase three was to address duplication. So it's on our mind, but that's how we've been thinking about it.

[Speaker 0]: Go ahead.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, just looking quickly, seems to differ between the CDD check and the school licensing check is the interstate check, which is required, like, if you live in another state

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: I think that's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that's the one that can be delayed ninety days because he you know, people die in another state, then they go back and check that state. Whereas the school does not they can request it, but it's not mandatory, whereas the c d CDD has the three checks, the FBI check, the state check, and are required to do the interstate check. That's probably why the the school would accept that because that is a higher level of check. So I think where we're getting on into is, requiring that third mandatory check of interstate. So more or less, if somebody's lived in Vermont their entire life, and there is no they haven't lived any place else, the interstate is not required because they live there the entire life. But that would only pertain to people like myself. If I wanted to go into the day care business, then they would request the interstate back from Massachusetts for safe.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Go ahead, Daniel. One thing that's kind of along the lines, because I know there's a big time delay from when somebody gets their fingerprints done to when you get them back. I know that AmeriCorps shifted over to a private provider that's approved with the Fed's fingerprint and TruScreen. You may look into that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's just really quick. It's in Vermont.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. But where it does state It does all the states. What do you call that? You can't start as a daycare or even as a school teacher until you get the first two back. It's the third one, the interstate that can delay. You can start and because that takes up to ninety days, that's the one that is delayed. So it's not necessarily you can start as a daycare without any of that background check back. No, it's the third one, the interstate.

[Speaker 0]: But you're not, don't wanna sidetrack us onto the childcare side of things in terms of starting a childcare or working in childcare. No, no. But I'm just wondering if part of your interagency group is considering private providers.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Oh, yeah. I mean, this is, I I have said before, I'll say it again. I mean, I think the biggest drag on childcare capacity in the state right now is the timeline for fingerprint supported background checks. So this is like a top priority across all settings. Another solution that some states have looked at is creating a state level clearinghouse allows and that state level clearinghouse can clear for multiple purposes, but that relies on the agencies or the districts trusting the clearinghouse. And there is a lot of sort of legal framework associated with that. And I think that's also the challenge, the practical challenge here is if you're saying to school districts, you need to trust CDD checks without seeing the actual results, what came back on those returns yourself, some schools, they might not be comfortable with that, right? And same with CDD, I don't know that we would have to have that discussion about how comfortable are we about the fact that we didn't actually get the criminal history report, and we're saying you're okay to do this work? So that's part of it. So some of it is practical related to timeline, it's practical related to just like the level of trust and liability kind of questions Yeah. That come

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I mean, there's definite liability questions, I understand that. That's just why we're proposing

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: a little more time to think through the solution. Also understand that it's been a long time without a solution. I don't deny that at all.

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

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: think, for me, the topic of liability is huge, especially with this age group. I do worry about the administration, either agency or the school districts kind of taking that on without having, it just could really cause a lot of problems down the line. If someone were to take them to court and say you didn't see, you just kind of trusted the information that you received without actually looking and having on file a criminal background check

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, on the first off, that's not what this language says. That's a bigger question. That is not what this language says. This is saying that for schools that the background check that they complete is deemed to have met whatever requirement for prequalification as a prequalified pre K provider. So it's not saying that they have to rely on somebody else's background check, which is a bigger question about whether we do this universally and whatever the group that Janet's working with comes up with. So that's, I wanted to clear, that's not what this language is saying. This language still requires the employer to have a background check. And we're talking about meeting a state requirement, not a federal requirement, it's a state requirement. And I think we need to be clear about that. So both would still be on the private side, they'd still be meeting their requirements for the feds and the state. On the education side, they've been even requirements for the fed and we're proposing that that would be sufficient for the state. So I appreciate the fact that it's been a long time for people in trying to figure this out, like ten years. And I realize that people are putting a really concerted effort into this. And as you said, you've put in more hours than you probably ever wished to know about background checks. So do people have any other questions for Jan? I mean, I think we know what the issues are and we have to decide whether we wanna make that policy decision or not, which of course will be changed down the line. And there's, yeah, go ahead, Jan.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Sorry, I just wanted to say like, if we make that, if that change is made based on my current understanding of just like hearing it, right, knowing that it's, and not having contact with my colleagues, I mean, that would mean that those programs would not meet the federal requirement to be a licensed childcare program, which means- I understand that. Not be eligible for childcare financial assistance.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. If they're going to run a childcare program, they would have to meet all of the childcare requirements, and we probably should be explicit about Yes. Saying So just wanted to be

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: clear on that piece of it. And again, we would have to figure out an alternative, either a different license type or a different way to implement the health and safety standards than using our current center based childcare license, because they wouldn't meet that. They would not meet that standard anymore because we know that the background check that the school that's required of school districts doesn't meet the requirements for this CCDF. I just am offering, like we would need time to get that system

[Speaker 0]: fixed out. Okay. I understand. Okay. I realize that this is new language that popped up today. And so you haven't had a chance to really sit with it and think about all of the issues with it. And this is obviously gonna if it stays in, there's gonna be a lot of other discussion about this topic along the way.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I also wonder how many school based UPK programs only offer ten hours a week of UPK. Like how much, if we make this change, is the impact of it? Is it gonna impact? Because if they're offering any other childcare, they still have to go through the process as it is right now.

[Speaker 0]: So- 19. Right. There's 19 school districts right now who are offering some sort of extended child care.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right. But I'm wondering how many are only doing ten hours. Well, it doesn't

[Speaker 0]: have to be That doesn't matter.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Doesn't matter how many hours, if they're only If doing they're only doing Pre K.

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Pre K. Right. Doesn't matter how many hours. How many hours. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But I'm picking up on, I think Rey's point is, the sake of argument, there are three centers that only operate UPK for ten hours a week and do no other childcare, is the work we're asking the CDD to do to potentially create a different class of license.

[Speaker 0]: Where The way the language is written, I just wanna have people go back to the language, which we will. It does not require a separate licensure. That's where Janet automatically went to. That's not what the language says. It says it's deemed to meet the qualifications for that requirement in their licensure. That's different. It is. Yeah. So, okay. Any final thoughts, Janet?

[Jenna McLaughlin (Deputy Commissioner, Child Development Division, DCF)]: Nope. Well, again, I need to connect with my colleagues on this.

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

[Speaker 0]: gotcha. Yeah, gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for the impromptu invitation and really appreciate your availability and Thank clarifying for us what's possible, what may not be possible, what's happening with the background check solutions that you're trying to put in place. So appreciate that very, very much. So you're welcome to stay on, but we're we're gonna be shortly adjourning here because there's other things that we have to do. Okay. So where are we at, folks? I mean, the language as proposed says that the school district background check would be deemed to meet the background check requirements for CDD or Anne's got it right

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: in front of Yeah, for the purpose of pre qualification pursuant to this section to have been met. So it's very narrowly explicitly for- The pre qualification procedure. For pre K only.

[Speaker 0]: So if you're doing

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: childcare, doesn't waive it.

[Speaker 0]: If we decide to keep it in, then I think we should add a sentence or two that says, if the public school provides some extended day through the provision of childcare, utilizing childcare financial assistance, they would need to meet the full background check of the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Of the CDD one.

[Speaker 0]: Of the CDD one.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I can go with that. But there is, you know, just going through quickly, there is significant differences between the CD and the Vermont state. And one of the most significant differences is that it's not mandatory that they check the child sex offender registry or the abuse registries.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The schools don't have to.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They're not mandatory required. It can be requested. Okay. It's not a mandatory requirement based upon the school. The superintendents can request those things.

[Speaker 0]: So which is why we, in our first discussion opted for let's go with the CDD The higher standard. And the issue with that is the length of time it takes to get back.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think that reduces some significant, hey, we did our work. That's what it all comes down to. And sometimes, putting the best effort and the best foot forward to do that due diligence will always reduce liability over the long haul. I understand it may be a little bit more, the response back may be a little bit longer, And part of that- That you can do to mitigate risks.

[Speaker 0]: Right. I mean, think part of it comes down to also when we're thinking about liability. As in the solution that we have in the bill right now, that language, it has each employer getting their own background check. And so the liability issue is off the table because the employer has done their due, you know, quote unquote, diligence. They are employed. And they have the information from their own background checks. And so I I I that's another chick in the leave it the way it is in terms of the language.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It would complicate things a little more, but the other possibility would say that the school districts must add to their background check for pre K the sex offender and child abuse right to speak. Because they can,

[Speaker 0]: you know, I don't know.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This point, I'm gonna give some background check for, if not for those kinds of things. The fingerprinting is for crimes. It's a criminal background check. But a sex offense is a crime. Well, yes, but they may not have been charged criminally, but they may be on the registers for child abuse.

[Speaker 0]: I see. Okay. So thank you. Helps.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm saying to like the elderly abuse registry,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: they might

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have been, you know, someone fallen on ups on their employment and then

[Unidentified Committee Member]: they get, yeah. Are there systems to check those sex offender registries nationwide? Because the one in Vermont pretty easy for anyone to do.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, we would be available.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Each of office could go on and

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to do those comprehensive background. Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: unique finger fingerprinting for some of them.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: For the comprehensive, to check the Vermont sex offender registry.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, anybody can go on. And

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: the fact that it's so fragmented that there's so many different ones that they're not all in one central place, Kinda is

[Speaker 0]: not a Which is the argument for Janet's approach, which is leave it the way it is for right now. We're working on it and trying to come up with a That's another option on the table. So it didn't seem as though the bees understood that there was this work group that's been happening or I don't- AOE has been very involved with the work groups. Yeah, at the state level, I know.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Think it's a much more intense conversation at the childcare level than it is in the education community.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: but it's really disturbing to learn that the schools aren't required to do,

[Speaker 0]: you know, what they're required to do and what they do do are probably two different things.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. But if they were required to, that would address it. I mean, I can see saying, well, it's really important for three and four year olds that's why they have to have it, but it's important for five and six and seven year olds too that their teachers are

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: not little kids. I'll just say that I really appreciate us trying to find a solution. I don't feel satisfied with the amount of time that we spent on this, given Janet's hesitation and her concerns and not being able to talk to her colleagues with IC and AOE, feels very last minute to me. And I just feel like, and we could say, well, they could be fixed on the other committees or whatever. For me, I'm hesitant to make a policy change like this, given the administration's hesitations with, and they may end up being fine with it. And I think if we give them time to kind of deliberate on it, talk to the legal counsel, and then maybe they can, we can follow it and say, okay, now everybody's okay with it, we can add it. I just feel like we haven't spent enough time on it to make a policy change like the BISS. And given other work that's being done, right? There is very concerted effort on fixing this problem that there might be a much more elegant solution that we are not thinking about that is gonna come in six months.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I would just, what is it?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Slow down and speed up.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's kind of where you look, yeah, let's get all the information, slow it down before we move forward. We want to, yep.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So I I'm seeing sort of head nods around the table about that approach. Would people because there's gonna be a cover memo that goes with this. Would people object to me putting in the cover memo that we considered this, this language and highlighting for them that there is work happening between AHS and AOE and Department of Public Safety

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And that it may not be as simple as this.

[Speaker 0]: Right, that this might not be the solution, but here's language that we thought about.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yes, I would totally support that. I can offer to continue the conversation with Janet kind of behind the scenes as this language moves to our other committees and if the administration comes up with something that can be included, we still

[Speaker 0]: have a little bit of time. Especially

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: since you'll put in the memo that we're considering.

[Speaker 0]: I think though, I guess the one thing that I've encouraged in the conversation is I was finding the responses very narrowly thinking and not necessarily think like it kind of automatically went to, well, we'd have to create a whole nother process. That's not true.

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

[Speaker 0]: know, so that kind of, and I realized, we were asking her to comment on something like right off the I get that. And I known her long enough to know how she needs time to think about things. So, okay. So that seems like we've reached a decision to take it out of the bill. I'll make some comments in the cover memo about it and include the language to say that there is this process that's ongoing, and this has been a problem for ten years and it really is And something that needs to be we can't just keep pushing it down the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: road. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: I think that's it for right now. So do you do you wanna let Katie and Beth know if you you don't mind? Okay. Alright. So I'm gonna