Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Hey, good morning everyone. Welcome back to House Human Services on Thursday, April 2. We are taking up S-two 39 this morning, which is an act relating to the Child Abuse and Neglect Report Working Group. And we're happy to have with us some folks from the Department for Children and Families, the Family Services Division. So welcome. It's nice to see you all again. And I don't know if you saw or tuned into the background information that we got from legislative counsel about the bill. And we also had them run through the act that we passed a couple of years ago, because we wanted to make sure that we didn't already have something in that act that was going to address this. And I think as we worked our way through it, it doesn't. But I want you to know that we were making sure that we weren't duplicating something because the Senate might have forgotten because it was a bill that originated here, I mean, even though they saw it. So welcome to House Human Services. Floor is yours. Thank you so much for being here this morning and happy to have you.

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Thank you very much. Well, good morning, I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Act 154 and S two thirty nine. For the record, my name is Erica Radke and I'm deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division. I'm joined today by Nancy Miller, child safety director, Lindsay Barron, director of policy and planning, and Hannah Marble, director of communications and legislative affairs. As you know, Act 154 represents one of the most significant updates to Vermont's child protection system in decades. This work has been grounded in research, data, and extensive stakeholder engagement, reflecting a collaborative approach that we really thought was important for this type of important legislation. In order to have this reform throughout the process, we still really remain clear that our focus was on supporting Vermont's children and youth while working with families to keep them safe, stable, and together. As part of the ongoing work, we've submitted legislative progress report and launched the Child Protection Registry Reform website. It's where stakeholder meeting notes, draft frameworks, and other materials are available for you all to reference if you have the opportunity. Last month, we also had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on S two thirty nine. As we continue to examine and strengthen Vermont's child welfare system, but we appreciate this ongoing dialogue and thorough consideration of this field. And we'd like to begin today by sharing our perspective. So thank you for your time and, your shared commitment to Vermont's children and families. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Lindsey, and she will begin with S-two 39.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Thank you. And I'll also just jump in to say, after following some of the testimony earlier in the week and some of the discussion, it seemed like what the committee was hoping for was more of a Q and A and dialogue. So we don't have a formal presentation to offer, but I can certainly share some of the general reflections on S-two 39 that I shared with Senate Health and Welfare and some of the dialogue that we had a few weeks ago. And so I think our key ask or what we had discussed in Senate Health and Welfare, was just ensuring that any task taken up by a working group is aligned with the CAPTA framework and definitions and what we are required to abide by in accepting CAPTA funding.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Can you just not everybody's familiar with the acronym.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Yes. CAPTA stands for the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. It's an act that dates back to the 1970s. And generally, the funding is reauthorized throughout the year. And every several years, there's often a reauthorization and amendments that come through CAPTA. And so that has been a means that the Children's Bureau and ACF has taken to respond to evolving trends in child abuse and neglect, introduce and flag upcoming areas of practice or new definitions that they anticipate state child protection systems would need to take on. It establishes a minimum expectation of abuse and neglect definitions and then gives states the flexibility to expand from there. But there's always a minimum standard that our definitions are founded upon and framed on. So some examples, for instance, in recent years, CAPTA has been amended, calling attention towards vulnerability of exploitation and human trafficking. And so something I shared in Senate Health and Lawfare is that our definitions, as currently established, are interesting in that human trafficking falls under a sexual abuse definition. And so that limits us in our response to labor trafficking down the line. And so that is something that CAPTA, through the last authorization, gave states flexibility to explore and consider what a child protection response would be related to labor trafficking. And again, we're not feeling like we are immediately prepared to take that on, but that's just a connection that I think a working group would want to consider as its meeting. One of the things that we had some discussion about was we thought that the working group composition needed a bit of work.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And we recognized that they said they would consult with and then listed a bunch of things. For instance, the Office of Professional Regulation, They don't actually regulate nurses or pediatricians because they have their own board of nursing and physician practice board or something like that. So one of the things that we're considering and would love your feedback on is maybe a little more specificity about the individuals or entities that should be represented. One of the things that's come out is perhaps we should have an actual physician, pediatrician from the Vermont Pediatrics Association.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: other So for instance, law enforcement potentially. It just was a bit broad and had lots of good people who are good advocates for child welfare, but not as many of the sort of situations where the people who are actually doing the reporting, so that we might learn from them what they experience. Because it seems like at least in profession teaching, for instance, another one where oftentimes they will see children. So it seemed like we should be having folks who represent the places where maybe the preponderance of reports come from and thought we could use your help on being a little bit more specific about stuff like that. Do you have any thoughts about that?

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: That makes sense to me. Think that, sure, if you're talking about where we would get the bulk of the reports, those would be individuals that should be making up part of the working group. Don't think that's a bad idea at all. And when you're talking about physicians, I was thinking, of course doctors do make reports, but I'm wondering also perhaps if you can have a physician that may have a specialty in child abuse or neglect, identifying those places. I think that's something we should look at. That makes

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: sense to me. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. My understanding as the bill was put together that placeholders were put in and there was an acknowledgement that the members and who's involved would probably evolve over time. We had made some recommendations as well. Similarly, we had listed UVM's Child Safe Program as a good representative to bring to the working group. And we were also contemplating the Children's Justice Act task force and some of the required members as part of that team to use as a vehicle between working group meetings to have a larger stakeholder engagement process. And so that does include several members of law enforcement as part of the task force. That includes some clinicians and mental health staff, some of the advocacy organizations that are already listed. Nancy, who am I forgetting? Department of Health. Can you repeat the name of that task force? It's the Children's Justice Act task force.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I remember asking that question yesterday or whenever we got the walk through the bill and let your counsel didn't have it off the top of their head. Is is that a Vermont based? Is that a federal based? It sounded didn't sound like a title that Vermont would assign to something. So so is is that a federally required thing?

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: It's a federal grant based program. So in exchange for a certain number of dollars annually, we have and operate a task force. And so it is aimed at improving the quality of investigations and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases. Similarly, so in the acceptance of captive dollars, participating in the CJA program is a component of that, as well as having an advisory board and panel. And so that's where the Vermont Citizens Advisory Board comes in. And again, some of the members who are listed on the working group, there's overlap between VCAB, CJA, etcetera.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. Go ahead, representative.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: And with respect to so we've got two lists here in in the statute. With respect to the task force, is that something you see on the second list that is the sort of consultation with stakeholders versus the actual working group members? Just trying to get some clear understanding as to the groups that you've referenced,

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: you see them Right. Seems like in the most recent version of the draft, that it's more organizations and to your point, Chair, more sort of the advocacy organizations. I do think that something that is missing is school and education representation, as well as child care, just thinking about where

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, we thought about child care, too. So in paragraph c, where they're talking about who they should consult with, I see some of the folks that you were talking about there. Are you thinking that some of these folks or certain of these folks should be part of the official group?

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I think what Senate Health and Welfare was trying to balance was once you have a group that is so large, are they going to be effective and able to function? So they were trying to balance who are all of the voices that need to be included. And we were hoping to take on some of the bulk of the work to facilitate folks having a voice participation and then bringing that information back the working group. And so I think that's where the division of the two West came to be, was just how unwieldy is a 50 member task force.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: That's

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: a good point because if there is overlap between some members that may be part of different organizations, you can be part of the smaller group with this task force and still then bring that information back to members of another group you might be in that's part of that larger group. Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I think the sort of officials group needs a little more balance, I guess I would say, from people who actually report abuse or are required to report abuse. And so one of the things you might see us do, for instance, this says two members from DCF. We probably reduce that to one member knowing that there's probably even more than two members who will participate in the work. But we wanna make sure that DCF has an official representation. I'm not sure about OPR, whether we'll include them at all, to be honest with you. I think that my inclination would be to remove them and put in a pediatrician or a health care professional appointed by one of the health care boards. The law

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: chapter of the AAP might be able to sort of recognize. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: What's your thought about the Center for Crime Victim Services?

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So the Center for Crime Victim Services, my understanding is that they were the quiet influence behind the scene of how this bill came to be to begin with. And so my understanding is that it was coming from a place of hearing from teenagers in particular and adolescents who were seeking clinical support through therapy and within the realm of peer to peer abuse and blurred lines of consent and what needs to be reported as child abuse. But that was the origin of the recommendation of this bill coming together. And it seems as though it's grown legs and morphed beyond that. But that is why I believe they are listed, is because it was their advocacy. That's helpful, because I was trying to connect the dots, I wasn't So connecting that's helpful information. We have an intern right now who has helped out with some national research and looking at other state statutes. We recently hosted Stakeholder and Children's Justice Act meeting, bringing in Center for Crime Victim Services to present to the group about why they advocated for the bill and what they were hoping to achieve.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I have a question also about individuals with lived experience. Typically, we'd like to include those individuals as participating members in addition to being people who are part of the individuals who would be collaborated with. More about making a statement that they have a voice at the table where the official recommendations are going to be voted on, as opposed to just collaborating with them. That's great and taking input, but I think that our committee is probably going be interested in them having a voting voice on the recommendations that get made back to the legislature and to the department. So if we had two members, is that Excuse me. I guess when I'm gonna ask you about money, get a little froggy.

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I'm a big no. You don't even know what I'm going to ask you, So we're only talking two members. All the rest of the members of the group would have to come in a professional relationship. So would that be something that the department would be able to fund out of your resources,

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: the per diems for two members with lived experience? I have to check. I can't say it right away, but we definitely agree with you about having folks with lived experience at the table, not just sort of on the side of the table, us, without us. Right, exactly. So I can't say without talking to Sandy, but

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Could feel you advertise it volunteer if you would like to be on it? I know I volunteer for everything in my hometown.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I'm sure that they'll figure out a way. I'm pretty sure that your cursor will be behind you, deputy commissioner. Say, okay, that's okay. Hopefully JFO's listening. Okay. Do you have any other specifics that you would have liked to have They took the bill off the wall on the last day kind of thing. It was pretty quick. And I heard from the bill sponsor and the reporter that they're hoping that we sort of fill in the blanks a little bit. For instance, it doesn't say what the working group should do. What are the specific recommendations that we'd be looking for? So of course, we have some ideas, but they're also going be providing recommendations to the department. So what are the things that you would like them to be looking at in their work? So it would be helpful if we could get some feedback from you about the work to be undertaken by the group, just it's kind of just a big general statement. But yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So The other thing that came to my mind yesterday when we were talking about being more specific about what we're asking them to do is given Brett Maguire's kind of concern about having a tight timeline and a limited time, I think it would be helpful to give them some general kind of guidelines and specifics of what is it that we're asking versus just kind of this broad, just look at the rules and look at this process and the current statute. So I think it would help the task force if we gave them some high level, like, look at these things. And I think you as the experts, kind of knowing what needs to be updated and modernized would help us get there. But for instance, the underlying statute, we could see, has some very outdated language in it. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: we can do our best with Legg Council to update it. If there are things in there that you think be updated. So, if you could provide us some recommendations about what you think that the task force should do, that would be great.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So whenever I first had the conversation in Senate Health and Welfare, I was getting the sense that it was a request for us to look at our policies and our training in particular. And what struck me there was the overarching statutory framework and not certainly, there are improvements we can make. We're working on updates to our mandated reporter training now. But the existing statutory framework remains dating back to Act 60 of 2015. And so I agree it's time to look. It's been a decade or so. And I think that anything we do, we would want to be including a scan of national research as far as how are other state systems modernizing their efforts, what are some of the national best practice organizations, whether that be the National Partnership for Child Safety and other leaders in this field. The Children's Bureau has a subcontractor that collects all national child abuse definitions state by state annually. And so that's a good repository and a good starting place that we could begin from. But I do think we would probably want the opportunity to do a bit of a deep dive, do some interviews with other states, because there's quite a bit of difference of what you can read in a statute state by state versus what that means. I do know from some of the stakeholder voices participating, they are hoping that we will look at our practices of out of home sexual abuse investigations and some of the peer to peer dynamics. It's an interesting one in the sense that Vermont is one of the more unique states in investigating sexual abuse perpetrated by anyone as opposed to a caregiver only. However, again, I've mentioned human trafficking. That is pushing other state systems to shift to more of an investigative model that we have of jointly investigating with law enforcement and doing some of those out of home perpetrator investigations. And so I think we would want to make sure that we're not going in the opposite direction the rest of the country is going in. A lot of work decades ago went into the best practice approach of making sure young people are not being interviewed multiple times because DCF has a different process from law enforcement. So I think we want to make sure that any recommendations that we're making, it remains rooted in trauma informed practice and making sure that person is not telling their story over and over again.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I remember we had testimony in that regard when we were here a couple of years ago on the other procedures. Yes, Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: I was intrigued or interested when you talked about how there isn't as great a focus historically, if you will, on out of home use. Is that because that was simply seen as more of a law enforcement bailiwick? It's just struggling when you said that. I don't if you have anything you can add to that.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I think our practice, and I might defer to Nancy here too, I think it evolved from a place of Vermont as a small state as far as number of reports, number of accepted investigations. And again, we were seeing themes of we're gathering the same information, we're conducting a very complex speech, and we're duplicating effort. And so that is where the existence of our CAC, our child advocacy centers, and really making sure we have a strong collaboration with law enforcement came from. There are other states that function similarly. We would just have to do a bit more research to know, as of today, which those states are.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: And second question. What you started to touch on in your comments about the desire to be not duplicating interviews and that sort of thing started to sound more like policies and procedures, if I'm understanding correctly, maybe you fell under Act 154. I didn't I'm just not sure if that's where we're what I understand the focus of this seems to be more on the reporting side. So I'm just trying to parse where our work will lie.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. I mean, that's that's why we reviewed Act one fifty four before we started work on this. And in ACT 154, it's sort of like, okay, what happens after this report is made? So this work is like, what's leading up to the report? So there's a line and there's a crossover that happens at that space. So that's why, because the makeup of this committee wasn't here when we passed Act 154. So I want people to have some background about that statute, the report that we have to review around that. Because that was We went through a lot to get into that space. I keep looking at you because we had, I remember eye contact back and forth all the time. So, yeah, and I think that we, after having had a review of the underlying statute, we are not only thinking about reporting and training. We're thinking about, let's look at the underlying statute. It needs modernization and needs some work. It needs to more closely align to the work we did in Act 154, which it didn't seem to. And I would be looking at these to be recommendations that come not only to the legislature, but come to the department. So I think we're taking a little bit, since we have the opportunity, we're gonna take a little bit broader than maybe they were thinking about when they handed the bill over to us. Something else

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: that has jumped out at us is that there's confusion that exists in the community about the failure to report aspect

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: of the

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: statute and what the enforcement mechanism is. I think this is, again, where bringing in actual folks who are making reports and some of that fear of what if I don't report, there's this consequence that could happen to me. I think there's a wide range of perspectives in the community as to whether that needs revision or clarity. I think the other piece that other states have that sometimes accompany that is a similar penalty for knowingly making a false report and whether a definition might need to exist for that. So those are the types of questions or areas of research that I think the working group could keep on. Sounds good. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Can you say more about the way the field is responding or thinking about the failure to report? Trying to see where you're going with that. Right.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So I think depending on one's, I don't know, years experience serving kids and families, how they know and understand what are signs and symptoms of child abuse, what are signs and symptoms of neglect. I think everybody has a slightly different not definition, but just moral compass as far as what reaches the threshold. What does reasonably suspect mean to me as a professional? Does that differ from colleagues in education, colleagues in law enforcement? And so one of the largest changes that Act 60 had made was creating the individual mandate for if a single person reasonably suspects abuse, but it is on them to make a report within twenty four hours. And so that did create some level of duplicative reports across teams. But I think that is an area, again, worthy of looking into.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: This is up.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go

[Unidentified Committee Member]: ahead. Vermont currently offer for mandated reporters an opportunity to consult with anyone before making a report, to kind of address some of that. Obviously, if it's urgent and the child is in imminent danger or it's more of an emergency. But if it's a neighbor and they're noticing something, is there a place that they can call and talk to someone before actually making a report?

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So I think so we do have a mandated reporter training. Our office we accept calls at all 12 of our district offices. Sometimes our staff will go out and do a part two of a training, where let's actually talk through what you might be seeing when you're working with kids and also answer the Q and A that you're speaking to there. I think it's a fine line of how many additional questions we would want to revise a mandate of reporters to ask a child that begins to tiptoe on a forensic interview itself. And so that's just the balance that has to be struck.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Are there questions about S-two 39? Because I do want to review the Act 154 report as well. Are there any other questions about this? Okay. So just to summarize, it would be great if you could get back to us with some thoughts about what the task force more specific, so we can enumerate for them within keeping in mind that we're talking about five or six meetings here. Of course, they could meet more often because it's not gonna have a quote unquote cost to the state, but about the activities that you think would be helpful and concentrating also on the underlying bill, not just the reporting aspect. And any recommendations that you might have for people besides the ones we've talked about here to sort of move up into being at the table instead of near the table. That would be great. Okay? Great. If we could move to Act 154, the progress report, and take a look at that. And members, can find that on our committee's reports page.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: It's posted on Tuesday, under Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, thank you. Also posted on Tuesday, under Michelle. That was the actual act. Oh, no, I mean the report. Yeah. It. The report is on our webpage under that. So it'd be great if you could just kind of walk us through the process, the updates, and any particular recommendations that you might have and how this is changing the practices and the updates that are occurring at the department.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Certainly. Do you have a preference of sort

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: of walking through the report or just at a high level sort of capturing? My guess is that most members have not had an opportunity to read the report in detail. So why don't we walk through it? You don't have to go through every single thing, but just to give members the idea about what's here and so they can dig deeper if they want to. But we're so often, we ask for reports and we don't review them than with the people who have submitted them. So we wanted to make sure to do that. And

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: so I'll sort of just give a high level overview and walk through section by section. To some degree, we took a chronological approach of the work done to date where we began what our data is telling us. So we did go back about ten years in providing a data summary of the total reports of abuse and neglect coming in, what the acceptance rates of those reports are, and then how that translates into number of substantiations. And you will notice a gradual downward trend across the board in terms of acceptance and substantiation. We anticipate that once we have fully implemented Act 154 and have a different path for internal findings as opposed to substantiation, our early estimates are that our rates and numbers might drop by about 50%. I'm sorry, up to 50? 50? Five-zero? Wow. Again, we're estimating, which is nice data. And so we also provided some data about substantiation occurring in regulated facilities. And I think we flagged for ourselves wanting to do a bit of a deeper dive into data integrity. And is this accurate? Are the numbers truly this low? So yeah, that's, I think, a question. We all

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: know because it was pretty well publicized during the pandemic that there was significant reduction in the number of reports, although it doesn't look like it was that big of a reduction when I actually look at the data. And it seems as though there's been a kind of steady decline in the percent of substantiations that occur over time. And of course, part of the updates, we wanted to distinguish between substantiation and investigation and assistance to the family. And so we would expect them to see that coming down, but it already seemed like it was moving in that direction already. Something

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: that we've flagged for the total reports of abuse and neglect that we think makes us a little bit unique is a function of our centralized intake and emergency services, where some of those reports are our residential facilities making required notifications about incidents that occur in the program. And so knowing what is a report of abuse and neglect versus what is a regulatory notification versus what are calls about a child in care in crisis, all of that gets a little bit intermingled. And we have some question about the totals, because our per capita rate of calls coming in is sometimes projected that Vermont is so much higher nationally. But we know it's an imperfect system and way of capturing that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So I guess I would ask a question. There was a lot of reforms in Act 154. And what, as of April 2026, where do you think you are at in terms of how far you are into the implementation process? And then how much further do we have to go?

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I would say we're in the throes of it. We're very much in the middle of implementation. And so we have revised our policies to raise the the standard of evidence, create additional practice guidance and training related to the preponderance shift. We also have some revisions to how we onboard new staff in our foundations curriculum. There's now role specific content for front end staff. That is a shift that we've made. We're in the midst of a time study related to centralized substantiation and still weighing the amount of FTE that will be required and involved in creating that centralized system. And yeah, I think every day we realize just we uncover a new rock in terms of, oh, and this is also affiliated. And so right now, we are working on drafting the rules and updates to policies. And we also have some frameworks that we thought might be that the committee might be interested in. These have been the product of us really thinking through visually, how do we want to change this system and what are the considerations as far as aggravating factors and mitigating factors and how decisions are made. And so when I think about the written content and the actual system changes, I think about the crosswalk between what the statute requires, what goes into our rules, how do we articulate that in policy, and then visually inflow, how does that all unfold. And so we're disentangling and writing all of those things now. But we had a series of stakeholder meetings and engagement sessions from October into January. And these were really the products of that Just got them around there. Yes, yes. So there's two. There's one for caregivers, and there's one for youth with problematic social behaviors.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I was trying to hit the links that you have, and they they just go to a blank page. They don't go to

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: They worked this morning. Yeah.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I couldn't have done some math.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Wanted to blow them up just when doing It's easy to read, yes, for sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Apologies. No, it's all good. Back in the olden days, when I used to testify and sit in your chairs, committees had rules about passing to the left, you can only pass them to the right. And the stacks of paper were everywhere. There's some still committees that do that. Don't have any more. So that was way back when. So thank you. Sure. Let's just walk us through this. And then maybe you can describe for people how this is different than it would have been.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Are you looking to take over? Sure.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I think the only other, I guess, kudos that I would give is this came out of our national research, and New Jersey really stood out to us as the most comprehensive model that had in place the diverse approach that we were looking for, for both internal findings and substantiation. So a lot of credit goes to New Jersey and their allowance of us to shamelessly steal and borrow and sell us. And we certainly had vermontized it from there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: There's no harm in doing that. We do that with statutes all the time.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Thanks, yeah, we were well poised going into the passage of one Act 54 because we had done a state by state analysis, having actually interviewed 41 states on their practices in this realm. And we narrowed it down to seven states that actually have an alternative to substantiation in an internal finding. And as Lindsay was saying, New Jersey was the one that really got the most robust framework for decision making as opposed to some of the other states which had checklists, which may be a little bit easier, but also leave a lot of room for the gray and the field doesn't necessarily like a lot of gray, they like being guided. And so this guide framework is, as Lindsay saying, this is for caregivers. So as we talked about earlier, our system also investigates matters of peer to peer sexual abuse. And we have a separate framework for that because those are really two different realms of abuse that need to be looked at differently. So the very first thing that you see at the top of this framework is that the investigator must first determine that abuse or neglect occurred to a preponderance of the evidence. And that is according to our definitions of abuse and neglect in section 40 nine-twelve. I'll probably look on the right first. If there is not a preponderance of the evidence, then the abuse or neglect is simply unfounded. If there is a preponderance of the evidence that the abuser neglect occurred, then the investigator must determine whether or not one of the absolute standards for substantiation exists. And the absolute standards as we have framed them in this draft begin with death, near death or serious physical injury to a child resulting from abuse or neglect, sexual abuse of a child by an adult, and that significant neglect resulting in serious harm or substantial risk of harm. So Nancy, can

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I ask the question only because we were just talking about it a little while ago? What about child on child? Yep. Here.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So that is we have a separate framework. Oh, okay. We'll go over that in a minute. Oh, okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alright. This is strictly for No.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I didn't read the Okay. I didn't read the title. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: This change of evidentiary standard, when did that go to effect?

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: February 2021.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So that you might recall, Ledge Counsel explained that to us, not just as what existed previously was a reasonable person would determine that this was which left a lot of room for interpretation. And so the preponderance of the evidence, well, you're a lawyer. For other people,

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: for us

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: people, for

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: the rest of us, she said, it's 51% more likely to have occurred than not. So it tips the scale. That was part of the update section. We weren't clear and convincing. No, we were not. No. We moved up the scale, not down the scale. And so this was part of the changes that happened in Act 154.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: And maybe I should have said this straight from the beginning. I've been steeped in this work so much, I unconsciously make assumptions about what people already So this framework is really about dividing out which cases will have an internal finding, meaning their name will not be placed on the child protection registries, meaning there will be no impact on civil liberties for those people. Internal findings is information known to the department that may be used in things like case planning or assessing risk, but it's not information that somebody's employer could obtain to help make a decision around their employability. So this framework is really about determining which of those individuals who have committed an act of child abuse or neglect may also pose a risk in a professional community setting, therefore would be appropriate to place their name on the child protection registry, as opposed to those individuals who have committed an act of abuse or neglect on a child, but it may be one of those instances that I like to refer to as the unfortunate incubator of stress that is the family home. And sometimes all parents fall into situations that are less than ideal. And sometimes when parents are struggling, they do harm their children. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to be a danger to children in the community, in a professional setting. And so in the absence of any validated tool that exists in the country or in the world that we were able to find, and we sought advice from all of our experts nationally to find out if such a tool existed, no tool exists. We then looked to all of the other states to find out, how are you making these determinations? As we said before, New Jersey had what we found to be like the most robust guide for decision making in this realm. So this framework is really, that's what it's about is like this bifurcation of our system after a preponderance of evidence has been found in investigation. And so we start with the absolutes. So those three situations are ones that we would recommend are an absolute main placement on the child protection registry. As you scroll down or look down on your printed form there, you'll see there are lists of aggravating factors and mitigating factors. What we And will be asking our field to do, this has not been instituted in policy yet, but what we will be asking our field to do is weigh the aggravated factors against the mitigating factors to make a determination around whether or not the mitigating factors prevail. And that individual therefore, would not have their name placed on the child protection registry. It would be an internal finding only. Whereas if the aggravating factors prevail, that would be a recommendation for name placement on the registry. And then the process would go through the due process appeal rights that currently exists in our system. So the aggravating factors, I'll just kind of list them. Abuse or neglect of a child that occurs in a licensed facility, if the perpetrator has failed to comply with any court orders or established, safety plans or conditions, that have been agreed upon to keep the child safe, A situation where we have a child victim under the age of six or other vulnerabilities such as developmental delays or physical disabilities. Situations where we have intentional infliction of lasting physical, psychological or emotional harm to a child, evidence suggesting that there's pattern or repeated instances of abuse and neglect against any child. And then situations where the child's safety requires separation from the perpetrator. And then on the right, you see the mitigating factors.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Before we move to the right, I noticed about the licensed facility and I can understand that they have an expectation of a higher threshold, really. I I was wondering about not seeing foster care on on the left hand side because it I just guess it's just a question, you know, because something has happened already to cause that child to come into custody and be placed in foster care. And it seems like they have a higher responsibility as well, sort of comparable to a facility, in a one on one situation.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Yeah, I think you bring up a very good question and it's a question that comes up a lot. One of the things that we have done, I think, is to look to our federal partners to find out if there's any federal rules which would necessitate that any finding in a foster home would result in the placement on the registry. I think, and I'm gonna look at Lindsay here, I don't think that to the best of our knowledge such a thing exists. We currently have, correct me if I'm wrong, we currently have a system where any allegation that comes about in a foster home will automatically go the investigation route, not the assessment route. However, there are lower

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: level interventions that are referred to as regulatory interventions that wouldn't result in name placement on the registry. I'm sure that you have signed agreements or whatever, I know that have go through training process and all of that. So I guess that was even though that there isn't a quote unquote federal requirement of that. It sounds like that you've had discussions about it and sounds like you've been thinking about it. I just Some

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: of

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: the discussions I mean, of the language that we might end up landing on might be a licensed entity to be inclusive of both caregivers and facilities, to your point of expecting a higher level of care. I think we're trying to strike the right balance, especially in our efforts to increase utilization of kinship care and flexibility for relatives and kin, and just wanting to strike the right balance on not being overly punitive and figuring out the best path.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. And when you say licensed facility, I admit that my head went to a licensed residential facility, but do you also need childcare as well? Are you including any facility licensed by DCF? Thank you. It's not

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: a licensed facility per se, but seems akin to the chemo that childcare itself.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: But there would be an assumption of a higher standard of care, children trusted to our schools.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So I guess the reason that it seems to stand out is because all the other two through six are all related to behaviors of the risks of harm. And yet then there's this one that is where it occurred as opposed to what happened to the child. And I just question, I think, as Representative Bishop is bringing up and my question, there are other places that there's a higher level of standard of care. A hospital, for instance, or a school. So it seemed out of place, but I understand why it's there, but it also seemed out of place since all the rest of them referred to what happens to the child, the impact on the child.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Feedback's incredibly helpful.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. If I could add to that, chittenden. Seems I could come up with a scenario in my head where something, rather than this bright line rule about the setting, there could be mitigating circumstances. It could be a temporary sort of not involving physical, but maybe someone who uses words or treats a child in a way that we do not wanna see that's immediately falls on a substantiation track where there could be mitigating circumstances. You talk about sort of my words, not yours, sort of the the pressure cooker of the home environment. Mhmm. There could be a pressure cooker in a room of 23 kids that you're taking care of as well. Yeah, it's a tough line to find, agree. If

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, we're certainly not the experts. It's just those are things that pop out to us when we, fresh eyes that look at something for the first time. Thank

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: you. With those fresh eyes, I think it's a good reminder for us to take it back to the person responsible for child's welfare definition.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Thanks. Go ahead, So moving over to the right, the mitigating factors. The first one we have is our tangible measures or corrective steps taken by the caregiver or alleged perpetrator prior to the conclusion of the investigation. So if the caregiver displays remorse, cooperation, or accountability, and changed behavior, if there has been a significant length of time since the caregiver's last child abuse or neglect incident, So like for example, say there was a report about a parent fifteen years ago, then there's another report this year, we wouldn't necessarily want to consider that a pattern. There was a report last year and then another report three years ago that might be more of a pattern, which would be on the aggravating circumstances side. Those extraordinary situational or temporary stressors that causes the caregiver to act in an uncharacteristic, abusive or neglected manner. And then those situations in which they're related, minor or negligible physical, psychological or emotional injury to a child or minor injury to a child occurs in a caregiver's attempt to protect others in the home. Those, so if the mitigating factors prevail, as I said earlier, those cases would be founded and that would be an internal finding only. And then if the aggravating factors prevail, the abuse or neglect would be substantiated with a recommendation for name placement on the child protection registry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: On the founded side of things, so are you maintaining or are you proposing to maintain some sort of not registry, but some sort of list that's not a public list. I mean so I I guess what I'm trying to get at is what what if there's a situation where, okay, well, there's been you know, in the last five years, there's been three founded situations. It seems like those fall under the evidence of a pattern, I get that. But how are you going to know that? What kind of record keeping is there of the founded situations?

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So when our workers are conducting any kind of child safety intervention, a background check is part of that intervention. It's part of our global risk assessment that we do with every family. And so part of that background check is looking at our own records to find out whether or not we've been involved before. And if so, like, why were we involved? What was the outcome? Did the caregiver engage in recommended services? So that occurs as part of every investigation and every assessment. So the worker would know that when they're making a determination, whether or not there was a pattern.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Well, no offense, but there's turnover in workers. And I'm just So I didn't really understand from that answer whether or not there's some sort of official record where it's a searchable kind of thing, if there's some sort of, is this going to be part of CWIS? All of that kind of stuff.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So what we're planning to do is, within our antiquated database, create a new code. And so any time at the conclusion of an investigation, there's already existing codes that get entered based on the determination that's made. And so we're thinking we need a new letter added, probably F profounded. And so that will be at one of the top of the lists of our IT wish list and prioritization. Because, again, in order to implement this internal finding system, we will need some identifier within our database.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, I mean, that's, I guess, what I was getting at. Thank you. Yes, go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: I keep going back in my head to another piece of legislation we're gonna be asked to consider before the session is over, and that relates to licensure in the childcare setting. And one of the two primary reasons is OPR, the Sunrise Assessment Report, one of the two principal reasons they're recommending licensure is to have an opportunity for personal accountability, if you will, for the individual whose conduct is problematic. Right now, it's sort of it's this if it's a center based program, let's say, my bad conduct isn't necessarily public. The center gets written up for that, if you will. My bad conduct, sounds like if it's bad enough, ends up on the child protection registry. But has there been any conversations between OPR and your office as it relates to childcare settings and how information is or is not public and its availability?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So are you

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: findings and whether or not those would be available to a child development division? Yes,

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: that's part of it. I guess I'm understanding the licensure one of the moves towards licensure is so that there's public accountability that follows meetings. For example, I'm a childcare worker and I've met past misconduct, that that's identifiable, if you will. It sounds like publicly because if my conduct was bad enough it seems like that would come up in a background check because that would include the child protection registry So I'm just curious whether there's been any conversation between the PR and your office on this sort of personal accountability aspect.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Excuse me just a minute, our microphone thing is flashing here, Laura.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. And that's moving around.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Oh, it's just just

[Unidentified Committee Member]: oh, it says we're still on.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: How do know? You're so observant.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: It's right in front of me flashing, and then all that Oh, oh, right there. Okay. Not flashing anymore. Oh, there it goes. In there, it's just. We're still live? Okay. Alright. So even though we got weird stuff happening and the microphone is not flashing anymore.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Stuff until Laurie says, we should pay attention, I think.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Alright. Well, I don't know if she saw the microphone flash. Thanks.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: So, yeah, I'll leave it at that. I'm just trying to determine what level of conversation, if any, has taken place there. Do you see a place for that conversation towards

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I do certainly think there could be a room for that conversation. We haven't had any conversation with

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: the OPR yet.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Something we'll have to think about when we get that bill. Okay, let's move to the youth.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So similar Kate, this is the blue oval at the top. So similarly to the caregiver finding framework, the investigator must first determine whether or not a preponderance of evidence exists that a child was sexually abused according to our definition. And also similarly, I'm gonna back myself up before I go further because I think some of our stakeholder work is probably important for you to know about before I get into this. We reached out to, we were very self aware that we are not clinicians, that we don't, as better of our profession, assess risk of youth with problematic sexualized behaviors. We consult with clinicians who do that work often, but we don't hold that level of clinical knowledge and awareness. And so we reached out to all of the clinicians that we know about in Vermont and invited them to invite their colleagues into the half day working session, followed up by a lot of emails and phone calls and research that was given for us to read and consider. And so all of that was taken into consideration when we developed this final framework. I think, I can't say that there was absolute consensus because we didn't take a vote, but I think the group was relatively happy with where we landed after we had that quite a lot.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I think their greatest takeaway was wanting us to be grounded in the research related to recidivism and also the presumption of beginning with internal findings, which might lead us back to the framework. Right, so this

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: is an area where I feel like the field will be most excited to have this level of guidance. The research that we were given around recidivism for youth with problematic sexualized behaviors is that only three to eight percent of youth who have these behaviors actually go on to offend as adults. So be very, very mindful with how we interface with these youths and any labeling that occurs because negative labeling can actually increase rates of recidivism. And so starting out with a presumption of internal findings only unless some of the more aggravating circumstances is how we are hoping to proceed with this. And so those aggravating circumstances are situations in which the actor youth has engaged in hands on problematic sexual behavior with more than one victim, if there's been persistence of behavior despite some level of adult intervention or formal intervention, situations in which the act was perpetrated by an older abuse that involved a younger child or a child with increased vulnerabilities, in situations in which there is clear corroborated evidence of hands on sexual behavior that exceeds the minimum threshold required. So more egregious hands on behavior such

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: as physical restraint, physical weapon, things like that. So I have to read that last one like five times to Why would it only be exceeds the minimum? Why wouldn't it be meets or exceeds the minimum?

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So we need some level of forced labor perversion to even accept a report for investigation. And so physical force in and of itself is at the threshold for acceptance. And without getting too graphic here, there are elements of physical force that can be described when we're looking at adolescent sexual behavior that can be characterized as poor communication, misunderstanding, perceived poor starter coercion that wasn't intended for starter coercion. And so what we're trying to do here is to make a distinction that if somebody feels that they can't leave a room because the other person will be disappointed in them or there's levels of anxiety that can cause an adult experience to perceive more threat or force than might actually be there. So what we're looking at are those events where it's undeniable that the physical force was intended, such as tying or restraining or use of a weapon. Well, I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: not sure that I was clear in my question. So if something meets the statutory definition of sexual abuse,

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: it seems like then you would proceed. But here it said you have to exceed the threshold. The distinction between an internal finding and name placement on the child protection registry. So if you just meet the statutory definition of sexual abuse.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Internal finding. It's an internal finding. But if you exceed the definition, it's a substantiation. Yes. Get that.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: You don't get it or it's not clear on here?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: No, I don't get that decision.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: You don't get the decision you said?

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I don't get the rationale.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Oh yeah, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Like, if you meet the definition of sexual abuse. Why wouldn't it be substantiated? Why wouldn't it be substantiated? Why do you have to exceed the definition of sexual abuse?

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So it would be an internal finding, but for name placement on the Child Protection Registry, the assumption is that that use would pose a significant threat in the community in order to have their employment rights taken away from them or be labeled in such a way. And so what we are hearing from our experts in the field and what we're understanding from research is that very few of these youths go on to be arrested, three to eight percent. And that labeling them, which placing an agency's name on the child protection registry is in essence is a label. And we know that that can increase their risk to recidivate. And so we want to make a distinction between those events that occur and then those events that occur that are particularly egregious or would lead us to believe that that use would potentially pose a risk.

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Because I've been looking at it in terms of if these are aggravating factors that would move you over to being substantiated, then you'll be exceeding the minimum so that you shift it over to that higher level as opposed to simply being on the internal finding. Was because I know what you mean in terms of meeting, exceeding, why wouldn't it just be a substantiation? So I think it's exceeding because it's aggravating. That's how I was interpreting.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Well, mean, I appreciate the fact that one, not wanting to unnecessarily put a label on somebody that, you know, can last them their whole life and can make, you know, life as an adult, you know, difficult. It just stood out to me. Just have to say it just stood out to me. And I appreciate the fact that you've been consulting with the researchers and the professionals in the field and this is what they say. I'm just a lay person trying to understand it. I appreciate the feedback. This is helpful. I think I just wonder what other people would I realize that there's a lot of stuff that goes into this looks simple on a piece of paper. I realize it's not as simple as what it is on a piece of paper. Don't get me wrong. I recognize that. I were a caseworker in a situation and exceeded, didn't exceed it, but they met the definition of sexual abuse and well, says weighing. And they've done it to more than one victim. Or it was done to a child who was unable to defend themselves.

[Rep. Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: But it would be substantiated.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And it would be substantiated, presume. Yes. Yeah, go ahead.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You had said, these children are very it's a tiny percentage that goes on to reoffend. I'm just looking at the sexual abuse definition in statutes, And it is what I would consider a broad range of seriousness. So I'm wondering if you broke down those statistics and the rate of offense based on the different things that meet the criteria. I'm just wondering if there's a way to say, maybe when these things happen, these sexual offenses happen, it's a lot more serious and maybe worthy of substantiation. These ones are

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: still Yeah, I don't know if there's any You mean the subcategories of something like human trafficking, for example.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes, exactly. That's concerning. They're all concerning. So I get what you're saying and have to think about it more.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: But that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: was one thing that struck me when looking at it. It's some of these, it does give you a pause to say that's not a substantiation.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Right, right. No, I think you're making And by the way, your question and all the things that you were raising are things that we've spent hours discussing with our field board members. These are the questions that come up. So it's not surprising that you're in good company.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Are the same questions that governments were asking.

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So for example, in the categories of abuse, non consensual dissemination of a nude photograph digitally, for example, like that three things.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's the exact one where

[Nancy Miller, Child Safety Director, Family Services Division (DCF)]: I'm just speaking. Had a high schooler and yeah. Yeah. Like those kids probably do not need to be on our child protection registry. They need some education, but they're probably not going to be a threat in our communities. Whereas those hands on with egregious elements of force or intentional threat, using fear to get compliance from a victim, those kinds of things, all in the more egregious side.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the discussion, the explanation and trying to It's a big deal trying to really think about current research, current professional expectations, current information about child development, and of trying meld that all into policies and procedures that help the field to do their work and protect Vermont's children and youth. So it's kind of apropos, we're having this discussion in April, which is prevent child abuse month and celebrating PCAB's fiftieth anniversary. So this was very helpful. And it's really helpful to see the thought process and to understand the thought process that's gone into this and still understanding that these are drafts and you're still working on them. And thank you very much.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I really appreciate the work.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yes. Yeah. A lot. I have one just like procedural question and then we'll let you get off the hot seat. I noticed that some of the things you're implementing via policy and not rule. And I'm just wondering about the decision around policy versus rule. We're intending to implement them via rule. We're just trying to map out, articulate

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: what is the guidance we think the field will need and figure out what is best suited in rule versus policy. And so we're really writing both at the same time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Just so rules at least have a defined public process and policies don't necessarily, although I know you're doing a lot of internal work. Thank you, all three of you, Thank for being here this for having Really, really helpful.

[Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division (DCF)]: Appreciate your time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And it's actually good for those of us who were on committee two years ago to see the progression of implementation of the work that we did here. And appreciate, particularly you, Nancy, because I know you worked very hard on that process and continue that work as you move through trying to implement it.

[Lindsay Barron, Director of Policy and Planning, Family Services Division (DCF)]: So appreciative, Samantha. Thank you, everybody.

[Rep. Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank Thank you. Okay, we're gonna move topics, but we are going to take just a brief break. Sorry, folks here. I see you on the screen and people have started to filter into the room. So just going to take a ten minute break. Thank you