Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good morning. It's Friday, April 17. And this is Center Health Law Offer. Today we're taking up age six fifty seven for the first night and we're going to hear testimony that we'll have a walk through a little bit later when our counsel will be available. This is an act relating to various programming requirements for the PCF And Lauren, I'm really glad you're starting us off in a couple of town right now. DCF is also in the room and on Zoom I think. If you have any questions that DCF requires, please go ahead and introduce yourself.

[Speaker 1]: Sure. Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Florence. I'm deputy advocate with the Office of the Child and Family Advocates. Our office has through 2022 and then got up and running in 2023. We are here to advance the interests of children, new families impacted by DCF, All six divisions, but focusing on child protection and juvenile justice. My colleague, Matthew Bernstein, the Child Youth and Family Admigant, is home to the sick child. Yes, exactly. But we worked very

[Speaker 0]: hard on all of this stuff we're wanting to get out together.

[Speaker 1]: So to begin and dive right in and set some time, just so everyone has it, I sent out two handouts for you to have. One has a colorful map and another one is a letter to Governor Scott of the Administration for Children's Attemptance. And I'll reference them throughout testing. And I just want to start by saying I did not write this bill, but this feels like my bill. And I send many shout outs to House Human Services and to Katie who works very diligently on this huge omnibus bill. And I sit here with many of my identities, both personal and professional. So I sit here as a former consumer of Great Jeff as a child. I sit here as a social worker practicing in Vermont for over eleven years as a director of youth development or unaccompanied youth programs, and then also as a TCF worker, TCF supervisor, and now deputy advocate. And so when I reviewed the beginning testimony on Wednesday, I really appreciated the frame of what is the problem we're trying to solve, and then also who who were these sections help? Will this law help? So that's how I'm gonna frame the the testimony. So section one is referencing the reach of asset limit. I know there'll be further testimony after more specifically about that, but I would just say that I sit here as a child of a single mother who was on Reach Up as she worked her way through college to become a teacher, And the benefits were never enough to cover food or housing. And our basic needs were always subsidized by family members and their crucial support. So the problem we're trying to solve, right, is that we want Vermonters to have a chance to build up savings, to become self sufficient. We want them to have their own safety net, right? And this is so hard to do on Reach Up. We also know that there hasn't been a cost of living increase for Reach Up in five years, and our systems in Vermonters are still rebuilding after the inflation of COVID. And I think if we also know who we're trying to help, if we understand that 70% of the beneficiaries reach up are children,

[Speaker 0]: that is really our target population with that part of the legislation. And

[Speaker 1]: now I'd like to dive into sections two and three of social security benefits for children in Custody. And for that one, we'll reference the handout with the colorful map on it. And so for this section, I say here a deputy advocate, and the problem that we're trying to solve is that DCF claims the funds of those children in custody who are eligible for federal social security benefits. And they use those benefits to offset those children's foster care costs. This means children who have a deceased parent or receive disability pay a portion or all of their foster care costs, while other children who do not receive benefits do not. This practice is not unique to Vermont. It happens in other jurisdictions across the country, but it's clearly unfair and unjust, and most states are changing

[Speaker 0]: their practice.

[Speaker 1]: And so the map on your handout really shows that we have our wonderful little orange triangle, which represents six fifty seven, current legislation pending, to change this practice. And then you can see, the sort of teal color is important to note because those states changed their comprehensive reform, meaning they changed the practice of survivor benefits and disability benefits. And the blue is doing partial reform, right, because the federal government, the administrator for children and families, is really pressing to change for survivor benefits. So I do recognize that those are separate entities, but I also don't want us to solve one unfair practice by creating another unfair practice. So we would advocate for comprehensive reform. And so I think it's also important to understand the scope. So the impact is about 70 to 80 children in foster care who are eligible for either types of social security benefits. I say 70 to 80, right, because the number of children in custody, ebbs and flows. And DCF is working really hard to reduce the number of children in custody. And so that number, when we gave a webinar a couple years ago, was in the 80s and now it's more in the seventies. But they can speak more specifically to where it's at at a point in time to count. You also have the note from the drug fiscal office that it would take about $700,000 to make their budget whole, if you will. Because they're using these social security benefits that are children's benefits to pay for foster care, those benefits will no longer be able to be paying for foster care. So I understand our difficult fiscal situation, but I just wanna note that we have the idea of what would be needed. Right? Then if you also looked your handout for the letter that was sent to Governor Phil Scott and his administration in December 2025, That was sent by the Administration for Children and Families directly to him. This is the administration, federal administration, offering technical assistance, offering templates for executive orders, offering resources for implementation to change this practice. So I think also important to note, PCF wouldn't have to do this on their own. Other states have done this. The federal government's offering support. And I think this is the nice letter, right? This is the nice nudge of please change your practice. And that was in December. And so, I don't know what the next directive will look like. And so, I think it's important for us to take the opportunity to implement the changes in a way that will be successful in Vermont, the board. There are more specific instructions. And then I also want to note that two and three also represents a significant compromise by delaying implementation by two years. I'll let that sit there. Right? So we're not saying this is happening next year. Right? We've already compromised with DCF for children who are receiving social security benefits to delay implementation. So, I've heard a whisper

[Speaker 0]: that maybe it's 2027, so please correct my pronunciation.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. Any questions about that? Okay. Okay. Okay. Oh, that's not so hard yet.

[Speaker 0]: That the complaint is helping to pay for the care of children with children's veteran benefits. Is this the proposal to them? They just have to fix and check.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. Yes. That's a great question. Yep. And it's a very, like, it's a very long section in there. There are different mechanisms already existing in the state of Vermont in collaborations with the state treasurer's office and creating an ABLE account or type of trust accounts. Okay. That is not cutting them a check, holds the benefits, but still there's access to use it for what the children's needs are.

[Speaker 0]: So you've been actively involved in some of them? I'm not sure.

[Speaker 1]: I wouldn't amount, but I'm not sure. Because I know that They age out.

[Speaker 0]: They're 18 years old and you're all alone. May or may not have job training. Yep. May or may not have received any help with your disability. Yep. Hospital system. Yep. Is a way to teach your kids. Yep. The question father's pastors has something you said. This is something DCF wants to answer.

[Speaker 1]: It's about the baby box?

[Speaker 0]: About the mechanism for an COVID. Yes. Kids will get there. Sure.

[Speaker 1]: For the record, my name is Heather McLean and I'm the revenue enhancement director for DCF Family Services. And it's actually my unit that manages the Social Security process for children in foster care. So to answer your question the most simply, there's two different types of benefits that children in foster care get, as Lauren mentioned. One related to their own disability and one is survivor benefits for disabled or deceased parent. And those have very different rules. And so for SSI, which is based on a child's own disability, they would qualify for an ABLE account, which is a federal account that currently is run through the treasurer's office that children with SSI, their money would be there. When someone gets survivor benefits, we would have to have another mechanism, and that's something we're still trying to figure out exactly what that would be. Would that sit with the treasurer's office? Would it sit with the state and DCF? We just don't there's a lot of details we would need to work out.

[Speaker 0]: The 18 year olds have a large range of maturity. That is you know? And sometimes intellectual ability. Once they age out with the foster system, and I also have some concerns about foster family's ability to access that, but I also could understand why maybe in some circumstances they might. I just want I mean, I just wanna make sure when we do this, we have a system so that children running through the entire legal system saying 18 isn't an adult brain isn't developed. You know, to make sure that at the age of 18, I don't go out by myself, a huge gated system, you know, by not actually hitting. I

[Speaker 1]: can chime in on that if that would be helpful. For the record, I'm the Director of Education for Legislative Affairs for Family Services Division. I recently was the district director in St. Johnsbury, running that office, and I sympathize with the example, right? If you do have 18 year olds that age out of the system and choose to not engage with DCF or the development program after they age out of custody, and there is a significant amount of support that we are willing to provide after the age of 18, they have to agree. And so we do see I I can throw examples at you guys all day of real time field examples of that goes out and buys motorcycle. We're all very nervous for that. I have also seen some pretty beautiful situations where foster care providers are still, you know, allowing that youth, allowing, quote, unquote, to reside with them. There's funds attached to that. And so it is part of the system where we don't have a whole lot of control. Yeah. And the social worker and all of us says, please don't go out and buy a motorcycle. We know that-

[Speaker 0]: I'll do furniture. You have a woman on

[Speaker 2]: the ladder.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Laura, have your testimony in writing down the stairs? It's

[Speaker 1]: not as long as it seems.

[Speaker 0]: No, no. Would find

[Speaker 1]: it for you to test mode and write it. I'll make

[Speaker 0]: it prettier. Good, so I'm gonna suggest that allow Lauren to finish her test mode and run down your crutches for DCF. That's what this may happen. It should really go through. Yep. And and we have another folks who

[Speaker 1]: would like to test it. Great. And I would just respond to say, depending on the disability, some youth are aging into the public guardian, right, to help with that support if it's a severe disability requiring that, right? So that is possible. And I also wanna note, right, that I appreciate UCF chiming in. I think they're philosophically there, and so we're working on it together. And to your point, when we're working with Amy Harfeld, who's like the national expert on this change, the next steps are the hardest part. Once we are able to give the children the benefits that are their own, implementation is

[Speaker 0]: Well, go ahead and stand with me. Give your testimony. Okay. Because we have three or four other folks who I would like to hear from. Great.

[Speaker 1]: That's how we get to January. Okay. Very welcome. Alright, so then moving on to sections four, five, six, seven, and eight. So we get to combine all those and just breathe quickly. I sit here as the former director of youth development and overseeing two youth shelters in Brattleboro and in Bellwicks Falls. And what we were trying to solve with these sections is that programs serving this population need more tools in their toolbox, right? And you'll hear more testimony from a program directly later. But this does not negate the mandated reporting nor the responsibilities of DCF to respond to allegations of abuse or neglect of adolescents. Other companies need access to their vital records to enter school, access transportation and medical care, obtain employment and housing. I also want to note, there's been great discussion too in the House about, do you certify youth automatically, right? And no, right? The certification is not immediate. It comes after attempts for parental consent. Working with the youth is already well established, and you understand what the situation fully. And I also wanna say that there are many of these agencies serving this population are governed by commissioner designated shelters and federal youth services bureau requirements. So, the reporting and connection to law enforcement is also already in process.

[Speaker 0]: So, I'll refer to other programs to talk more about that.

[Speaker 1]: Sections nine, ten, and 11 address the secure transportation of children. The problem we're trying to solve there is that there are currently adult protections for those experiencing secure transport and no protections for children. So, what we're trying to do is really align protections for those experiencing secure transport. If you look at your handouts, still the first page towards the bottom, there's the transportation of children data. I know that was a question on Wednesday to Deputy Commissioner Erica Radke, and we had this discussion about what is really the scope of the number of transportations we're talking about. And so, what I think is important to note, I'm sorry that it's so small, that's how I could get it to fit, is that the numbers we're looking at is from 2021 to 2025, so four years, a big chunk of time, right? And there were twelve oh six secure transports for youth in custody for those years. And it breaks it down by

[Speaker 0]: part. Why is there such

[Speaker 1]: a big chest from 24 to 25? I haven't explored that, so I

[Speaker 0]: would be a question for you see that. Yep.

[Speaker 1]: And then you can also look how it's broken down by the types of restraints used per year, looking at anklets, hand and anklets, handcuffs, or waist chains. And so for not applicable, which is

[Speaker 0]: the minority, I just wanna note,

[Speaker 1]: there weren't any mechanical restraints on the children, but they were in the locked car, if you will. Right? So the scope we're really looking at is about 98 to report out of our four of those years. So I just want that to be considered when we're thinking of the burden of reporting both on sheriff's office, the state's attorneys, and then also on, yeah. Moving on to sections twelve, thirteen, and 14. This is non transport related restraint seclusion for children in DCF custody, a little bit for both, but I would say that sections twelve, thirteen, and 14 are some of the most important to our office. And I'm sitting here as a former DCF worker and supervisor of DCF's Residential Licensing and Special Investigations Unit, or RLSI. Within that team, or excuse me, within that unit was a small team that licensed and regulated residential treatment programs in Vermont, and that is where this section is focused. I was a member of that team when we were responsible for regulating Woodside. And I think it's important to note, it has been eight years, not six, eight years since the Residential Licensing and Special Investigations Unit released 11 reports demonstrating how Vermont law and regulation on restraint and seclusion is significantly inadequate to protect Vermont children from harm.

[Speaker 0]: So now it's the tenth.

[Speaker 1]: I'd like to note that script searching of children is allowed under state law in Vermont. It is allowable in DCF regulation. It is allowed in in state and out of state programs. In Vermont specifically, this practice occurs in locked facilities or detention facilities. It can be part of the admissions process, either moving from building to building on campus, or responding to concerns of pop treatment. I have interviewed children who have been script searched. I have reviewed videos of script searches and restraints of naked children. Children and young adults have consistently reported their bodies remember the restraints, the instances of seclusion, and any time adult hands are put on their bodies. It is also important to note the out of state implications that DCF identifies as a significant barrier. I recognize it from a business model, but these are Vermont children, and I care more about their experience than the business. And it's so impactful, and it's such a ingrained practice within the system of residential programs. Then in 2024, the United States Senate Committee on Finance released a report where houses of neglect help taxpayers are funding systemic abuse in youth residential treatment facilities. And so, on the backside of your handout, I would like to read one of the children's stories that they highlighted. And I'd also offer a trigger warning. This is very difficult to hear and to read. And it starts, Another child, eight seventeen miles away at Mill Creek Behavioral Health, Acadia, Arkansas, required monitoring for suicidal ideation following multiple suicide attempts. She was regularly strip searched and at least twice subjected to vaginal cavity searched. In 2018, the child was restrained by four staffers after she refused a strict search. During the restraint, the staffer touched her breasts and made her squat naked in the shower for a forced vaginal cavity search. Even

[Speaker 0]: though

[Speaker 1]: she endured the indignity of nightly strict searches, staff failed to notice evidence of new self harm on the child's body, scars and wounds, until Disability Rights Arkansas alerted staff to their existence. Years later, finally out of RTFs, she gave birth to two boys. Falling and overdosed, she lost custody of her sons, and two months later, died by overdose. When I read this, I about fell over because that is the Vermont child. And this story touches the restraint and seclusion portions, but also social security. Potentially, if she lost custody of those children and they were in DCF custody, DCF could have taken their survivor benefits.

[Speaker 0]: And

[Speaker 1]: so the second part, or the final parts of the handout really reiterate the data that we're seeing in restraint and seclusion that DCF is reporting to our office for our own SAC tube. What I think is also important to note, we can look at some of the data points or you all can on your own. In 2025, there were four sixty one total instances of restraint seclusion of children in DCM custody, and that is up from three twenty four in 2024. Really, I'm not assuming that people are, or programs are restraining kids more and more. DCF is improving their reporting system, and so I

[Speaker 0]: think that attributes the child.

[Speaker 1]: What we did find that is also specifically important to note, and that relates to this legislation and the need to pass six fifty seven, the high rate of restraint seclusion instances on children zero to ten years old. And we say zero to ten years old, that's really how we could anonymize and then also age children

[Speaker 0]: in youth.

[Speaker 1]: And so, that is the last part of the handout. So

[Speaker 0]: Lauren, I'm gonna ask you to go ahead and wrap up.

[Speaker 1]: Yes, near We're already over. Yes. Yep, so I think the only thing that I'll note then, specifically about the zero to ten year old cohort, if you will, they represented a disproportionate number of instances of restraint and seclusion and experiencing over eleven percent of children, but represented twenty nine percent of those experiencing restraint and seclusion. Per sections fifteen and sixteen, I think we're all done.

[Speaker 0]: Just send your written comments so that we can hear from our folks. I really appreciate what you are saying for us. Thank

[Speaker 1]: you, senator. I appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity.

[Speaker 0]: How hard you are working with the. So I know that

[Speaker 2]: John was the one we had on infiltrates, so I think as soon as John Ginny was put on. Yeah, he was here.

[Speaker 0]: He stepped out. Because the floor has some issues, our rich girls always be at the floor, the same kind of here. Welcome and we'll listen to I'm pretty lost in the back door.

[Speaker 1]: We're happy. Yeah. Because there's been a request for maybe the the youth that are online to go first because they have a tighter schedule than I have. So

[Speaker 0]: I don't know who's online. Are the

[Speaker 1]: Hang on. Youth. Yeah. So if it's alright with you changing the schedule and having the youth No.

[Speaker 0]: I'm fine with changing the schedule. Okay. That's why I think that's just Yeah,

[Speaker 1]: I'm happy to postpone my time.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, thank you. We do have time all morning for all the testimony. Great. It's very concerning for this time. Yeah, that's right. That's true. Queue them that. My

[Speaker 2]: only suggestion is if John comes in, I think we should narrow John to stay out.

[Speaker 0]: Sits in that chair. Yeah. Who's our therapy? Is something on the If you're online, you can pop in. Thank you. Hi.

[Speaker 3]: Hello. Thanks for having me today. And thank you for moving around the schedule as well. So my name is Rafael Abadi. I am a 17 year old high school junior from Addison County, who is a second year intern with Outright Vermont, and I also serve on the Youth Voice Committee of the Vermont State Youth Council. I'm also a member of Middlebury Teen Center's Board of Directors, where I work directly with young people who are navigating instability.

[Speaker 1]: Sorry. We have to interrupt because our lunch council just arrived. Can you come back to us in a little bit?

[Speaker 0]: Of course. Yes. Thank you. John, thanks for being here.

[Speaker 2]: For sure.

[Speaker 0]: I can't talk, so this is my voice. Sorry

[Speaker 4]: to hear that.

[Speaker 0]: I didn't have a couple of sections. So I like, just

[Speaker 4]: Just just do her. So I'm John Frae with the Office of Collective Council. I am sorry for the constant rush that swirls around me or something.

[Speaker 0]: I stuffed the little work in the house.

[Speaker 4]: I'm joining the Zoom now. I will screen share with you John my two sections, which begin on page two. It's the Social Security Benefits for Youth and Foster Care portion of the bill, starting in section two. I think you likely already have an intuitive sense of what these sections do, so I can walk through those sections fairly quickly, but just for orientation purposes, to remind you of what these are set up to do, the current practice, as I understand it, is that the Department of Children and Families serves as representative payee for certain dupes in their care. What that means is that under the Social Security Act, typically benefits go out to beneficiaries, and certain beneficiaries are not deemed competent, essentially, to manage their benefits. Someone steps in as their representative payee and manages the benefits on their behalf. That's sort of a relatively standard process for children. Right? Not automatically sort of competent to manage their own benefits. It is possible to be 18 and have that capacity. But in certain cases, the Department for Children and Families serves as the representative payee, and as I understand it, the current practice is that those funds are used to reimburse families for the care of children in their care. Last year, I believe it was, federal administration last year, the federal administration sent out a letter essentially asking that states stop using this practice of taking children's benefits and applying them for these purposes, sort of like the internal cost of running care for these children. And one consequence of this would be that you would expect the benefits to be conserved for the children over time. And so that's the idea behind this bill, trying to change that particular practice. So in section two, we are touching the definition section of the child welfare services chapter of Title 33. And the new pieces that you're gonna see, this will make more sense obviously as we go through by that section, but qualified ABLE account, this is on page three, line seven. It's a special kind of tax advantaged savings account that's available to folks who have a disability. So as you know, the Social Security Act provides benefits under a number of titles, and one of these some of some of these are based on income that's been earned over a lifetime right, so that's your dis insurance purposes. But we also have supplemental security income, and those payments that are made under time 16 of the Social Security Act go on a needs basis to folks who qualify and have a particular disability. So qualified ABLE accounts are these kinds of tax advantaged savings accounts that are available to folks who fall into that bucket. And so that's why Vincent called out here that the idea is to conserve funds on behalf of these children. The department may have available to them a particularly advantaged account, disqualified ABLE account for children who are qualifying for supplemental security income. So that's why you have this called out here. We've already talked about this subdivision six representative payee, just the person that is appointed by the Social Security Administration to manage Social Security benefits for a child. I don't think I need to belabor it, but just know that there's sort of a list of who would step in first as representative payee, and it's something that's noted in the federal administration's letter. A couple of technical terms here. Because different kinds of benefit under the Social Security Act are treated differently, Right? So certain are eligible to fall into this qualified ABLE account. We need to talk about the different kinds of benefits that child would receive in separate ways just to call out the correct kind of benefit. So subdivision seven is calling out those benefits that would be provided under title two of the Social Security Act. That's your retirement survivors or disability insurance benefits. Those are not needs based determinations. So those are not the sorts of things that a child receiving those would receive that would go to a qualified April account, for instance. They might just be put into a general trust account to be managed on behalf of the child. You got the call out to the Social Security Act if you wanna look at federal reference. Also, if you guys are more broadly interested in exploring, I I think this committee is probably familiar with more about the Social Security Act than I am, but there's very helpful handbooks and fact sheets available on the Social Security Administration website. Subdivision nine is a Social Security Benefits Abroad call out to capture all of the benefits that a child would receive either under title two or title 16 for purposes of these provisions. And then on page four, see the fall out to SSI benefits. These are those supplemental security income benefits. Those are need based information, right, that someone with a disability, and those have, so we get to the managing process, they have a There are resource limitations available, as you can imagine, because these are needs based determination, and so you can trip a resource limitation if you accrue too much in benefits essentially. So that's something that is contemplated in section three, which is the four of the preventive. On page four, section three is creating a new section in the same chapter to talk about what the department should do in managing those Social Security judgments. So subsection a is the main prohibition that is responding to that directive to stop diverting funds. That's that's the generic way in which that's called out. You can subscribe or not to try to that particular view of what's being done, but this is subject in a is responding to the directive to not use those child children's benefits for their current and reasonably foreseeable needs. Those costs would need to be internalized by the department and borne in their their budgets, essentially. So subject in aid says that the department shall not use any portion of a child's Social Security benefits to offset the state's costs for the child's maintenance, so that's your current and reasonably foreseeable needs, except to maintain the child's eligibility for SSI benefits and to avoid a violation of federal asset or resource limits. So this is what was just foreshadowed, is that because you can't trip a resource limitation on the SSI benefits, meaning if you reach if you approach a certain threshold, you would no longer be eligible to receive those benefits. This is saying manage the child's benefits in a way that don't hit that wire, so you don't render them ineligible for SSI benefits, but otherwise do not expend those funds for the child to accept in a very specific way. Subsection B, this is allowing the child or their provider to make a request to use funds in particular ways. So upon the request of the child to the child's foster care provider, the department, in its capacity of regular paying, may use the child's Social Security benefits, so from either bucket, Title II, Title 16, or the child's unmet needs, that's those that are above the current and reasonably foreseeable needs, say, you may use those benefits for the child's unmet needs beyond the amount that the state is obligated, required, or agrees to pay for the care of the child. So just to give a hypothetical, that the child is in foster care and wants to attend a particular class that's above the current and recently foreseeable needs. This is say that the child could make a request to the department to say, do expend these funds for this. I would like to attend this particular class. A is not trying to establish a broad limitation, complete prohibition against use of those benefits for what the child would like to do. It's just saying that the default should basically be concern these for the child's future, or if there's a request to use it above their unmet needs that the state is required to provide for, you could do that as well. And then subsection c is setting up the kind of management process of those funds. So in its capacity, it's representative pay for a child, and with the assistance of the state treasurer, this is gonna contemplate the establishment of different kinds of accounts for these children, The department shall, one, establish a trust account for the child, which shall be a qualified PayPal account for any child receiving SSI benefits. So this is one of the directives that recognizes the distinction between the kinds of benefits that children might receive. It's saying you need to assign to account for this. It's not trying to be prescriptive as to what the accounts would be except in the instance of a child receiving SSI benefits there. You need to use a qualified ABLE account, which is sort of most of their impact. Two, monitor any federal asset or resource limits for the child's SSI benefits. Again, because that's that needs based determination, make sure you're not tripping that wire. Three, ensure that the child's best interests are served by using the child's Social Security benefits for the child's unmet needs, what we somewhat talked about in that sub b requesting in the class, or conserving the child's Social Security benefits in a way that avoids violating any federal asset or resource limits that would affect the child's ability to receive SSI benefits. So again, you've already heard the idea, it's default rule. Don't apply these to the child's cost. They should be borne by the department itself, but you can apply to unmet needs above that amount, and you can also be concerned for the future to bulk trip or resource limitation. Switch a little bit in the directive in subdivision four. Appeal any denied application for SSI benefits submitted on behalf of the child. What this is saying is that not all children come in having that eligibility condition or having applied for certain benefits that they might be eligible to receive. This is saying in the instance when there has been an application to that child, the department would be obligated to appeal that application to try to maximize the benefits that will contribute to the child. And then lastly, provide an annual accounting of the use application or conservation of the child's benefits, including any payments made under subsection b, thus those requests were above those unmet needs. And those, as I referred, would go to the child, the child's parent, legal guardian, or counsel, the the family division, the spirit of authority, and the opposite of child community and family benefit. That is it for my sections. Happy to answer questions.

[Speaker 0]: You have two questions. Okay. So

[Speaker 5]: I look at what the feds have done to social security program, they've rated it for all kinds of things. What protection is there in this bill that if we set the money aside for these children, that somehow the state doesn't have any for some reason with the intent we will pay them back when So the child needs

[Speaker 4]: the assurance that's provided here is that they are trusted counsel on behalf of the children, meaning that the state is acting in the role as trustee for the children as beneficiary, and they have a fiduciary obligation to use those to meet the best needs of the child. Even beyond that, that is the obligation for the receipt of the benefits as a representative payee in the first instance. So while I don't know a lot about the process, that is what is required representative that can pay under federal law. Presumably, if you are violating your basic requirements to manage the benefits on behalf of the children, there would be a process to address that. But, yeah, I I think the easy way to address your question is to say that these are trust accounts established before.

[Speaker 0]: Under

[Speaker 2]: section 3c, the review. Yes. Ensure To that the child's best interests are served by using the child's social security limits with child's unmet needs or conserving the child's social security limits in any way that avoids where they can go. The question is who gets determined

[Speaker 4]: Is it applicable or you're equal or no? Then are

[Speaker 2]: there gonna be rules and guidelines set up saying what you can be doing?

[Speaker 4]: Sure. Yeah. So I don't know that I'm best positioned to answer this, but I would I note that this is a process the department is already doing where it serves as representative payee. Not this particular process envisioned in the bill, but it is currently an obligation to the department to manage funds on behalf of the children, and there are obligations under federal law to provide these for sorry. Let me screen share. I actually meant to do this earlier. I'm gonna pull up. Let's see. There is a handbook, the Social Security handbook, and maybe this is helpful to see. This is already set out under federal law. Right? So and you can see the prescriptions as to proper use of funds, spend for the beneficiaries current and reasonably foreseeable needs, or save or invest for the beneficiary. And it speaks to how these can be applied in different other ways. I'm not an expert in this space at all, but there are many existing rules and laws to describe how how these are done. Okay. I just didn't want there

[Speaker 2]: to be a wide range of what some people say are As long as there's something there, some guidelines.

[Speaker 0]: I was trying to see DCF. I haven't wanted to check with any questions.

[Speaker 4]: I think they will be better in possession to talk about how the actual process of public speech.

[Speaker 0]: So there's a distinction between what the department is doing and what the trench was doing.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. What you can see in the language is the department would be standing in as the representative, so they're the ones essentially managing the funds itself. The idea you see in the bill is the stand up accounts for the children. The bill isn't especially doesn't go into detail as to how this would work. The sort of the background thinking is that these would be at the treasurer's account, and there would be a process where the treasurer isn't acting in any way that the representative payee not serving in a large function other than standing up the accounts themselves, but the department would maintain the responsibilities in every other way that you see contemplated here.

[Speaker 0]: Respondency separation.

[Speaker 4]: Yes. Yeah, this doesn't lead to any sort of representative payee type roles for the treasurer's office.

[Speaker 0]: Other questions? Is there a federal mandate that we do this?

[Speaker 4]: There was a letter that came But there's not a law. No. And I started to address this at the beginning. I don't really wanna tread into the politics of the situation, but there's sometimes framing around this that what is currently done is illegal, and I do wanna be clear, is not illegal to use benefits. If you think about it, it's actually intuitive what is currently done applying benefits to the needs of the children, which are provided through the foster care system. This just increases the resources that would be available to children, but it's not illegal to do what

[Speaker 2]: is currently. Thank you, ma'am.

[Speaker 0]: Why this administration suddenly so concerned about children, which that's another area, food stamps and housing and. But this is social security's mental money. The state is using social security SSI payments to pay for more food, shelter, foster care. This if we do this, then the payment becomes arguably the state is the one that takes kids in the foster care. State takes kids in the foster care. States could have to pay for the food and the shelter. At the end, all those federal funds are going to be given to an 18 year old may or may not handle the. I'm just questioning whether or not that process. So we'll Thank you, John, very much.

[Speaker 4]: Are you at school if I leave? Welcome

[Speaker 0]: to my world. Every one of my lawyers and finance people have been changed. I was very hand. We probably know where to find you. I know. Will not be available after generalist doesn't go right to Rafael. Rafael, did you hear that? You're up. Okay. There we go.

[Speaker 3]: Yes. I did hear that. Great. Thank you. Okay. Well, my name is Rafael Abadi. Again, I am a 17 year old high school junior from Addison County who is a second year intern with Outright Vermont and also serves on the Youth Voice Committee of the Vermont State Youth Council. And I am also a member of Middlebury Teen Center's Board of Directors, where I work directly with young people who are navigating instability, family conflict, and housing insecurity. And throughout these roles, have seen firsthand the results of unaccompanied youth being denied basic autonomy and what they need to stay safe. Because of this, I'm in support of H657, a bill that is endorsed by the Vermont State Youth Council, and I'm here today in my capacity as an outright intern. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you all today. Within Vermont, many young people are relying on adults who are not present, not supportive, or unsafe. And when youth do not have a stable, reliable caregiver, every barrier can become life altering. Issues such as accessing medical care, mental health support, or signing a housing document are impossible without a parent or guardian's consent. Young Vermonters will delay care, stay in unsafe situations, or couch surf with adults simply because they lack the legal ability to make decisions for themselves. As you know, Vermont has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country. In 2023, three thousand two hundred and ninety five Vermonters were experiencing homelessness, a number that has tripled since 2019 and increased 19% in just one year. While the lack of housing affects all ages, youth, especially queer and trans youth, are significant and often hidden part of this population. H-six 57 directly addresses this gap by allowing unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain essential services without parental consent. This bill addresses the reality that many Vermont teens are facing, When they are already on their own and facing issues that no teen should have to face alone, our laws should not force young Vermonters to depend on adults who are absent, unsafe, or unwilling to support them. They deserve the dignity of making their own decisions in order to build a life on their own terms. They deserve systems that recognize their reality, not ones that deny them care because an adult from their lives is absent. They deserve the chance to make decisions that protect their well-being rather than being dependent on people who cannot or will not show up for them. From my work within my community, I can tell you that the difference between stability and crisis often comes down to whether a young person can access help in the moment that they need it. Age 60, age 67 gives them that chance. Gives service providers clarity and it gives youth the autonomy many are already exercising each day without the legal recognition that keeps them safe. I'm also in support of the amendment allowing unaccompanied youth to obtain a certification without parental or adult consent. These young people are already living independently, therefore requiring consent from an adult who is absent, unsafe, or unwilling to support them is exactly the kind of legal trap that this Bill hopes to eliminate. Vermont prides itself on being a State that listens to and protects its young people. Passing age six fifty seven is a necessary step towards living up to that value, And I urge you to support this bill and ensure that unaccompanied homeless youth are not left navigating adulthood without the rights that they need to survive it. Thank you for your time and continuous work for the betterment of Vermont.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you very much. Okay. And I think we're gonna move right on to Fiona. Is Fiona here? Yes. Thank you very much, committee. I did hear you. Go right ahead, Fiona. Introduce yourself for the record. My name is Fiona Taylor, and I am here today as a part of Outright Vermont as a GSA member, Gay Straight Alliance or gender and sexuality member. And I am a member of the committee of Otter Valley Youth School. And I want to I hope to speak on bill h six fifty seven on the side of urging this committee to pass that bill and to share the experience of those around me and support the testimony you've heard by the voice of children upon the goals of the bill so they can be supported in in these I fall into the category of low income housing as in with my As such, I have been lucky enough to never have experience directly. Thus, I cannot directly speak upon them. However, I have seen the effects of a lack of housing of stable housing done to work. Because of this, I would like to people in my life who have dealt with who have dealt with this person school this bill would benefit.

[Speaker 1]: Fiona, we're having a hard time hearing you. Wondering if either maybe you either shut off your video or just until

[Speaker 0]: you turn on the call. You're made closer to the mic. Forget what yeah. Run my

[Speaker 6]: Yeah. I'm so sorry. My computer was having some troubles earlier. K. Can you hear me alright now?

[Speaker 1]: A little better. Alright.

[Speaker 0]: Go ahead.

[Speaker 6]: As said, I would like to share the experience of those who have directly been impacted by the things this bill hopes to change. A good friend of mine was kind enough to share his experience with me and told me a story about in his childhood. His family on occasion couldn't afford to pay their rent, and this led them to often having to move into with his aunt while they

[Speaker 0]: were

[Speaker 6]: unhoused. He mentioned to me that he was along the very lucky group and had support when they were housed and gave that support to those who were struggling. Another example of a similar experience is that of my very own mother. I remember hearing my mother talk these stories to me and my sibling about her childhood, and she would recount that her and her family lived in an apple orchard without any real form of housing. And if I'm not mistaken, she said they lived in an RV. And she has she has a plethora of stories just like this because of how her family unfortunately had to live. She was also lucky enough to have a great system of support of family throughout the New England area, and this caused her to move around a lot. But she also simply didn't have the life that many normal children have. And the presence of this bill would have helped to aid both families in the event that they did not have that support around them. I can comfortably say as a result that no child should ever have to go through something like this to begin with. But when it does unfortunately happen, there should be far better support for youth such as mentioned in section 4.3, BSA in 04/2008 assembly provided accompanied youth part of the bill unaccompanied youth part of the bill. It is the intent of the general assembly to provide an unaccompanied youth with the resources necessary to obtain services and benefits that an unaccompanied youth peers can attain without the consent of a parent or guardian. I am extremely lucky to have had a childhood where unlike my mother and friend, I didn't have to worry about housing or where I might sleep or eat the next day. With the experience I have recounted today, I strongly urge the health and welfare to committee to pass the bill h six fifty seven so that no make youth would have to shoulder the burden of this and being unhoused without any form of support. Thank you again very much for your time today, and I'm sorry for any technical interferences that may have made my testimony odd.

[Speaker 0]: All right. Thank you, Fiona. And please send your testimony in to us. You can send it to Melissa electronically so we have it all back.

[Speaker 6]: All right.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Okay. So, thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you so much for having me. For the record, my name is Kate Bailey. I'm the senior policy advocate at Voices for Vermont's Children. In the interest of time, I passed out some handouts with some more information that I won't be able to get to today. And Voices for Vermont's Children was established in 1983, and we promote public policy that enhances the lives of children in. We broadly support h six fifty seven, and we encourage you to pass the bill in its entirety. I my my testimony is focused specifically on section one, the eliminating of the asset limit for reach out. I do feel compelled after hearing our our youth advocates speak to remind the committee that there are important opportunities in this bill to prevent harm, to prevent trauma, to grant rights and resources to young people. And rights and physical safety and emotional safety is incredibly important, but children, when they are 18, when they are edging out of the system, need resources. I understand the challenges and the hypotheticals we talked about this morning, but I don't think the solution to that is for folks to age out of

[Speaker 0]: the foster system with $0 in their baby.

[Speaker 1]: So with that, I will go to my five minute explainer of the Reach Up program and why we should eliminate the asset limit for Reach Up. So who does Reach Up serve? Reach Up or the nationally called TANF Patch Assistance serves very low income families. 70% of beneficiaries are children in Vermont. The maximum allowed monthly benefit for a household of three is between $8.50 and $8.80 a month, which is less than 40% of the federal poverty level. The state's testimony suggested that a family whose financial situation had changed to the degree that they were no longer experiencing genuine financial hardship might remain enrolled in Reach Up if the asset limit was removed. This does not withstand reasonable scrutiny. The Reach Up program rules span 92 pages. They lay out a wide array of eligibility conditions, such as requiring a regular contact with case managers to track progress on a family development plan, and the rules currently count lump sums as income, not as an asset. Participants

[Speaker 2]: are

[Speaker 1]: subject to significant oversight and control. This is not a condition that people choose if they have other options. The administration also suggested that by eliminating the asset limit, people could get reach up during short stints between employment. Reach Up already has a number of rules which encourage or require people to explore other resources of support first, including unemployment insurance benefits. For example, a first year starting teacher with $44,000 salary would be eligible for $700 weekly on an un un insurance benefits. That is significantly more than the $8.50 a month pre check benefit. Nationally, data from the Administration for Families and Children at the US Department of Health and Human Services in 2020 found that only 11% of families had any cash resources in the TANF program. The average cash amount of on hand for these families is $329. This policy change may impact just a small number of families, but it will help those families navigate towards sustainable economic security and prevent disruption of basic needs like food and housing that gets count on. So why make this change? I heard on Wednesday, you know, what's the problem we're trying to solve? Research from the national I was paying attention. Research from the National Center of Children in Poverty shows that states policies for cash assistance can have important protective effects on outcomes related to child well-being. Policies that expand access to cash assistance are associated with decreases in the fostering care system and decreases in child abuse and neglect. The data tells us that eliminating the asset limit is fiscally responsible for families and for state governments by streamlining an overly complicated eligibility process with complex rules to follow. In Virginia, they found that the state spent approximately 127,000 more on benefits after eliminating their asset limit, but they had an estimated cost savings of approximately 323,000 cost savings and administrative staff time, resulting in a net savings of 195,000 States that have eliminated asset limits have found that the resulting administrative cost savings significantly outweighs any increase in the number of families receiving benefits. Asset limits penalize savings. They force families to spend down modest assets in order to qualify for essential benefits during periods of income instability. By discouraging savings, asset limits ensure that families remain one emergency away from deepening poverty, defeating the purpose of a program designed to promote economic mobility. Specifically, the asset limit creates obstacles to secure reliable transportation, and transportation was identified as the top barrier preventing workforce entry and economic mobility in the 2025 Reach Up Evaluation Report. Other highlighted financial barriers are housing and education and job training, which the asset which building assets would help alleviate. Vermont has eliminated asset limits for other Safety Net programs, including Three Squares Vermont, the Medicaid programs, and fuel assistance to cut unnecessary administrative costs and support asset building, a proven strategy to advance economic mobility. VOICES appreciates that h five seven will align Reach Up with the same standard. It's also worth noting again, as Lauren noted, that those benefits programs automatically adjust for cost of living, the Reach Up program does not. So how much would this cost? According to previous JFO analysis 2017, the policy change would have little or no impact on the state budget. The asset limit was increased from 2,000 to 9,000 in 2017, and the fiscal note at that time presented stated that DCF, there would be a negligible budget impact between lifting the limit and eliminating it altogether. The decision to settle on a $9,000 asset limit at that time was ideological, not fiscal. The JFO now estimates it would cost as much as a $140,000 in fiscal year twenty seven. Considering the federal tax on anti poverty initiatives, the current house budget already cuts the reach up program by $3,400,000 in fiscal year twenty seven. Passing this legislation is the least we can do for families and youth economic security. The asset testing proves unnecessary administrative costs to state agencies that administer REACHUP. The JFO analysis does not include the potential savings program. There are nine states that have eliminated the asset limit for their TANF programs. Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Another 14 states have higher limits or broader ranges of exemptions to the asset limit. Ohio was the first state to eliminate their TANF limit asset limit in 1997. Since then, there's no been no measurable increase in the number of families receiving assistance with this change. So from a cost perspective, raising the asset limit is less desirable than eliminating the asset limit altogether. There would still be administrative costs involved with the individualized eligibility determinations and verifications. There would still be a harmful stigma on savings among reach out benefits. This legislation offers a small change that could make a huge difference in those rare cases where the asset limit comes into play and improves the long term prospects for economic mobility for the 6,000 most disadvantaged Vermont children on this program. Thanks for your consideration.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Can you send your test as well as your I will, yes. Thank for

[Speaker 2]: the handouts. So worst case scenario, sounds like JFO's saying $140,000 You also said that they eliminate the asset tests in other programs. Yeah. Did you see savings in those other programs?

[Speaker 1]: I don't have the the other programs to have it in front of me, and it's quite complicated because asset limits are only one part of complicated So

[Speaker 2]: I would rather be concerned than say it's gonna cost about $4,000 just for it may save some, but I don't know it's easily home. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with this, so.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Christina

[Speaker 0]: Brown is up there. Christina, can you please be patient? Thank you.

[Speaker 2]: I'll try to be quick. Good. Just because

[Speaker 5]: that makes Terrible.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. I'm getting called the way to the age of 57. Oh, Let me get in person here. Oh, well, do you have a test note? Do I need

[Speaker 0]: to

[Speaker 2]: I'm sorry to jump in. No,

[Speaker 0]: don't be sorry

[Speaker 2]: So there's the one four. Okay. And I'll talk about. Alright. Let's. A lot of people. You can't see them all, but they're all there. Alright. There it is. For the record, all language, our fiscal office, I'm posting, I'm putting my fiscal note up. The tapes stole my thunder. So section one, it's elimination of the asset test. So that estimate, 140,000, is based on information that was provided to me by DCF. Essentially, we don't know how many people would become eligible under this new rule, but they provided me with what happened in fiscal year twenty five. At that time, there were 18 cases where people were denied because their incomes were over the resource limit, so if you take the average cost per month, that's $6.46, you multiply it by 18, I use that as a proxy to kinda get a sense of assuming that amount of cases that were denied because of eligibility, that's where I got the 140. It could be more, it could be less. That's just the impact. Again, that's the estimated. We would know if we're doing past this, then they would obviously have they would have a perfect experience going forward. That number could be higher or could be lower, but that's the impact of using 25 as a proxy, how much more the program could cost if you eliminate the asset limit. The second piece, section three is social security benefit for infant foster care. So basically, I think that they explained it well. Right now, that money, DCF is taking that money, and they're using that money to take to the program. It would be a source of, I would say, a revenue cut, but if they would have seven, when I first talked to them, they said it was 700,000. The last estimate I heard would be 812,000. So it's just a reduction in money to pay for the program for them, so you just have to backfill that. They're using that money to pay for the program. That's a reduction of their revenue, or how they pay for To the the point, that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to get that money back. That one, however, would be a fiscal year twenty eight impact. Actually, if you go to the diagram, it's simple. This is sort of like, this mostly fills a staggered between two years. The So 140,000 would take effect in fiscal year twenty seventh. The Social Security benefit could take effect in fiscal year twenty eight. So in essence, that gives the department time to build this into their budget more than 2,000. And then the other stuff is relatively nominal, like a reduction of fees, motorcycle fees. That stuff is nominal. We don't know how much it be, but it's not gonna The impact could be competitiveness. Then there's a working group. Again, we adore de minimis. This folks, they did the life under 32 BSA. Ten ten allows people to receive PMs. If it's not done, they would have spoken by work. Not a lot of people can be captured within the D-fifty budget the market. And then the same thing for prenatal family working groups. Same thing there. Folks are also DMs. Again, it's de minimis. To Brady's credit, I didn't happen to work with de minimis, so we'd push them. I always liked you to work with MMS. I'm glad it brings We

[Speaker 0]: have a new one, non de

[Speaker 2]: Oh, non de How about non, so this is non non de minimis. Then finally, I just add other considerations. There could be additional administrative costs that are associated with the pill, but have not already been identified. That is the high level. Just a quick question on section three.

[Speaker 0]: That was calculated based on what year?

[Speaker 2]: So that's what DCF says that they would, the amount of money that they would have to pay out or provide, would no longer, so it's been done over from CCS. Because they can no longer assume it as part of their budget revenue Based to profit and profit

[Speaker 0]: on what, what did you base that? How did you discover?

[Speaker 2]: Anyone from BCF, no?

[Speaker 1]: Yes. Miranda Drey is actually on the Zoom, and I'm not sure if she's in or not, but she could speak to the economic services.

[Speaker 2]: Can we put a pin in that and have her

[Speaker 0]: answer That's all I need, just to know how it would be.

[Speaker 2]: The other piece, and I forgot, I skipped over it, is DCF also told me that they would need additional FTD to implement the requirements around appeals to denied applications. They said it would be, based on assuming it would be pay grade 24, you then in wages and benefits, they're saying they would need a full time position, which would be about $124,000 annualized. Again, would be a twenty eighth issue. If you, so you don't have to budget it in this budget, but just know that if you pass this bill, you're requiring DCF to either A, their budget will either include this, or B, their budget will specifically exclude this. It's a 28 issue, you're committing to it, or to some analysis. In the appropriation bill that came over for the Senate, was the 840,000 included in the appropriation bill? The 140 was. They did account for it in the 800, or 700, or 800, whatever that says. Seven of my thing, that's 28 issues, so it wouldn't be in the issue of budget. 148, the House did account for it in their budget. Like you, when they passed the bill, they have to account for it in their budget. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Questions? Okay. And so you heard questions about the 700,004 is left. Alright. You want the question about the 900,000 for exterminatory. Just wanna know how I have the lady here. How are you guys Still or 800 now, whatever.

[Speaker 1]: So that is specific so that's related to the Social Security benefits, and that is based on actual analysis of the benefits that we have received versus the costs that we have paid for housing care. Oh,

[Speaker 2]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 0]: It's only for one year. Annually. Can we look at that annual expenditure or over the past couple of years? Yep. Yes. Thank you. Alright.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. No. Thank you for. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Now we well, we already work with John Dre. So we have Julie and then Dan, our representatives. Do they wanna be together? Do you wanna be together? Thank

[Speaker 1]: you. Glad we made it in. So I know you've already started taking testimony, but we can I can give you some background first? Last summer and fall, my chair, representative Wood, gave rep Donaghue and I some off session homework. We've noticed that on our wall, and a lot of the testimony we were hearing, a lot of just this overarching theme that youth are gonna be struggling to transition out of our systems. So we just kind of had a

[Speaker 0]: general, Martine, I'll stop you with apologies. I don't think Christina Brown has testified. We interrupted her testimony earlier. So I'm going to suggest you stay right where you are. Okay. Yep, sir. Then we ask Christina

[Speaker 7]: Thanks so much. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Christina Brown. I'm the chief program officer at Spectrum Youth and Family Services. For those who aren't familiar with our work at Spectrum, we serve over 1,300 youth each year between the ages of 12 and 30 years old with services that focus on prevention and intervention, life skills, and basic needs. We provide crisis stabilization, employment coaching, outpatient mental health and substance use counseling, mentoring, affinity spaces, food and material resources, and housing stabilization services, including up to 30 beds for youth experiencing homelessness in Chittenden County and an additional 10 in Franklin County. Many of the youth that we see coming through our shelter programs have been in state custody at some point in their lives, and we see and hear from them directly the ways in which these early experiences of systems involvement have lasting effects on their mental health, stability, and sense of autonomy. Spectrum staff will work tirelessly alongside these youth to ensure that their experiences of homelessness are brief and nonrecurring, and we often find ourselves questioning what interventions could have been applied sooner to prevent these young people from exiting state custody and entering homelessness. Age six fifty seven helps to answer that question. Unaccompanied minors who are able to consent to their own access to services and resources that they desperately need in the moment that they seek them will be less likely to need those services long term. In 2019, DCF approached Spectrum to start what is called This is a case management program intended to serve youth ages 12 to 23 who are in need of stabilization services. One goal of this program is to prevent youth from entering DCF custody. We provided this service to youth and families in Chittenden County for several years before expanding to also serve Franklin County. Often, COMPASS clinicians encounter youth in need of crisis stabilization support, but whose guardian is absent or otherwise unable to engage with service providers outreach despite the significant time and effort dedicated to making these connections. It is rare that a guardian is unwilling to consent to their child accessing our services, it is much more common that the guardian is struggling to engage to the degree necessary to provide consent. These youth are on the cusp of receiving sometimes truly life saving care and these clinicians are left in a position of weighing the degree of risk if this young person is left unserved. H six fifty seven creates a pathway to care and resources for some of our most vulnerable community members. By bridging those connections early and with their agency intact, youth are able to build networks of support that can prevent them from experiencing long term homelessness into adulthood. Beyond increasing access to critical supportive services and necessary documentation, h six fifty seven sections two and three outline another critical and long overdue prevention measure to ensure that youth in foster care are given access to their own social security benefits. At Spectrum, we have piloted a program to provide temporary financial support to youth, specifically reaching youth who are experiencing homelessness and are at the greatest risk of long term instability. The program is called Direct Cash Transfers. It was developed over several years drawing on research from Chapin Hall, a policy research center focused on child welfare based out of the University of Chicago. Through our Direct Cash Transfer program, we provide a cohort of youth $1,500 a month for eighteen months. Since launching the program, we have witnessed these funds go towards building a credit history, covering a down payment on a car, paying off debts, moving costs to live closer to family, and rent for their own apartments. Youth in these programs report more financial, mental health, and housing stability, increased hopefulness about their future, and a greater ability to make progress towards their goals. For youth exiting foster care, access to their social security benefits can be the difference between stability and long term experiences of homelessness. It is incumbent upon the state of Vermont to pass h six fifty seven and ensure that these benefits be protected for our community's most vulnerable youth and that their autonomy be preserved in accessing these funds for their transition into adulthood. As a shelter operator, I am focused on how we can intervene to make sure that youth homelessness is rare, brief, and non recurring, and how we can prevent youth from entering our shelters in the first place. I see young people every day come through our shelter programs who have no identifying documents, no money, and no natural supports to lean on. I look at age six fifty seven, and I see an opportunity to resource these young people early with the autonomy to access the care and support that they need when they need it, and the financial safety net that they are owed for a stable transition into adulthood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you, Christina. Appreciate that. I spoken with Mark and

[Speaker 0]: Redmond before about the direct cash transfers, they do seem to be successful. Thanks for bringing that up.

[Speaker 7]: Absolutely. Yes. The direct cash transfer program has been incredibly impactful for the youth who have participated.

[Speaker 0]: Awesome. Great. Does anyone have any questions for Christine or?

[Speaker 1]: Okay. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 0]: Have a good weekend. Maybe we'll pivot back to our representatives and always say, I know we were interested.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Oh, no. I have such a wonderful interruption.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: So we we started thinking we took a look at the bills that were already on their wall, some that were in other committees that were related and discarded some, and kind of created this one big bill where we became the DCF omnibus bill, is what we've taken to calling it. It's really aimed at reducing trauma. I don't think we're ever gonna completely be able to eliminate, at least not any time soon, the trauma that these this group of of youth experiencing, but we can reduce it, and and we can give them, you know, tools to thrive. So you can go over the main parts, then we can kinda Yeah. So there's the reach up asset limit, which you just heard about, social security benefits for daily foster care. We've got the section on unaccompanied youth, then mechanical restraints and transportation, restraints and inclusion standards for children in DCF custody. And then there's a report which I can kind of or a process that we're hoping to where federal money we're hoping to to tap into that's available that would provide extended supports for children exiting state care, and then there's the working group. I can I mean, we can start with the reach up asset limits? This is, I mean, think we've got a really great explanation of it, but I'm happy to chat more about that if you all have any questions.

[Speaker 0]: Well, hope we go through everything we each have to say. Sure. Okay. And now that we can have some questions because we need to re add some testimony to have something additional before sort of verifying. I mean I know you've done a lot of work, haven't you?

[Speaker 1]: Yeah, yeah. So the Reach Up, Reach Up as a program, it's something that I I spent a lot of time thinking about. And we have really, over this last biennium, have really struggled to find a way that we can strengthen this program and its impact on the families who need to use it. I was someone who was on boot check when I was a young single mom, and it allowed me to stabilize. It gave me space, to figure out a path, to do all of the things, to ensure my daughter and I were healthy and meeting our needs. So, you know, we've looked at a few different things, and this just seemed like a simple way to make some progress on that while also simplifying the administrative tasks related to it. We've already eliminated the asset limit and things like Greek squares and the fuel assistance. So this is just kind of bringing

[Speaker 0]: us in line with our other economic service programs. That is very helpful. Thank you. And

[Speaker 2]: I actually worked on section two of the bill, which is Social Security benefits, three. Yes, sorry. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Back For the record, sir, of Robbie said that we're doing for Pardon me? For the record. Oh, for the

[Speaker 2]: record, Dan Noyes, representative for Wilkie, Hyde Park, Johnson, and Belvinger.

[Speaker 1]: And for the record, I didn't say it either. I do believe you're open. I represent Red Port Middlebury. You can become a Breach. Great.

[Speaker 2]: So, actually this situation came up to me back when we were working on the Office of Child Advocate, when I was first starting on that legislation. You know, I had heard about youth in the custody of the state who were receiving or eligible for Social Security benefits, didn't receive it. Kind of had my focus on a bunch of other things at that time. And then when we moved into really looking at baby bumpers, as Christina was talking about, we went into Spectrum and were meeting with some of the youth there. And one young woman who grew up in foster care and then entered this program at Spectrum where it's kind of like a UBI based, university based income. And she spoke about her experience and what she did with the money. And she was talking about buying shoes and a mattress. Like, she was talking about never having had a her own mattress. And it really it really resonated, it really touched me. I was like, well, I grew up, I'm never worried about whatever my mattress was in front of her or anything. And thought, you know, here's this young woman who's exiting foster care, has access to these funds, basically do whatever she wanted with them. She was really focusing on basic needs. Like, you know, as you heard, people getting an apartment in a car so that they could get around and have mobility, or putting a down payment on a apartment. I look to this in many ways as a way to help these young people that are exiting foster care, that are eligible for these benefits, to be able to have some of that initial funding to get started. And I know there's a, you know, I've talked to the from a bankers association about, hey, could we provide some financial literacy through the banks or programs so that when you are, 14, 15 years old, moving through the foster care system, is there a way that we could provide some financial literacy? And I talked to the treasurer about that, as well as Vermont Bankers, and Vermont Bankers was like, there's tons of programs for this, and he would love to partner and help these children. So I think there are some resources out there, and this, by putting this extension on the time frame, I think it really does give us an opportunity to kinda flesh out some of the ways to make sure we set these children up so that when they receive this money, know, maybe they got some basic financial literacy that they can fall back on. So, you know, I looked at, I put this bill in a couple of years ago, and I put it again. I was glad to see it included in here. So I hope that we consider moving forward with this. And I know there was some discussion around, when Nolan was talking about, what was it called, if they're denied their benefits. So we apply, he comes into custody, whatever their parental situation is, are determined to be eligible. And if they're denied, I'm not asking that the department launch a legal thing to Social Security. We actually heard from the Defender General, Sustained

[Speaker 0]: Martial Paul.

[Speaker 2]: Martial Paul. And he was like, yeah, just bring them to me. I'm I'm interested in helping out with this. I think it's more on the appeals, like, you know, was there a mistake in the paperwork? Is it something that could be, you know, just corrected? I'm not saying, like, launch a, you know, whole legal appeal to society. That's probably a little more than the department has capacity for. And and, you know, if I think a lot of these are probably pretty you know, once you get through the paperwork, it's either yes or no, as long as the paper is sent correctly. If there's a no because of who knows what the extenuating circumstances are, I'll be working out with legal aid on that. So I'll just leave it at that and happy to answer any questions. I think this would be a really good thing for children ex officer Ginny comment.

[Speaker 5]: Your comment on economic and literacy.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: I think that lies not just the Boston children. Think you

[Speaker 2]: can watch Would that be great? The Boston

[Speaker 0]: board. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: Those kids come out. They have no idea how people budget, how they plan Yeah. Not even write

[Speaker 2]: a check because they had no experience or work hard to have a legal sense. Yeah. So I think that's an excellent comment. I just want to say it really needs to go across the joint company. Couldn't agree more. And there are programs these banks have. They're they're interested in that as well. You know, from when I talked to the Vermont Practice Association, they were like, oh, yeah. We've got that.

[Speaker 0]: Literacy was a big deal.

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. For sure.

[Speaker 0]: They never meet a statewide graduation requirements who can have financial literacy. And he's gotta be

[Speaker 5]: able to write a check.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah, yeah, I can jump in. The section four through eight is the unaccompanied youth. I think a lot of people, when they first hear this concept, are like, wow, this is pretty radical. This is something that already exists in 35 other states. It is Vermont playing catch up, specifically the medical component, the kind of housing and shelter services, that is newer, but still ramping up. There's over 15 states that have that kind of component with pending legislation just like this and a number of states. So this is not a new concept. It's in red states, blue states. And it's because it's like

[Speaker 0]: 35.

[Speaker 1]: And I can send you a really helpful resource so you can take a look at it. So I was

[Speaker 0]: gonna say, do you have any of your testimony? Yes. And I will yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Our floor speech and

[Speaker 2]: Yeah. It's gonna happen with floor speech. We

[Speaker 1]: can share that with you. I really, I will share I'm gonna share a photo with you. To be fair, it's a 12 year old, been cropped to hide their face and protect their identity in wig shackles. I will send you the link to our when we presented this on the floor, so you can hear representative Donahue tell that story and its significance in this bill. The unaccompanied youth another going back to that, I think a lot of people assume this is like a first step. There are, you know, in our state statutes and the federal statute that funds these people who would be doing this, they are required within to be reaching out and trying to obtain consent. Unfortunately, a lot of the current federal funding, if they can't get that consent, they have to walk away. So they see a youth who is struggling in crisis. They have resources that they could, you know, help the youth as we bind their pants. So it's a small population. It is slowly rising. We're seeing that, you know, the only way we can really currently track it is those who are still attending school, but this population is also the most likely to drop out of school. How can

[Speaker 2]: you develop under other company communities ages 16 or 17?

[Speaker 1]: Yes. So I'll send you the link. I mean, there is a broad range of where folks started. There's some states that start as low as 12. There's some states that allow you to self certify. So when I was putting this bill together, I really wanted to use a conservative approach. This is a new thing in Vermont. We do know there are unaccompanied youth 16. That's good. We if you have time, I don't know. I haven't looked at your agenda for next week. No time. I will You're talking next week. Yeah. I will send you some testimony from Bennington. The situation there is so dire that they have an unaccompanied youth task force. They have 20 something unaccompanied youth currently, some as young as 12. So this is a you know, and it's growing, and we see the larger populations where there's not currently a youth services provider. So we have our amazing district homelessness liaisons, but they're limited in what they could do. We heard a lot, dental issues is a huge problem for youth in school. Just imagine you're already struggling, you're without your family, and you've got cavities, you're trying to, you're still showing up, and you're trying to engage, and you're trying to learn, you have no way of resolving that until it becomes a medical emergency, and then making this excuse. So, yeah, it's really important path we could take in Vermont. I was unaccompanied youth myself, and, you know, I cried when I first read that this bill, because it it would've changed my life. So, I hope you will give it its due consideration.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you both. I know that you have worked, each worked extremely hard on this item. Representative Joyce, that got it from me. Thank you. And I know you also have, especially for your lived experience. So, appreciate what you're bringing to Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]: So, we'll follow-up with a whole bunch of information and just let

[Speaker 0]: us know if it would be helpful to Because hear we don't need We're limited in our time. Oh, absolutely. So any information you can send, we will go through with the bill, and that will be helpful. Yeah. Thanks so much.

[Speaker 2]: Great. Thank you. Have a great day. Happy Friday. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Sorry. We would love to see if Tyler Gallant would join just to speak to some of the information that's been shared about the high end system of care. And then if we are able I know you guys are limited on time today. If we are able to come back next week, we'd be happy to formally be testified.

[Speaker 0]: Is there is there? There is Tyler, yep. Did you wanna make a comment before we end the day and the rest of the bill and move on?

[Speaker 8]: I would be happy to return. I would happy to make a brief comment. I know there was quite a bit of reaction to some of the conversation regarding a specific piece of practice with regard to residential placements and the practice of strip searching. I did want to offer some reassurance to the committee that strip searching is a practice that can only occur in one facility in Vermont, which is the Red Clover facility, which is a secure facility, and also that it has never been conducted there. It's a practice that would be only reserved for the most extreme circumstances. The only other environment that could have a strip search would be under the direction of a medical doctor, So that would be in a psychiatric hospital or a hospital level of care. So I just wanted to make folks aware that this is a very, very rare practice. We haven't seen it in a very long time And the only circumstance that any program would ever conduct some form of strip search would be if there was an extreme circumstance where the safety of a resident, a youth or others was kind of imminently at risk. So it's not a commonplace practice and we were hesitant to push back on an all out ban at all because it is not the practice that we do, but there are circumstances where there may be circumstances where to provide for safety such a practice might happen at secure facility.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for that, that's very helpful. And we will, as we go forward, it'll be helpful to have you go back as you go through the therapy.

[Speaker 8]: Of course, I'd be glad to come back.

[Speaker 0]: Good. So we're gonna we're gonna move your leg from 06:57 and on to 06:11. I'm gonna suggest you take a five minute break before we do that, and we'll be back at 05:11.