 Good morning folks. This is the Thursday, August 20th meeting of the House Appropriations Committee. We're meeting this morning in conjunction with the House Human Services Committee. Welcome human services folk. We're really delighted to be able to do our budget presentation with you. The first agenda on our, the first item on our agenda is hearing from the Department of Children and Families. Commissioner, thank you very much for joining us and your team, rather than my trying to recognize your folks. It would be lovely if you would introduce them when we, when I turn it over to you. I think, and I don't have an agenda in front of me because I'm resisting printing paper. I think we have about an hour for this and I write folks for the hearing from DCF. Yeah, I see a couple nods. So, we may want to kind of strategically hold our questions as Kitty would say write them down. She does that right before she asks a question. Let's try to strategically write down questions and we'll, we'll find some natural breaking points. I think that's kind of housekeeping. Representative Pugh, thank you for joining us. Would you like to add please. Thank you, Representative Hooper. No, just on behalf of House Human Services, I think this is going to make the budget discussions and decisions easy. Well, more coordinated between the policy committee and the money committees and we will be taking, we will not be hearing a full budget presentation next week when the legislature reconvenes, but we will as necessary get more information about the impact on Vermonters and on policy decisions. Terrific. Thank you. Good morning, Kitty. We have we've started a couple of minutes ago we've just done introductions and I was just getting ready to turn it over to the commissioner. Excellent. And we have the committee of jurisdiction with us. I see representative Pugh and her committee members. Thank you, Mary. Yeah. And welcome, John. Welcome aboard. I don't think you have testified since you have taken the helm of the department. So we're excited to hear from you and congratulations and it's nice to have you here with us this morning. Thank you. So, with me today I have Sarah Truckel, our chief financial officer for the department also sitting in a Sarah Clark, the agency of human services chief financial officer and then also Candice Elmquist is here from finance and management. Unfortunately, just due to scheduling and other commitments, some of the other deputies weren't able to join in today. But so if there's any questions that Sarah Truckel and myself can answer that we'll get back to you with the information as quickly as we can. We did submit a PowerPoint that will that will walk through with the committee this morning and and we're happy to take questions along the way as they pop up if that's or we can wait until the end but I think our point will kind of highlight those key initiatives we're working on right now and how they impact the ups and downs in our budget. And then also we can work through more line by line specific on the actual budget document as well as after the PowerPoint if that's what the committee would like to do as well. Thank you, Sean. So we'll ask questions at natural breaking points. And I think the Health Care Committee has, I'm sorry the Human Services Committee has joined us before so we'll, we will see where there's natural breaking points and ask questions at those sections, and then at the end as well. So let's continue. On this, on this overview sheet, just to highlight that DCF is a rather large department. We have over 1000 employees amongst our different divisions and offices between the Child Development Division, the Family Services Division, the Economic Services Division, Disability Determination, the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Office of Child Support. We can see the different funding sources in the Governor's Recommend Budget here, just over $424 million for the department. I would point out that what is not included in that overall total would be three squares Vermont benefits that are issued out directly from the US Treasury. We process an issue out for those that receive EBT benefits and that's approximately 70 to $75 million a year. So if you add that in, we have about a half a billion dollars flowing through the department just for Vermont families and children. Next page, kind of skip down through. Yep. And so this just breaks out the different positions that we have and how they're throughout the department. We can see FSD has a little over 380 positions. Admin has 373 to remind the committee, the committee's economic services is within the DCF admin appropriation depth ID and so ESD staff are within that 373 and I believe that last count that that was close to like 330 of those positions. So those are FSD and ESD are by large staffing wise largest. And then you'll see, you know, OEO is probably our smallest with eight staff and then scattered in there with CDD in the Office of Child Support, you know, varying sizes. So just to highlight some major initiatives that that we're working on across the department right now and in some of these will be touched on in the budget presentation as we walk on through it. But on any SD we are still moving forward with it's now has a new name. We've been referring to it in prior budget testimonies and and then public conversations on ESAP. We have a simplified application program for older Vermonters and disabled Vermonters in the SNAP program the three squares month program. We had hoped to roll that out on July 1. We are on track now to roll that out on October 1, we just had to push back by three months just due to all the work we had to do in the SNAP program, issuing out emergency allotment benefits and the pandemic EBT benefit. And so we're moving forward with our band with the way. Also, you'll see that we're proposing on our budget to move that what is now done through some community partners and with oversight by CDD, the eligibility determinations for the CC FAP program. We're proposing as a streamlining and budget initiative to move that work over to economic services staff who process eligibility. The work has been going on regarding residential care and trying to reduce the levels of residential care, particularly out of state care for youth in our care and custody. Also, a lot of work going on with juvenile justice and raise the age initiative that went into effect on July 1. So, you know, I'm happy to talk about our plans for Woodside and our decision to close it and move forward with a private provider with an interim plan in the meantime. Also, CC FAP year two plan which we're happy to go over a little more detail as well. And also, our initiatives that we really want to streamline and coordinate transportation better across the department, but particularly with CDD you'll see that in the budget. And then also we are moving forward with the first phase of the BFIS IT system. And so you will see some maintenance operation costs in our budget. We'll talk about an OCS one of our initiatives is, you know, relying more on technology and electronic communications to deliver notices. And so that we're looking to reduce our reliance on postage as a budget savings. Also, you know, with COVID and the impact on the economy where we're seeing some pressures in the reach up caseload, and the changes we've been making a lot of changes to support that caseload given many of the systems of support that we use to support families in terms of education and job supports, really are just starting to open up that we over the last several months during the pandemic we really provided some relief to those families and on the program requirements. So with OEO, you'll see we're still moving forward with the family supported housing expansion, and then also, we are not looking to implement the community based initiative that we've been talking about in the original community partners rec where there was a conversation that may be starting in April 1, given everything that that's happened with housing, due to COVID that we felt like this is not the year to move forward with that initiative and we'll be having conversations with families and then understanding what what the current environment looks like with COVID in the coming weeks and months as we put together our 22 budget. Whether it seems appropriate to move forward at that point, but there is a lot of work going on regarding housing we continue to house a large number of families in motels although that number has dropped. And we have rolled out a lot of the funds, most of the funds for the rehousing plan that were supported and appropriated by the legislature, thank you. And we're just starting to see the value and the benefit of those dollars going out for case management services rapid rehousing funds and rental vouchers and so happy to talk about that more as we go through the presentation as well. And just in as I mentioned before just some of the COVID initiatives the housing plan. You know we touched on the reach up case load and how that's impacted it. I do want to just indicate that we continue to issue out an emergency allotment benefit each month that we continue to be in the state of emergency and with the governor extending it through mid September currently will be able to get seek approval from FNS food nutrition service to issue out a benefit for September as well. For the households that benefit from this it increases what we send out each month by little over $3 million. And a little more detail I mean this is a great benefit for Vermont but it doesn't benefit the entire case load and that's one of our concerns. Also, you know we've been working with the food bank to issue out the COVID relief funds those those monies have now been dispersed onto the food bank to really meet the need which is great across the state for hunger right now in response to and I would indicate that we continue to have a mass feeding plan as well for every in place and continue to operate for all the households and families in motels across the state right now. Just also FSD just the you know it's we've certainly had some experience with COVID in our residential care. Some of those systems shut down and our staff starting to reopen and allowing us to move kids to more appropriate treatment settings however you know it's incredibly important that we be vigilant as we place kids and residential care and foster homes to make sure that we're providing for the safety of the kids but also for the caretakers as well and so the FSD has done a lot of work around that as well. CDD, you know we are in the midst of the application processes in place for the 12 million for what we're calling the operational relief grants for childcare providers after school programs summer programs. CIS providers for telehealth and then also the money included for the parent child centers. We've been fielding and answering questions coming in from programs looking to apply and have just questions how that's going to work. And so the application deadline for those funds closes next week and then we'll be evaluating all of those requests it is not first come first serve we'll be evaluating the level of need and then making a determination. If there's not enough funds how we can prorate them so that everyone benefits from those resources as well. And then as you know, we're seeking $12 million in additional COVID relief funds to provide school aged care for kids during online learning days as schools are opening up across the state. Schools across the districts are doing it a little different. Some are going to be in in person more some are not going to be in person at all. And some are going to do a hybrid model where they'll do online learning and then be in the building some, and that's really going to put a lot of pressure on parents and where their school aged kids can go if they're not able to provide that support due to their work schedule or other factors. And so we rolled out an initiative to really increase the amount of childcare available for school aged kids to access for online learning and so I'm happy to talk about that more in detail as well. And then just with all the work going on in housing, it's incredibly important that we continue the work of expanding family supported housing, and really moving forward on our rapid rehousing plan and then the micro business funds that you've allocated as well and just so there's a lot of work going on across all of our different divisions and offices across DCF and I couldn't be more prouder of the team and how they responded. Just getting the day to day work done and then also all of these additional initiatives, you know that just require our attention and cross the board from it to support our projects to our policy teams to our operational staff, our financial staff, you know leadership, all responded and stepped up, and I couldn't be more proud of all the work that's happening across the department right now. Thank you, Sean. That's a perfect overview of the enormous work that you're doing. I don't see any hands I'm giving you a chance to get to take a breath before you dive deep, but this feels like a pause point. But I'm not seeing committees if you can raise your hands virtually. I'm trying to scan the box so that we can see that I'm not seeing anybody so Commissioner. It's yours again. Sure, so I beg your pardon I think I just. Yeah, a couple of hands popped up. Representative Q. Thank you and representative Hooper if you want some of these to wait. That would be fine, you know, as well. Commissioner, thank you. Thank you for this. Clear overview. I am. I've got a couple of questions around the transfer of the CFAP eligibility to ESD. If I am correct, in the past, this is a function that has been done in the community by our community providers. I guess my question is in has the state been in the past providing financial support to those community agencies to in fact do this function. Yes, yes, we contracted with community partners to do a couple things regarding a CC FAP and childcare. One is the eligibility work, which we're proposing to move to have ESD eligibility staff determine, but also an information and referral as well, which we are not impacting in this proposal and will continue to work in contract with those community providers to for that service. So, these are our job for lack of a better term I know in Chittenden County it's the childcare resource and referral center, but across the state. It is going to be the reduction in state dollars or state grants to these community partners. And do you have a sense of how many staff across the state, these agencies. How many partners have to do the function. And so, who was going to do it in state government or are you asking for more positions or is this going to be under other duties as assigned. Or, yeah. Yeah, so we intend we are not seeking new positions for economic services for eligibility staff to do this work we believe that we have the staffing and the system capability to bring this in house within the department. We have worked with many of those families same families and our other and many of our other programs. So we have most of the information that we would need. And along with the applications that the family submit to quickly process those applications as we would. And so there's three squares Vermont lie he or general assistance and now we are, we also do the utility discount program for some of the larger utilities in the state, but then also we would be adding in childcare eligibility as well. In terms of the numbers of reductions that this would lead to in terms of staffing positions for our partners. We can get that that number for you. Commissioner, I think that I'm knowing my committee as you know, we're going to need some more clarity and information, more detail than we believe, because we want to make sure that this childcare is the backbone of our recovery. In order for working parents to be able to balance working and having their kids go to school when it's not five days a week in a building. This is going to be really important. And so thank you. I'll reserve other questions later sorry. Thank you. I see top rep McFawn and rep Woods hands up. I'm curious if your questions are related to the general overview or the specifics of both the, what we were just discussing which is a nice intro to your administration budget. I'm curious if you scroll up the one I think they talk about the moving there. So rep McFawn do is your question related to this or do you want to, is it to something else. It's, it's related directly to what has been said so far. Please go. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming in. I have three quick questions from the school age hubs. How many children will be in them. And how many staff. We're planning to provide increased coverage, I believe for just over 10,000 kids, about 7,000 of those or so would be in the hubs, about 3000 of those would be an established day cares where we will allow them to to provide for up to 30,000 kids. School age kids for online learning, which would provide about 3000 new slots. And then 7,000 of these hubs. We're contemplating at least 10 staff per hub. We're proposing 73 hubs around the state. It might not all be one large hub it could be look different different communities there's going to be some flexibility here for communities whether business in one area wants to stand up a hub, or a community partner or a municipality that we're contemplating about one staff person for 10 school age kids to support them for online learning during that timeframe. So what that means is we're going to be about 100 kids in each one of these hubs. We contemplate that they could serve up to 100 kids, we don't anticipate that they will ever reach that capacity in one given day, given the variance in the school schedules and parent schedules but that they could serve up to 100 different kids. And we say, they'd be a maximum of 10 adults per kid, we don't expect to see that ratio on any given day, just given some schools are in session. You know, it looks different in each school district and so for each hub they might have kids that come on different days, but 100 different kids throughout a week. Okay, thank you. My next question is the food program around the state. Do you tell us how the food bank is rolling this out. Are there any new initiatives or is it has they were doing it before in an expanded way or do they have anything new that they do. Yeah, they are and I'm more than happy to provide some additional information to the committees here regarding that in terms of the grant agreement and their proposal. I don't have that available right at my fingertips right now but I'm more than happy to provide their proposal and their grant agreement to the committee so that you can see how they intend to disperse those funds across the state and support on their partners that they work with. All right, we'll look forward to that. My last one is, can, can you just explain a little bit more about why the in it the emergency housing initiative has been delayed. So that initiative was to move away from motels as the main source of service delivery for homeless families and individuals and move to a community based model where communities and the housing partners have a greater flexibility in how to meet the need. And, you know, there was certainly some concern about the partners ability to be ready for this July 1 when we had initially proposed it and then in the initial governor's recommend budget conversations with the committee. You know there was conversations about moving it to April 1, so that we would start it at least in the last quarter of 21. And I think, you know, with COVID-19 and our and are essentially opening up the emergency housing program, which is traditionally a very restrictive program and who gets served and how long you get served for. And in response to that many of our shelters were serve very vulnerable individuals who are highly susceptible to severe health consequences if they caught COVID-19 and we're just congregate settings in general which we couldn't ensure compliance with health guidance initially of social distancing and whatnot that we felt that on to keep homeless for one or say that we opened up the emergency housing program and anyone who was homeless. And kind of get away with the shelter beds available because many of our shelter shut down or significantly reduced capacity, which we would have been relying on greatly in the emergency housing initiative, you know we would have been expanding those options, and in response to COVID those options aren't going to be able to meet the need, and we recognize that, given where we're at it just isn't a feasible plan to move forward with a community based model this year, given where we still are and given the rehousing plan and what we're trying to do in terms of services, rental assistance and rapid rehousing funds and then with the BHCB initiatives bring new units online and the rental rehousing. Our hope is is that it will really reduce the number of homeless individuals in the state. When we when we work through all of those funding sources and fully implement and move families and individuals out of motels, and then we'll have a better idea of what that community based system needs to look like and should look like. And so there's just a lot of unknowns right now and we think it's prudent to delay it and get a better understanding where we're going to be at in terms of these initiatives that we rolled out these housing initiatives but also where we will be as a state in a country in a world with COVID-19 and are we going to see a surge or are we going to continue to be in a good spot in Vermont and so there's a lot of unknown variables right now and we think it's prudent just to let these other systems that we've implemented work come to fruition and see where we're at and then also assess where we are at with COVID and then determine when's an appropriate time to move forward. We are still committed to moving forward with that initiative recognizing the world has changed considerably since we initially proposed it. Okay Commissioner thank you very much I just have are you attached to the at the hip to those new initiatives when we put all that money out for all those new units coming online. Yes, we've had agency staff, Sarah Phillips and others working very closely with the partners who are making those proposals and providing some technical assistance but then also working with VHCB and and others evaluating those proposals as we move forward to make sure they're meeting what we're seeing as the need and the communities around the state. And so we've been very involved in all of that work and continue to be very involved. Okay, good. Thank you very much. Thanks rep would. I mean, McFawn. Next up I have rep would land fair and then Hugh again. So rep would. Thank you representative Hooper I will wait for my question till he we get to child development division so we can move along. Thank you. Rep land fair. Thank you so this is representative McFawn is definitely making me recall things on that delay of emergency housing initiative. This was just just to make sure I'm on the right track this was the idea of having the community partners take take the calls and approve hotel vouchers that I believe the agency was ready to roll out but community partners were still in a bit of a flux when we left where we left off and in March. So, so if that's the case and I was just wondering is that has there been more work now in developing with the community partners on how to roll this out or how this would work for them so that everybody's very comfortable with this. Well, so I would say the work that we're doing with our community partners have has been strengthened incredibly in our response to COVID we are working incredibly close with our housing partners and other partners across the state now in response to COVID, many of them are working with us on the re housing plan and receive the funding to provide the services that go along with the rapid rehousing funds in the vouchers and then also the units is that three legs of the stool. And so I would say the work that we're doing is strengthening where we want to go. And in many ways what we're doing with the rehousing plan VHCB and the rental rehab is exactly what we were envisioning the community based model would be. And so we are actually laying the groundwork for that. For that model to be successful with all of the work we're doing now because in a way it's really what we're trying to get to. Yep, as always, the resources and timing are always a delicate balance and I think that reflected the conversation we were having before COVID hit in your committee. And I would say that, you know, our response to COVID has really moved us forward, immensely in both of those areas where now we have a lot of funding dedicated to this and then also, you know, our response to COVID and keeping homeless for years really just required us to strengthen those partnerships and work so much more collaboratively and I would say we are working much closer with our partners and supporting them. And I think this, you know, our delay and this just recognizes that a lot of that groundwork is happening now, but it's just happening in these plant these rehousing plans and development plans. And so that's our response to COVID and we hope that once we see the other side of that and where we understand where we're going to be with COVID-19. That will be much better positioned to move forward at that point in time, because hopefully we've reduced homelessness for individuals significantly and we've eliminated it for families that's our goal with our rehousing plan. And so that the pressure on our community partners to build that community based system of care. That's been done through these are COVID work. Great. Great. Thanks. It's great to hear. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner. I think we're ready to move to the next slide. And I think we've covered much of what's on the next slide. Yeah. Just, you know, in our, in our restatement of the 21 budget that we talked about earlier this year, you know, we've talked about delaying the emergency housing initiative, which contributes to our upset 4.4 million. So our, you know, having to delay our implementation of the simplified application process for older Vermonters and disabled Vermonters from July 1 to 10 one just adds an up in our budget. And this is an up, but it's actually net neutral. We're moving with our proposal to bring the eligibility in-house to ESD. We would move the three eligibility CCFAP eligibility policy staff that work on that program to become a part of the ESD program teams. Again, that's part of that eligibility, CFAP eligibility move. Also, you'll see some money, large numbers of money moving regarding our TANF program. And a lot of that is we have to indicate in our TANF five-year plan how we're spending TANF dollars. And that changes has changed over time. And so we're moving money in the budget. It's net neutral, but we're moving it to reflect what we're actually spending it now than where we said we were before. And so it's just kind of reflecting the changes of how we're spending those dollars. And Sarah Truckel, this is a very technical area of our budget, and I would rely, refer to Sarah Truckel to answer any questions there. And then also here, this is really a net neutral. We have an MOU with the Department of Labor for employment services, not only for our reach-up program, but to a greater extent for our program, three squares Vermont in terms of supporting Vermonters who are looking for work and need support through our increased employment and training program. And we're just moving it out of reach-up due to that it does serve a much broader purpose and population than reach-up. We're moving it from the reach-up depth ID to the admin ID to reflect that reality. And then some downs in our budget here of a little 300,000 are one, those would be savings from bringing it in-house and having our staff do that, we would realize some savings. And then we're seeing some reductions from our HR partners and ADS. And so we're seeing some internal service fund reductions where we have to provide resources that provide services to us internally, and that's just reflected there as well. Thank you, Commissioner. We have one question from Representative Rosenquist. Well, it's probably a little late now, but I was looking at this slide. It would be useful if I understood what all those letters mean. I always have a problem following some of the abbreviations, if you will. So it'd be useful if you introduced it with explaining what they were. Sure. ESAP is the Elderly Simplified Application Process. That's the acronym. CDD is a Child Development Division. ESD is the Economic Services Division within TANF as a temporary aid to needy families. That's how the program is referred to at the federal level in Vermont. We refer to it as the reach-up program. VDOL, that's Vermont Department of Labor, MOU is Memorandum of Understanding, and then the CFAP is the Child Care Financial Assistance Program, you know, the subsidies that we provide families to afford child care. Thank you very much, Sean. Thank you. Representative Pugh. Thank you. And Commissioner, if this is something better done next week or offline, it's fine. The TANF five-year plan move, you talked about it being technical. I've already started the federal TANF money in the past has not necessarily gone to financial, the monthly financial benefit, but rather to other worthy initiatives. So I'm wondering if you've earned income tax credit or something like that and maybe child care. So I'm wondering if we're moving it more into TANF, what's happening to those initiatives that in fact had been supported by federal TANF funds. And what I can say is that we're still spending the money in many of the same ways. It's just that hadn't been reflected in the TANF five-year plan and so we're moving it in the budget to reflect that. I think we are correct that we spend our TANF dollars very creatively to the benefit of Vermont financially and our reach-up program participants because it allows us to use our federal dollars which have certain requirements and performance requirements attached to them. And a lot of those dollars we do just as we do it in the LIHEAP debt idea where we use some of our LIHEAP block grant for weatherization then we free up special fund and have more flexibility to use that to serve different populations. We really do the same thing in the reach-up program where we fund the state-earned income tax credit which is an allowable use of TANF money. So if we're finding TANF eligible families, we use the TANF money to pay for that benefit. And then the tax dollars that are raised to fund that, the special fund is transferred to DCF and then we're allowed to use that special fund more flexibly than we are the TANF dollars. In one of those areas you know the federal government has a hard stop at 60 months and in certain circumstances you can use TANF dollars to fund families beyond 60 months but for the most part you cannot. Vermont has a different 60 month time limit where you can continue to receive benefits past 60 months. So as long as you're engaged in continuing to cooperate, we would not be able to use federal money for many of those households, but because of the way we leverage the TANF block grant it frees up special fund which allows us to better support families beyond 60 months and make sure kids are getting taken care of. And families are getting the support they need as we move them to financial independence. Thank you. Commissioner, Representative Pew, do you have a follow up? Excuse me, yes. Internal service fund reductions, what are those? That would be like when the Department of Human Resources provides us services, like through an HR manager that works for us or the agency of digital services, we now, all of our IT are consolidated in the agency of digital services and we essentially purchase IT services from them and we do that through the internal service fund and their costs have gone down and so then our cost to purchase those services go down and that is reflected in the downs in our internal service funds. Thank you. Someone just came to mow the lawn and so I needed to close some windows and shut some doors, I apologize. Life at home makes this a little difficult. I do see another hand at Representative Lamper. Thank you very much. Yeah, it does make working at home interesting as we, we all get to, I don't know, experience all of our other lives live on TV. I just, I've got a question around like just, just the mechanics of something commissioner and you can correct me if I'm wrong because I just want to make sure that that I'm as I'm tagging this up that I've got this correct. So when I'm looking at DCF budget that was presented back when on January 30 2020 seems like a very long time ago, looking at their ups and downs for, you know, just this section, the budget, the administration. The ending point that that that recommendation was was at 57 million and and some and then when I'm looking at the ups and downs that were presented by Secretary Smith earlier this week. When I go to the corresponding section here for DCF. The starting point for that now is the ending point of where we were in January and I think I'm probably confusing you more if you can't see it. So what I'm looking at on the new ups and downs that was presented earlier this week. Those are just the changes. But if we were to okay this it's also okaying everything that was presented in January as well. So I need to combine those two things. See them side by side to say this is where we're going. Our starting point here was the governor's ending point. Yeah, our starting point was the governor's recommend in 21 and this builds off that and reflects changes from what we had proposed in there as well like the delay of the emergency housing initiative would be something that was in in the original 21 that we're now backing out because we're delaying it. Okay. Okay, so I'll look at those two things side by side. All right, thank you sir. Diane, thank you you've brought up an excellent point so as a follow up. Is there anything in the January presentation that you are proposing that is not highlighted here that we need to go back and find and or all the high or all the changes moving from 20 to 21 highlighted in your re in your restatement budget. Yeah, I'm going through through that quickly. Now, Is there an initiative that we're missing or a change in funding or reduction in funding and your proposal that isn't being presented today because it was presented in January. Yeah. Yeah, I'm happy to kind of kind of take those side by side and get and and and provide that detailed information to the committee. As we move forward, I think I would want a little time just to make I think we touched on it here but I just want to double check that we didn't miss something. So, Sarah were you about I heard another voice that sounded like you Sarah Clark was that you were not It was me Sarah trouble. I we can provide that but I would say that there are pieces in the FY 21 gov wreck that we didn't highlight here that were in our original presentation right right. Could you give an example of something that may So some of the reductions to the idea program and OEO or the micro business reduction, the $200,000 reduction in the child development division for the stabilization grants will be examples that I could think of quickly. That's going to be important for us to have the complete picture and I know that is our work as well to go back and find all of that information, but thank you for for bringing those examples to us but if you could do a side by side so that we know the complete picture of the changes that are before us since we since the budget really at hand now even though it includes what was proposed in early in January. We need a refresher and we need it all in front of us. Sarah Clark Clark here it's a excuse me. Sarah Clark here if I may just to clarify that this will be the same across all the departments of a hs they'll have presentations prepared to walk you through changes in the restatement budget so changes from the January gov wreck. But they also know to be prepared to discuss anything that was included in the FY 21 original gov wreck, but their kind of presentations are geared towards what's changed. Okay, but not just prepared to discuss it Sarah they need to highlight it so we can discuss it because January is a long time ago a lot has changed. We did not realize that we were just going to get a restatement budget you know I didn't know I didn't know what to assume from the administration, and I understand, you know, why they may you know why they chose to do it this way but we can't work under the timeline that we remember. And it's up to us to go back and see it but I'm asking that that they bring forth all, you know, the full picture and not count on us going back and searching because we are working on an incredibly short timeline. And to be able to go back and dig for all of those changes. You know the highlights, all the restatement but all the all the changes based from 20 from 2020, please. Sure I will deliver that message. And we may have some additional follow up since as you know everybody's already scheduled to testify today and tomorrow. We need to provide you a overview of those initial gov rec changes that are still moving being proposed to move forward and then also how they might be changed by the restatement and then new changes in the restatement as well. And we get that to you pretty quickly. And Sarah I do know that you're responsible for the agency of human services but I realized that we've had several other departments in in the last couple of days and I did not realize I should have been asking those questions I knew it was built off. It was brought to our is built off the, the January proposal, but I need that across the board is the same presentation for ADS and BGS. Do you know if they also their initiatives that may not have been highlighted because they were brought forth in January. I don't know for certain but I will follow up with Commissioner Greshan. Perfect. Thank you for and I can as well but thank you. All right, I don't see another hand at this point so I, I'm sorry representative Yacoboni and then we're on page six of 15 of the slides and so I think that we're going to have several questions at the end so after Dave's question I think we should move through a few more of these slides. Yacoboni. I'm sorry and I'll be as quick as I can there's three quick questions, the 296,000 general fund down. Are there federal funds associated with that also john. Excuse me Dave I trouble hearing you could you read read or restate your question. Let me know if you can hear me. The 296,000 general fund reduction. Are there also federal funds that are being reduced. I'll defer to Sarah Clark but my assumption would be yes. Okay, Sarah trouble. I'm happy to answer that representative Yacoboni so yes we only highlighted our general fund reductions for the purpose of the presentation. There are associated federal fund reductions so for example in our ISF reductions you'll see the federal, the general fund down but there's also a corresponding down for how that. Yeah, that's what's important to look at. Thank you, Diane. The reason I asked I'm trying to appreciate the full order of magnitude of the reduction to the community partners, many of them the parent child centers. They have fixed expenses, building costs, etc, insurance and whatnot. So when we take programs away from them, their capacity to spread those costs out over the various programs that contribute to paying for them disappears. And I'm concerned whether you've had the chance yet. I suspect you haven't not a criticism. I shouldn't assume to understand from that provider community, whether they're going to be destabilized as a result of it. So that's just a footnote if you could have that conversation and share with us and let us know I'm going to shift to another area, somewhat related. And excuse me, the increase in case low pressures and reach up. I'm curious the order of magnitude, and whether they are increasing the, or actually reducing the staffing ratio of reach up staff to clients whether they're having to serve more clients and specifically my recollection is and it could be wrong. Maybe a policy change was made to move away. The reach up services done by our parent child centers and to bring them in house. My concern is that if the case load is increased and the staffing ratios are reduced that the capacity to serve the high needs families with young children that wasn't a parent child will be diminished. So that's, could you speak to the amount of the case of pressures and the staffing ratios. And finally, and then I'll stop I promise madam chair. The MOU change with V doll from reach up. Do you have a concern commissioner that those staff will will be forced to help people with unemployment claims, which is important, but they'll be pulled to prioritize on that and won't be able to do the reach up job finding. Thank you. In terms of the reach up case load, we can get you exact numbers of our worker reach up case manager to a number of cases each is carrying right now what I can say is that given many of the changes that we've implemented and response to coven that they've offset any increases in case load pressure given that we've kind of put waivers in place in terms of work participation, given some of the systems of care shutdown. So that some of that work is not taking place and so some of that case management work is not as intense right now. And then also, given that met, we were doing a lot of home visiting before and appointments in the office which took more time for travel and whatnot. Everything now is virtual or over the phone. And so we've found great efficiencies in that work. And, and to the point where even though we've had upward case load pressure. We've had the capacity to for homeless families that are going to be served by the agency's rehousing plan that we've taken that work in house and are having our reach up case managers. We've had the services right now because they have the bandwidth to do that work. And I would say in terms of the parent child center we did implement that change. From our perspective, we're not seeing any adverse consequences from that and delays and services, or, or the quality of the work that we provide and many of those families who might have been working with the parent child center and multiple partners through their other programs but also receive reach up case management. Most of them are still connected with the parent child centers and receiving those other services and supports from them. The only change would be that they're now on receiving reach up case management with our staff who work in collaboration with parent child center staff and other community partners that those families are involved with. And we can certainly get you the reach up case load increase, the projected increase based on the budget and what our Leslie black is projecting based on the report we get quarterly and the state of the economy, in response to COVID, and then provide you that that cases to worker ratio as well right now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. I'm looking for another hand. I'm not seeing any. I see. I don't see any other hand at this point so let's continue to the next slide. Lisa, can we continue to the next slide. Thank you. Yeah, as you'll see in the, in that family services division. I've been some new positions proposed. Given that we were looking to replace Woodside and close it and come up with a new alternate plan. Woodside is still operational at this point so those positions are needed and so those are reverting back in the budget. And I would have Sarah Truckel explain the TANF five year plan and it's in and how it's connected to the to the family services division Sarah Truckel, if you want to just. Yeah, so this is the. Technical adjustment that you saw above in the admin where we're moving money between the admin depth ID and the FSD depth ID in order to just properly reflect how DCF has been earning its TANF funds. It's net neutral. It doesn't have any effect on our program. It's a technical adjustment to make sure that it's an accurate reflection of where we're earning those funds. And again, we have an internal service fund reduction in the restatement as we talked about just in terms of how those costs are allocated amongst our different divisions. So they're spread out those internal service fund reductions are spread out based on their usage and prorated to each division or office within DCF. Again, because Woodside is open we had allocated some additional funding in the original GOV racks to for placements. You will see that the Woodside budget is in here. And we are proposing some reductions just based on the number of kids that we're serving there right now as we look to replace it. And then also you'll see just as you would in in many of the agencies, different departments budgets, the FMAP increase also affects for E and so we're seeing additional federal revenue in here which allows us to offset some general fund spending as well. And again, because Woodside was not closed on July 1, we're reverting back some of the replacement on family group counseling that had been proposed to be spent but given where we are right now, but Woodside, that's not needed at this time. Representative Fagan has a question. Sean thanks for coming in regarding Woodside as of the report that was submitted on Tuesday. It said that there was one child that remained at the facility and you were working for a private placement for that child what's the status please. Thank you. Yeah, we are still working very hard with a provider to develop an appropriate treatment program for that youth and once we believe that that's in place. We will then need court authority to move that youth given it will be it is going to be an out of state placement where that use treatment needs can best be met. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Representative Redmond. Just to follow up on that line of questioning on Woodside. I'm curious you mentioned the the staff changes. Can you just give us a general sense and I'm sorry if you covered this earlier because I got here late. Coming from another meeting but can you give us a sense of what's changing on the staff level relative to Woodside and the staffing there. So it is a complicated conversation. There's many factors that are leading to the staffing levels at Woodside and what we're proposing. The conversation that started a year ago to close Woodside has had an impact on the staffing in general and so many staff realizing that the census has been down for quite a while sometimes. You know, three youth sometimes once sometimes zero currently one. And then the conversation to close the facility, many staff started looking for other work and just recently we've had two more staff give their notice that they found other other work that and they and they've given their notice and so we have a large number of vacant positions in general right now at Woodside as a result of kind of just staff attrition and then not needing to fill those positions, given, you know, the low number of youth that we're serving there. That's a staffing pattern of the number of staff that have been there based on historical numbers of kids that could approach 30 at times and so, you know, we have a large number of vacant positions right now and so as we evaluate what we need. You know, we don't feel like 51 positions is as appropriate. And so we believe that we can eliminate 20 positions with current the way current operations are at Woodside and not impact operations or the services for the youth, given we only have one youth there. So, many of those are vacant but there may be some risks as we're putting this budget together. There was contemplated to be some risks and we can get you more exact number on that but given we've had some more people staff leave the facility that may no longer be the case. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Redmond. We have, we've only been through half the slides and we only have a half hour left scheduled. And so I think we need to move further my question on here would be but Sarah and others will help get this information. What other changes were made in January that are not reflected in this division and in all others that are that are not highlighted. That's going to be key in our decision making. So I need to move to the next slide. Sure. And Child Development Division. We had contemplated some transportation savings in the original governor's wreck if it is my understanding. And I apologize I tried to get up to speed as quickly as possible, and the other divisions but original governor recommends budget and as I'm not familiar. I'm not familiar with ESD's original governor's wreck but I'm just working to get up to speed on the original as well. That did transportation work in terms of trying to do a global transportation contract, including all transportation needs across DCF, due to COVID didn't happen and so you know we're going to see you'll see the back in the budget to that we would need the general fund we would continue to provide transportation for for child for specialized childcare kids. Also downs, you would, we are with the change of bring in house, the eligibility work and moving it to ESD. ESD has two grant monitor positions who go out and monitor and audit our community partners work in this area, and given we have those systems in place already in house and ESD to monitor and audit and oversee our eligibility functions. Those positions won't be needed. They are currently filled positions, and they would be eliminated. I am very confident that we have many other vacant positions in the department right now and I'm very confident that we will find other positions that suit those two skills and abilities and interest. We're working with them now, and we have some time to do that work, and we have the vacant positions to give them some opportunity and choice as well, which, you know what position might meet their interest and skill set and education as well. As we talked about earlier, we would be moving the three policy positions to ESD. That's really net neutral. We are proposing some contract reductions here. We believe that we can do that without impacting our partners. We have some unspent money every year in our grants and contracts, and so we're confident that by evaluating those and reviewing those that we can find some reductions without impacting any of our providers that we contract with in terms of what they're, what they are drawing down and what they utilize from those contracts. Again, just the internal service funds. The 4E FMAP increase is freeing up general fund as well. Subsea revenue shift, I will have Sarah Truckel touch on that briefly. So with the move for the CC FAP program to ESD, the way that the funds would impact our cost allocation allows the CCDF that we're currently utilizing in that eligibility and referral community contracts to move to be freed up and it allows us to make a revenue shift to free up general fund because we can put more CCDF into the subsidy budget. And then, you know, we've touched on moving the eligibility over there and then also that, you know, we do utilize TANF in the CDD budget and this is again based on that conversation we've had regarding the, you know, it's a technical net neutral to DCF but just how it's reflected in our budget is really the change. We have one question from Representative Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, I'm just, I had held off this question from before but could you briefly explain what, what problem or what issue you're trying to solve by changing the eligibility and referral system that you currently have. So what's the problem that you're trying to solve by changing that? I wouldn't say that we're trying to solve a problem. I think we were facing an incredibly difficult budget development with in response to COVID for the 21 and then also looking forward to 22 and looking at creative ways to streamline processes and to do leverage existing resources to save money. And given that we do have a very extensive eligibility system within the department with our economic services staff who are very quite skilled and we have a large number of them that by bringing this in the house we could realize some efficiencies provide we think as good of or better service and then also save money as well. So it's one of those initiatives that really enhances services and their ability to provide services but also saves money. Thank you. Just one follow up. I'm just in my experience when programs are split between when operations of programs are split between two divisions and state government. It doesn't actually end up being more efficient and that's just been my experience and I'm just wondering if you have any concerns about that. I do not. We have a very strong collaborative working relationship between the economic services division and the child development division with our reach up program. The child care is a big component of that. And so we're very have those established working relationships with CDD and their policy team their data team their systems teams so that and the sharing of information so I'm very confident that we can implement this and implement it well and fairly quickly. And then just the final question in the overview you mentioned the BFIS system and I don't see I don't see any mention of that here and moving forward with some of the changes that are necessary there. Yes, we you will see I think Sarah if you want to jump in here Sarah Truckel on the BFIS system and those costs. Sure so the BFIS system is moving forward we just have moved forward on assigned IT ABC form pursuant to our internal processes and that $250,000 of MNO was in the original FY 21 gov rec we included it in the general initiatives because it's a major initiative going on within the department and CDD at this time. So there isn't anything beyond what we had provided originally in the 21 budget. I mean in the 20 budget. We are currently moving forward with a phased in approach to the BFIS system which will utilize the I believe 900,000 of remaining funds from the initial legislative appropriation, as well as increase CCDF dollars that happened in the federal budget in October of last year. And when instead of building a system at 6.7 million initially we're going to take a phased in approach and build it module by module focusing first on the initial flip necessary to meet compliance requirements with the CCFAP subsidy system. Okay, thank you. Welcome. Thank you representative. Let's go to the next slide please. I'm sorry we did have a couple I have to question and have representative Yacoboni and Lamper. Yes that. Thank you I'll be brief. I'm less concerned about the administrative efficiencies and the interplay between ESD and CDD. I'm more concerned about the potential inefficiencies for consumers who today use services that are not not exclusively but often integrated so that when a mom or dad talks to a an eligibility worker at their parent child center. At the same time, they can begin to talk about appropriate childcare placements within their community by removing the eligibility from the local level and moving it to the state, which may be more administratively efficient. Is it, is it the benefits really accruing to the consumer. So I just, I raise I appreciate representative Woods concern. My, my concern about efficiencies are defined a little differently. Thank you. Dave and representative Lanford. Thank you madam chair. So I'm looking at some of the movement here on your crosswalk. I'm sorry. In your original January presentation you had $2 million, $2 million coming from the Education Fund going to the early care and learning initiative. And then your new revised budget here you have removed the $2 million from that special fund, which I'm assuming was still the Education Fund, and are now taking it or recommending that it come from the tobacco fund. That's correct. So the original proposal had $2 million coming from the proposal around keynote. And now we are proposing that it comes from the tobacco fund. So, so then the TANF here I see that there's, is it, is that 15,000 15. 15 million 15 million from the general fund and now being paid for out of a special fund and I don't know what that one, what is now what what special fund is that that 15 million coming from. So that's another TANF five year move plan. It's technical. What we're proposing here is leveraging TANF funds and CDD and putting general funds into the reach up debt ID. This in particular will will allow for some flexibility in that reach up debt ID so that as caseload shifts over time we can achieve general fund savings or we can adjust it accordingly. Adding general fund to the reach up debt ID will ensure that there are sufficient funds available to match the snap E&T work that we're doing and it will allow DCF to utilize revenue increases in the special funds to offset that general fund. So it doesn't have a programmatic impact. It just allows for some flexibility and we can spend those TANF dollars in the CDD debt ID. Thank you for the thank you for the detail but what is the special fund. It's listed under SF that that 15 million is is being drawn from special fund and I just don't know on here. What special fund that is that you're that you're referring to is that education fund is that it's not tobacco because you have a line for that. You know it should just be a swap between the way that the TANF plan works. I can get you the details. Sure. Yeah, it is a swap. It's a $15 million down and the general fund and it's a $15 million up in the special fund. I just don't know what special fund is is being impacted. And we'll get we'll get you that information. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Diane. I'm finished. Thank you. I have one question about the change in use of the tobacco funds are there additional monies within the tobacco funds are or are you making a change or reduction in a in a current activity with the those funds are being used to use to fund a program. Sarah Sarah would you like me to respond to that. Representative toll we are proposing to. I think we'revert is the right word revert three and a half million dollars from substance use disorder workforce funds. If you recall there was a $5 million appropriation. I think it was two years ago for substance use disorder workforce. And so, as part of this proposal from the governor we are proposing to revert three and a half million dollars of that appropriation that has not been obligated or spent yet. And we would use two million of that I think that's the right number. Sarah and Sean to cover this year of investment for the CC back. Those would be one time dollars then. Correct. So, the tobacco funds that are used for ongoing activities are not being those are not being chipped into this was part of a five or $7 million settlement that an additional settlement money that came in a couple of years ago. Correct. But I would I should refer to my colleagues and finance and management about the kind of any other details surrounding the tobacco fund. Okay. Thank you. Let's move to I have a couple more hands of representative you and representative Lenfer your hand is lower it I think it was up. I was just thinking that the next topic that we have as it will be the health department and some of the questions related to the tobacco fund back to that an initiative that this legislature has supported which is increasing the and supporting workforce related to alcohol and drugs. And unless those are not no longer a problem in the state, we might want to look at that but those questions are probably better. If I might suggest directed to the health department. Thank you. And you're correct and it's fortuitous they're coming up next so we can do that they'll be here this this morning. And we move to the next slide please. Again, not a lot of significant change from the original governor's 21 recommended budget. We are proposing to move to a more electronic notification system. We will be submitting some language regarding this proposal as well. And then also, again, just the allocation of the internal service fund reductions to the department being allocated to the different divisions based on their usage. Okay. General assistance the big change here is just that we're in the original governor's recommend budget we had proposed moving on the general assistance emergency housing over to office of economic opportunity to be rolled into the housing opportunity grant program, given where we're at in the conversation we had earlier this morning where this just moves that money back to the emergency housing program. We're understanding that we'll be operating it for the remainder of 21. This is simply delaying it until you 22 budget. Exactly. Here we have again. You know we have our reach out caseload increases. We have the increase projected from July to December, which were the use of CRF funds and then we're projecting a continued caseload increase through January through June, which you would see with the general fund. So given the CRF funds can't be used past the end of December, I think December 30, and then here just again the net net neutral, but the movement of TANF money in response to the TANF five year plan. Happy to discuss each of those in more detail on in terms of downs again. The internal service funds. And then we also have OCS disregard new revenue coming in that allows us to offer some general fund with the federal stimulus payment and the increased child unemployment benefits to subcontractors but also the increase in the normal unemployment we have seen an uptick in in the amount of revenue we're bringing into the state for to reimburse the state for ongoing reach up benefits that are being paid out but also for collection on arrears that were owed. So under law were required to intercept those payments and so we are seeing an increase based on some of the federal stimulus payments. And then again just moving the department of labor MOU from that reach up depth ID to the admin to reflect that that MOU is serving programs greater than just reach up but it's much serving the three squares from our program as well. Representative Lenfer. Thank you. Thank you. So Sean. Back on the general assistance. We have the revert emergency housing that $6 million where where the original proposal had about three or four lines. I just want to make sure that there was a there was a proposal to reduce the rental subsidy program. So we have a proposal to reduce rental subsidy programs by $200,000 originally is that being restored with within that six or is it just the other items. So we don't know in terms of the Vermont rental subsidy program. We bolster that through the agency rehousing plan if you remember there was some additional CRF funding allocated there for the Vermont rental subsidy program. So in terms of whether it's still a down over the long term, you know, we'll need to just evaluate. I'll need to look at that and get back to you and how that's impacted. Thank you sir. That brings up a question commissioner for me that there's a lot to tease out here because CRF funds were also used for micro businesses and and you know in other areas and so not only do we need to know the initiatives that aren't highlighted here that were highlighted in January, but then what initiatives were addressed within CRF dollars, and then what initiatives are still on the table that we need a reminder about. And so there's a lot of teasing out all of these moving pieces and we're going to need. I'm sure we can depend on it. We need the departments as a dancing partner because of such times constraints and so offline, there's going to need to be a lot of conversation about what's in what's out what's been covered, and what hasn't been highlighted. I absolutely and I agree and we're more than happy to meet with committee members to kind of provide that level of detail and in the coming weeks, absolutely happy to do that. Thank you. I want to just I just to put a time frame so that you understand the house timeframe I'm looking at possibly having a budget ready to pass out on the 4th of September. The coming weeks is really the coming days. Okay, as we have a, we, you know, Labor Day could mess us up but that's after that date. And so we really don't have. I think we have like 10 days actually. Yeah, we'll make that those meetings are priority on our end for sure. Thank you. Let's go to the next slide Teresa, or is this we move there. Okay. OEO again just it moving the money emergency housing money out of their budget over back to the GA debt ID for emergency housing program to continue this year. And then also just internal service fund reductions. And again the common the broader conversation we're having here in terms of the detail of the original governor's wreck will provide that level of detail for you as well. Thank you. I'm not seeing any questions. Let's move to the next slide. Oh, you're here okay. Right, weatherization. Again, just no, no changes here in the restatement just the internal service on reduction here. And not a significant sum of money. Sorry, I can't raise my hand. I thought we got a lot of lie heap money in earlier and I'm surprised not to see it reflected here. We did receive some some federal stimulus lie heap money I think was about $4.6 million. We'll be rolling that out in for the upcoming fuel season. Just in general, we're looking at a very robust fuel benefit this year, if the federal government maintains the block grant at its current level and then with the additional money we received at the end of that 4.6 at the end of the fuel season. And then with refunds. We are looking at a very healthy fuel benefit for households. This coming winter. So I'm sorry I don't remember where the lie heap money is reflected in your budget. I don't believe it's reflected in here right now and we'll make sure we make that evaluate that and get it in here. If it's missing. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're on to the Woodside. Woodside is a much larger conversation. We are proposing to move forward with the closure in the coming months. If the legislature moves forward with it as well, our budget reflects some downs of eliminating staff. Also, the cost, the cost of mothball that was in the original governor's wreck. But we are restoring the maintenance of that budget as well because it had been projected it was going to close and so there's an up in there for the maintain the operations. And then also to move forward with the replacement we are pursuing a strategy of working with a community partner to open up a, you know, five to eight bed secure residential treatment program in state. That would meet all of our needs and the youth needs, particularly around serving kids that we work with through an MOU with DOC the Department of Corrections kids who are in there. The Commissioner of Corrections care and custody, as well as kids placed with us through the juvenile justice system. It's incredibly important that we be able to meet those youth needs in state and that's what we're moving towards, but also that the provider understand that that means that they are the facility that that cannot reject or eject. Our children that are need that high level of secure residential care. We've been in conversation with Beckett, who has proposed operating facility in Vermont. We toured that facility last week. I'll say it's an amazing campus and facility, incredibly therapeutic where it's located. We're moving forward to do an a building assessment on what with an architect on what it will take to provide some enhanced security to meet the needs of for the level some of our kids need who will be placed there and then get a cost estimate and we're reserving some funds here for that work within this budget but also to meet the short term needs of our kids. We are negotiating with Sununu right now we have one youth placed in the Sununu facility in New Hampshire or contracting to have the capacity to place up to five youth there. If we are not able to locate an appropriate placement either in state or another out of state facility that might better meet those kids needs as a place that we could place kids while we develop this community based secure residential program which would be a facility secure not a staff secure facility. What I would say is is that the facility they're proposing to use would allow us to expand into other areas of treatment services for Vermont youth, which might in terms of a non secure residential facility. It's a it's actually a highly versatile building and property. And so we might be able to continue and bolster our efforts to bring more kids out of state over the long term and treat them with appropriate services in Vermont and so this is an exciting proposal that we're working on right now and I'm confident that we should hopefully have it up and running in the next nine to 12 months. And that's our goal right now and that's what we're working towards. Thank you. Thank you for the many questions regarding Woodside and I'd like to just do the last slide and then open it up to a questions we have about 15 minutes but then we're going to run right into the healthcare testimony so I really would like to do a quick overview and then have the conversations regarding the concerns and changes and what we agree with to happen at a later time so let's do this slide. Disability Determination really this is primarily a federally funded program and regulated program very little GF in it. And so you'll see we're projecting a down of $51 due to the allocation of the internal service fund reductions to to the disability determination. Thank you. So for I'm just, I'm sorry, for the Committee of Jurisdiction that's with us that the Human Services Committee. I see many concerns that our committee and your committee need to deal with and you know fully understanding all the pieces that may not have been included in these slides. For time's sake, I'm hoping, Teresa, can you bring us back to the whole screen so I can, we can all see each other. Thank you. For time sake, because it's very, it's very tight on time I'm hoping that Kimberly as this is her budget that she can join in, and when your committee has DCF in to roll through some of these finer policy points, and what you agree with and we, I just want to reiterate the time schedule and what we're hoping to get we are not asking for formal memos from any committee, but I would like if we could just have an email of the things that we agree upon and don't agree upon so that we can start making some budget decisions. And today is today is Thursday next Thursday and Friday we have public hearings so that we can hear from advocates in the public. And I believe committees are will be starting I don't know when you're starting your testimony and but we're technically all back together on Tuesday the 25th. I'm hoping to get most committees, their direction and their thinking on Tuesday and Wednesday of the first and second of September and I know this is an incredibly tight timeline. But if if we are to get the budget out of our committee on Friday the fourth and no later than the eighth. We can't do much on Monday the seventh because it's Labor Day. And so we if we came on Tuesday to pass it out all of our work would have to be on the fourth anyway, in order to read a version and pass it out by the eighth. And so we're really looking at all feedback on the first or second of September, which is, I'm not setting the timeline. So, so don't mess with your and that's a bad thing to say I shouldn't have said that I apologize. I just wanted to make that timeline very clear and Kimberly if you could start your work with House human services. That's going to died as well as you know conversations knowing what the Senate is doing business, there's many things to get on the same page very quickly. One from representative McFawn and then we'll go back to the chair of human services to wrap this up. Thank you. I think it's imperative that for an order for us to do our work that the kinds of things that you asked for, in terms of the side by side, and the highlighting and so on, that our committee get that same kind of detail. So we can move forward so I just put that in. And for me, we need that in order for us to do our work. Yep, we're a team right now topper so what we will get like that I like the team thing. Yeah, you know this this is the only way spend that way. I'm so quickly and and so we will make sure Sarah, Sarah and Sarah, and Sean whatever you send to Teresa, be sure to send it to both committees that would be. Absolutely. Yeah. Representative Pugh. Thank you representative toll and if I might say great minds think alike, because part of my final comments were would be that members of your committee, whether they were connected to DCF which is the content here. Not in terms of their budget area and asked lots of really good questions and oftentimes when individuals ask questions the responses to them. And so I, I would request that whatever information you are giving that you give it to both committees which is both what representative Bond and you representative toll said and given the timeframe. Our committee is meeting three times next week. We're meeting on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, Tuesday will need to deal with a small policy change language related to family childcare. So, Commissioner, in terms of the DCF material that whether it's the side by side in terms of January, as well as where some of the coven initiatives came in, we need that by Wednesday morning. We have that and we will. Legislative Council is in an all day I mean legislative, the committee assistant. Julie Tucker is in an all day meeting today so she hasn't been able to connect with you but we are meeting from 10th or on. On Thursday, so we're Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. So actually you have till Thursday morning on 1030 to 1230 we will be meeting and we would hope that you can come. I look forward to it. And if that side by side is ready before that our committee, you know, will, it will take it earlier so that we can look it over at you know they can be prepared. But I'm, it's, I'm, I just want to make sure I have plenty of time. I'm just this this calendar is making me tremendously uneasy. If I, if I may representative tall, I have reached out to finance and management and the joint fiscal office I'd like to brainstorm on like the easiest ways to be able to get you this information that you need in order to build your budget and fully understand your, your timeline. And so, I'll circle back with you once I have a better kind of sense of the plan and how we can provide that information to you expeditiously. Perhaps you know this because you have an overview of all of aHS. Are there more moving pieces in DCF than other budgets is this the more complicated budgets or are they all going to come in at this level. Yeah, I'd say as a general rule DCS budget is pretty much probably always the most complicated across state government. So it certainly is the probably the most challenging to lay it out. For sure across the agency there are other pieces that you will want to review of, I think some of the departments will be able to do that for you more straightforwardly. What I'm kind of thinking right now is my presentation that I that I usually get to the committees that has a very high level overview of the entire budget is updating that to reflect items that are the same from the dove wreck and items that have changed to kind of give you a sense and a refresher of what was originally included and what has changed and then you'll be able to kind of put them on top of each other, because the restatement really reflects the delta from the dove wreck. And so what I'm understanding we need to go back to the dove wreck and make sure that we have a full understanding of what was in the dove wreck, and then the move forward. So it's complicated. And so we can get there. I'm representing the only my only question is, we did pass a quarter budget, and whether there was anything in that quarter budget that we passed that was potentially to set the stage for the three quarters budget that may or may be consistent with what the what was in the January. I just want to make a clarification there and and I didn't mean to cut you off the administration when they presented the budget to our committee they wanted us to be very careful. In the term three quarter they said they no longer have a three quarter budget, they're they're doing a full year budget and for us to anticipate changes to decisions we made in the quarter budget. So that's even another level of complexity. We have to, you know, pay attention to the proposal in January the delta of what changed in January, what we passed in the quarter budget, what they're going, you know what changes now there are to the quarter budget. And so there's, it becomes much more. I mean, there's certainly many levels of that makes it much more complicated. I didn't mean to cut you off but I we I just want it's never a three quarter budget, at least now it's a full year budget with changes to what we did in the quarter so we need to fully understand those two. Thank you for reminding me to say that. I think that we are out of time. There's many things that I've written down the changes from January. The school age childcare hub CC FAP the lost federal dollars what are we leaving on the table with some of these reductions. What are the increases in reach up what are those looking like the tobacco funds that are being used for CC FAP exactly where those funds are coming from do we still have capacity in those funds, where they identified for other areas. The accounting of that that was a note for me and the Woodside phase down and replacement. Where there any other big issues that I didn't mention. You know, I think the, the bf is and transportation or issues, any of the supportive housing emergency housing. You see that there's concerns that you'll be addressing and should they be on the list. I'll put housing and then given what we have on our plate I may be talking with House General as to if they can pick up some of this. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, thank you. And Sarah and Sarah, thank you for coming in. And we look forward to your continued conversation in human services and Kimberly once again you have a plate full. Thank you. Thank you. Nice to see all of you. And thank you. Services for joining us. And thank you. It is, it is. Can I just say this is one of those situations where the link does not change in the policy committee does not change and we will run right to Department of Health when you're ready. Okay, are we is the health care is the health care committee joining us as well. I don't believe so for the most part the Department of Health language falls and money falls under human services. It is diva as that relates to health care that is the jurisdiction of the health care committee. Yes, and mental health they will. And so I see Commissioner Levine and I see Paul daily and Tracy Dolan I'm wondering if you would entertain us just standing up for four minutes starting at 20 after so that we can have a bit of a break before we go until 1130 which we have another schedule. So I would just like a four minute break and we'll start at 1020 it's now a three minute break. Can I just let people know that I'm not going to go off YouTube because it. Okay. No, I just turn off their videos or and mute themselves until. No, I just, I just asked the Commissioner that I just wanted to give him a heads up that I was going to ask him about the, the initiative in the original budget regarding the sustained home visiting for newborns expansion. So he'll be prepared to answer that didn't ask him to answer it now and just wanted to have him be prepared for. Thank you. Okay, I think that if we could turn some videos back on I think that we are close to starting. And Peter, this is your budget. Okay, I think we need representative not representative Levine Commissioner Levine. Welcome. And I personally, I personally want to thank you and on behalf of the committees and the members, the incredible amount of work that you have been doing over the past many, many weeks and the trust that Vermonters have and you and your presentations and the messages and you you deserve a lot of the credit for Vermont being as safe and and unfortunately we're we're really an attractive place for people to come now and so that that works on both sides but I really appreciate your expertise your calmness and your ability to effectively get messages to Vermonters and they're listening and thank you. Thank you. I'll try to maintain that calmness during the budget presentation. And it's been many months not weeks. Yeah, yeah, it has been months that that's right it. But but thank you. So we, we are how are doing joint meetings so that the committees of jurisdiction can hear the budgets because we're on an extremely accelerated timeframe. We fully understand that the budget that the presentation is is a is a restatement of the proposals in January. What did just come to our attention with DCF is there may be some proposals that there were no changes and so they aren't highlighted in the presentation, but we need a full understanding of the entire change from fiscal year 20 to 21 that this is not a three quarter budget but actually what the governor and the administration has proposed is a full year budget that that can also make changes to what we did in the quarter year budget that ends at the end of end of September. And we, I know you may not have all of that before you but at some point and Sarah Clark is going to help work with this. Are there initiatives that that were proposed in January that aren't highlighted that we need to still be aware of. I think with that welcome and you have your team with you. Let's start walking through the budget and representative Pew. Do you have some remarks you would like to make before we get started as chair of human services. I'm the representative and I have nothing to add except to add my voice and the voice of human services and all of Vermont. Dr Levine to you and your, all of your staff in in your response. And the guidance leadership that you've provided since the end of February. Thanks a village does take a village. So Teresa do you have a document and we will start with the presentation and you are on commissioner welcome. Thank you. So, our presentation is rather simple. So it's hard to even simplify it further from what's written before you on the screen. The state funding reduction is $1.1 million and the majority that we hope $850,000 to be specific results from the delayed implementation of the expanded home visiting program. Keep in mind this was a very dear to our heart program and still is. But at the same time, the work of COVID has disrupted, if you will, the work on the expansion of the program. That was in theory going to begin in July. The fiscal year 21 cost would be a million dollars in state funds, but planning on the work had to be delayed because of our mobilization for the pandemic response. So, if we propose that we're unable to begin the expansion of the program before the fourth quarter of fiscal year 21. We just need to incorporate that reality into the budget, which is predominantly reduction in the global commitment budget and our public health appropriation by $1.8 million. And just to finish it off, there is internal service charges that are slightly lower. A revised estimate of the federal share of department administration costs that's our first appropriation the administration appropriation that make up the balance of the savings and bring us up to the appropriate amount. So that's really in a nutshell. Are there questions before we move on to other initiatives that are that are now on the screen any questions about the delay in the home visiting program or the IFS charge and the third piece I Teresa I didn't write it down before the screen moved and I haven't copied this paper. The third was a revised estimate of federal share of department administration costs. So I Peter I see your hand is up representative. Yes, thank you so doctor just to be just to be clear the 375 newborns that are currently being visited are continued to be visited the the delay is the addition of the 550 newborn cases that that work was to be added on am I correct. Yeah, I honestly don't remember the exact number of newborns, but I think you're in the ballpark. It's the expansion, not the debt not decimating the current program. Okay, thank you. Let's see I don't see any other hands up so commissioner if you'd like to move on to the next piece. Thank you. Sure. This is more to bring you up to date on projects that were legislatively authorized by the General Assembly. So three programs, the covert response telehealth connectivity program. Health disparities related to covert 19 and EMT and paramedic train. These are all authorized by various pieces of legislation. And each one of them is in a different phase but they're all incredibly early in their phases of being able to even implement them in terms of negotiating sub grants. Applications for tuition support grant agreement completion. And we're, we're in that early phase of trying to implement what's in the legislation. Thank you I am. Again, looking for hands from committee members if there are questions there. I think a representative Fagan. Thank you and doctor this is these questions are not are not directly related to what you've just presented but certainly speaks to the tremendous amount of work and the outstanding response that you and the Department of Health have provided to the state of Vermont because of code. The is the Vermont emergency operations center still up and running. The SEOC. Yes, absolutely. Is that staff 24 7365. I believe so. It's often, it's often virtual, but yes. Okay, so you, you have somebody on the line or some bodies on the line 24 7365 to ensure Vermonters get appropriate response in a quick time frame. Okay, I just just, you know, this is what I had understood, and I just wanted to ask the questions to ensure that that everyone understands the type of commitment that that responding to COVID has taken and so really, you know, for all of them, as as representative you said, thank you. Thank you. You've, you've saved our bacon so to speak. The health operations center. Technically speaking separate from the SEOC that is also completely operational and has been since close to the beginning of the year. Thank you. Representative pew. Your hand is up. Thank you. Commissioner, I have what might be a broad question and maybe it's unfair given the fact that you all are moving as fast as you can, but I'm thinking, or worrying about the future, and whether or not this budget is sufficient financial resources from the state to enable the health department to respond to what many are assuming will be continued issues with COVID-19 for at least till January if not through the rest of the fiscal year. Yeah. I, I like your concern. And I want to blow off your concern. But at the same time, there is abundant federal funding coming to the department and coming to the state. In the form of originally a public health emergency response effort. And then the care supplement. The coronavirus relief fund allocation. And the newest grant, which is the ELC, the epidemiology and lab capacity enhancing detection supplement. So amongst all of those. There are many millions of dollars coming into the state. Some of them are on funding timelines. So we need to spend certain ones earlier than others. We feel that at the rate we're spending money now, we could potentially have adequate funding until the fall of 2022. I appreciate that. And in terms of the Yeoman's job that your staff have been doing. Are there public health functions that we have had to curtail or significantly reduce that perhaps Vermonters would be better served. If we were able to have some of them start up again. Whether it is. Yeah. Yeah, so to give you a flavor over a three month period. The health department accrued a level of overtime that would be equivalent to 36 FTEs. We have abundant people who have their usual job completely subsumed by their coronavirus effort. Others are still able to maintain their regular job without doing too much in the coronavirus sphere. Others are trying their hardest to do a fragment of their usual job while they're contributing to the coronavirus effort. Some of this will improve as positions that have been approved from our ELC grant come to fruition. But the reality is it isn't all hands on deck effort. I don't want to say that there are any programs that have completely just been abandoned. And we're not paying any attention to. But certainly the level of effort has proportionately decreased as the effort in the pandemic response has increased. No question about that. But, you know, many, many programs are still ongoing. We have worked with the Department of DHR to make sure that positions are taken very seriously. And when we're looking for funding for positions that perhaps we've asked for in the past. Unsuccessfully, but that are critical to our current effort that they be reexamined in a different light and they have been. We've revised the funding from federal grants for newer positions. We've had a much more streamlined acceptance of of those so that we can be the we can begin the process of integrating those positions into our effort. So, I wouldn't want to say that we've dropped the ball on anything by any means, but people are proportionately doing less and many cases on those efforts because of their need to be involved in the pandemic response. Hope that answers your question adequately. It's fine. People may ultimately have other questions. Representative toll. I'm not sure this is the place to ask the question about the tobacco fund and the the money that had been appropriated over several years, but not spent in terms of substance use work full. And how that is being. What was the word used. Reclaimed reallocated. He taken away from the Department of Health and alcohol drugs and putting it somewhere else. And so I'm curious as to how we're doing. And represent toll. This is not the place to ask that you can. I think it's on the table. So let's ask it at this point that's out there. So let's, let's, you know, use time and let's ask it in. So, I guess. Commissioner I am surprised, I will say that what was for several years, one of the major public health issues in the state, which is substance use disorder individuals experiencing substance use disorder and the need for people in the state who can provide those services or to provide school loans and grants to increase the workforce. That is no longer a need. So our alcohol and drug abuse program section. As one of those sections that actually has continued to operate very close to the way it operated previously before the pandemic. I think we're all aware that we're in the midst of a very challenging time for people who have mental health issues, or who have stand or who have substance use disorder issues. We've seen a spike in unintentional overdoses with opioids. Other other substance uses don't stop because we're in a pandemic. Often they get aggravated. Often the stress of the pandemic alone increases some of the maladaptive behaviors that people would normally exhibit to a higher degree now. It increases the levels of anxiety and depression that would increase the level of substance use that could be driven by those forces. People are also more isolated. And as they get more isolated they have less resources to draw upon or they at least think they have less resources to draw upon. And so if they're using injection drugs use those in isolation and not have anyone there to rescue them, so to speak, if they overdose. And finally, there were times that we've been given many vivid stories about where people's supply chains have changed, especially when people were in the stay at home mode. And they didn't even know what they were using sometimes because of the fact that they were basically using what they could get a handle on, and it may have been adulterated with who knows what. So all of our connections with those treatment networks have continued. And all of the usual work with recovery centers and their efforts to keep people in recovery have continued all of our work with naloxone distribution, none of that's really changed. The preferred provider network is alive and well and being communicated with with ADAP on a weekly basis. And obviously all of the usual partners that we engage in the harm reduction arena continue on as well. The thing I'm not as familiar with the night we've been we have to look into unless one of my colleagues on the call has information is some of those workforce expansion items you're talking about. Because I don't believe that those monies would have just disappeared. Although I'm not sure that certainly that hasn't been a focus that people have been paying attention to. So unless Tracy or Paul has anything to add regarding those I'm not sure I can respond directly on that one. Commissioner the this was brought to our attention with the we just heard the DCF budget and part of the DCF budget there was a mention that there's going to be a reversion of $3.5 million. There was some substance abuse disorder funds that came in as a as one money from a few years ago for workforce. You know to beef up our workforce and 2 million of that was going to be used to cover CCF AP we know these are one time funds but we also we need to get an accounting for ourselves from the JFO committee. The JFO office I'm sorry. I think that what was the balance of these funds and and what had we as a legislature had a priority for how they should be used and that there were two pots of money one was for the for the justice system and one was for the SUD workforce. And so that that's that's a question and and we also I just and I had asked the question that are any of the programs that the tobacco money any of the tobacco fund dollars that are used for prevention programs, you know addiction programs that that has not been decreased. And those pro those tobacco dollars are completely different dollars that this is a question and they have not increased is that correct. I'm not aware that they've been decreased. My financial director Paul Daley's on the phone. Are you aware of any change in those funds. Well, your understanding is correct. There are no changes to the Health Department's tobacco control program funding in the FY 20 budget it was in the FY 21 budget, it's level funded as just as in the original proposal. What we're talking about one time funds that were appropriated to AHS. Okay, and so the the 3.5 that representative Pew was talking about that was focused on SUD workforce. The total of that was was it 5 million. There was helpful. Can I or maybe representative Fagan speak. Okay, Peter, you're there. No, it is. It was 5 million. It was the 2017 2018 fiscal year. We were working with those funds earlier in the year before COVID to to try to stand up some nurse training. So that bill remains over in the Senate. I have no idea what the status of it is. And I'm sure and I've been communicating with Sarah to try to ascertain a few things and will continue to do so. Okay, and you will also keep representative you a prized of your conversations and involved in those conversations will do. In the nurses in the nurses training that was 1 million out of those. Is that correct Sarah. That is correct. Okay, and the balance that we had was an SUD money used or was there a full $5 million balance. If I may, can I run through kind of quickly the status of the $5 million that that's helpful and then I can follow up with a spreadsheet. There's originally $5 million appropriated from these tobacco funds for substance use disorder workforce investments. I think as the committees are aware there were a few iterations in terms of work that the AHS did in partnership with the legislature to get the money out the door. So up the $5 million, there is still a million and a half available underneath this construct at the agency of human services to be invested in SUD workforce. I believe the intention now from the, the, where the legislation last lay related to these funds is that they will be provided to the designated agency system to enhance their workforce. So million and a half for that same original purpose. This budget this restated budget and the governor recommend proposes to revert the remaining three and a half million dollars. Meaning it won't be for the original purpose of that appropriation, three and a half million would stay in the tobacco fund of that three and a half million. We are proposing to use 2 million of that to cover the childcare financial assistance program investments that were in the gov rec budget originally funded by the Education Fund. I believe it was tied to gaming. And since we we know that that's not moving forward in this restatement, given the kind of economic situation that we're in. We are proposing to use 2 million from these tobacco funds. It was originally proposed funding we never actually funded it through the Education Committee through any kind of gay proposal. Exactly, exactly. So but that does still leave remaining in the tobacco fund a million and a half dollars. And I didn't mean to, to step in I just had some confusion. Did you did you have a follow up question. This is fine. Thank you. Okay. And so I have some I have three other hands up. Peter, did you have your hand up for a different piece. Different question. Yes. So this is just regarding general use of CRF funding. You doctor you spoke to the fact that 36 fte's worth of overtime have been have been performed by your staff during the during this crisis, and that many members of your staff time have been completely subsumed by working on the coronavirus crisis. And others a portion of their time been used to to respond to the crisis. Are we able to pay those individuals normal salaries out of CRF such that we could see a down in the general fund budget here. Obviously the overtime is that's all CRF eligible and I'm going to and I while I don't see anything as far as the document stating that we're paying them CRF. I certainly remember voting on bills that would indicate that. But what about their their normal salaries for because they were working on on coven. And this is Paul daily I could answer that question in fiscal year 20 between February and June. We spent about just under $10 million on the response and about half of that was from a CDC grant that came in and early in the outbreak, and the balance was funded with CRF. And under the CRF rules, public health agencies are assumed to be substantially dedicated to the pandemic response. So all of our staff costs that are working on the response are eligible under the CRF and have been charged since about May and will continue to be until our allocation is used or until we get to December 30. But wouldn't that then free up a significant amount of general funds that normally would go to salary. It did in fiscal year 20 represent Fagan and that those funds were reverted to help balance this year's budget. Yeah, but what about 21 because the the the the emergency continues. It's we expect that that'll happen. But as Dr. Levine noted, our hope is that we'll be able to get more and more of our folks back to their regular jobs where they'll be charging to the what was budgeted for in 21. But we do expect that there will be lower spending overall in state funds in 21 than we're then are in our base budget right now. So is the intent then right now to to true it up in the budget adjustment or could you give us a an estimate of funds that that could be reduced now for for other purposes. Representative Fagan we're not. I'll speak for myself. I'm not comfortable forecasting financials related to COVID for more than about three days in advance right now. That's how uncertain things are. I can understand that. Okay, so that so that would then indicate that it would be a true up in the budget adjustment. Okay, or possibly a close out. Okay. Thank you. Representative from from stead. Thank you. Madam chair, I wanted to ask Dr. Levine a little bit about the vaccine piece that you had talked about earlier but before I did that I just wanted to say thank you again I feel like if you would come into our committee room. Representative and I think our group would have given you a standing ovation for the most incredible work over the last how many months so yes I would say thank you thank you thank you you have been terrific you've been great on all the press conferences. You've just done a great job and as a state as a member of this state as a just thank you. So, my question about vaccines is you did have a little section there about vaccines in your pet earlier presentation, but I wondered. There's been a lot of conversation about the flu vaccine, and how important it is going to be, especially I would believe in our schools, as we open our schools and so forth so in September when we're all being recommended to be vaccinated and this I guess is not the 21 budget but I wonder if you're thinking about at all the way we did with each one and one where we had the vaccine given in the schools in order to ensure that we were really catching a lot of the kids. And are we thinking in that direction and are you thinking about funds in order to be able to do that and who to work with. Great, great questions. I thought you're going to ask about the COVID vaccine. That's a hypothetical right now though everyone seems to be so enthused about it and the progress that's being made. So with regard to the flu. It's going to be a true partnership opportunity. Because all of the possibilities need to be explored. As you know, schools were and could still be a major locus for where vaccines can be available and working with the school nurses is something that our health department is constantly doing anyways. Pharmacies have already been rather front and center forward in the national scene talking about the roles they can play. And as you know there was legislation regarding vaccination of those under age 18 in pharmacies. Pharmacies need to continue to play a role and then obviously the entire healthcare system specifically in the primary care sector, but potentially beyond that as well. Right the biggest effort has to be early and high uptake of flu vaccine, knowing as some people are calling it the twin Demek is upon us, where we'll have concurrent flu and COVID. And at least if we can try to do one thing we can prevent the one we know we can do a lot of good work to prevent now. So, apparently did not have a huge flu season this year. A lot of people think some of that is because of the stringent conditions that were typical of most countries at the point in time when flu would have been prevalent in Australia. So people weren't necessarily in contact with one another as much as they could have been. So, remains to be seen what the experience in this country will be regarding the flu. Don't want to base it all on southern hemisphere. In terms of, you know, budgeting issues, you know, being a universal vaccine state. There's so much that's already been taken into account so I think what you're referring to is more the implementation steps. Of actually giving it to the population. And I'm just not sure. We have a whole work working group looking at that right now, in terms of just how do we deliver the vaccine in a way that it's never been delivered previously, the upfront and high uptake part of it. But I'm not sure about the budgetary implications yet to be to be candid. So I'm in my concern would be mostly our children only because our drug stores really haven't up to haven't been taking that on they don't want to give to under 18. And that makes it really difficult for families to balance how to do that and yet it's so important to keep our schools open because a kid could present with a fever because they have the flu so I just think it's important to maybe think about dollars in that direction. Yeah, no great suggestion and certainly the schools are a big part of the focus. No question. Thank you representative representative felt us your hand was up. You still have a question. No Peter asked my question I was concerned about not seeing a reduction in personnel services costs, but I understand that now thank you. Thank you. Representative McFawn. You're still muted tougher. Okay, thank you. Thank you doctor for everything that you people have been doing. I have one question. DCF is about ready to stand up some 70 childcare hubs, and it will incorporate approximately 7,000 children. If we're talking about 100 plus kids, plus quite a bit of staff in these hubs. My, my question is, has your agency been involved in the planning of these to make sure that whatever kind of facility is being used, it's appropriate. And also, within that facility can the protocols that the department has sent out, can they be followed. So I'm just wondering what I assume you've had some input, but I'd like to hear what it is. Yeah, so this was just debuted literally 48 hours ago. So I can't give you a tremendous amount of answer to your question just yet. Our maternal child health division is into intimately involved with childcare, all the time, wrote all the guidance for childcare during the pandemic. Obviously we play a critical role. I'm not sure I could say in the last 48 hours that what we've done since since the announcement came out and the initiative came out. I can get back to you on that because I really appreciate that. So, so at least for one, but I'm understanding right now is since you just heard about it, that maybe there was no input. Well, I mean it's the agent you mentioned our agency I mean we're, you know, we're a department within the agency of human services. Obviously, the secretary and the agency we're doing a lot of work DCF was a huge contributor and focus of that. So, you're right, we were not intricately involved at that stage. I think this has been pretty like everything with the pandemic this has been very rapidly laid out and being moved along. I'm just wondering if I could just add one thing. Just one thing. While we might not have been involved in this one in every initiative across state government that has required public health input around any kind of guidelines or what the public health impact has been. We've been pulled in every time so I would not be surprised that the plan is to pull us in on the operationalization of this, but in every part of state government. So they begin the work, then they come to us and say can you look is this in keeping with the guidelines so we have been very involved and they do look for our final approval on many things that have any impact on public health and on coven so I would anticipate it would be a similar process here. Yeah, I show hope so because this is a big deal. A lot of kids congregated and you need the right facility and everything they've already, they know how many they're going to have in each county as well. So they're pretty far along in this. Okay, thank you. But Jeff does also realize that all of the guidance for childcare that's been ongoing prior to this latest initiative has had public health input every step of the way. And then we actually refer to it all the time when people express concerns about opening the schools, you know pre K through 12. We're always referring to the experience we had with childcare, how we wrote the guidance regarding not only the hygiene and how the each facility worked, but more importantly, the people who are staffing the facilities, the number of children to staff ratio, and how all of that fit together. And so all of that guidance was really from our department. So I can't believe any of that will be thrown out. It'll only be augmented if anything else. Just ask who that was who was that speaking. Dr living up to Tracy dole and deputy commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you representative representative Hooper. Thank you I have a question on a different topic earlier. We're having a conversation about how you have heroically shifted resources to the pandemic. Clearly you're going to continue doing that. I am concerned about the work that you are not able to do within the department. I would like to understand that better in terms of the, well, I can't say it better than that. What are you not getting to that needs to be attended to and I'm sure that's a huge question, but it matters. Yeah, and I hate to give you the impression that anything has been totally unattended. Many of the things we do in our department rely on federal grants, and one has to do a certain amount to honor the intent of those grants, and to continue to reapplying for those grants and making sure that programs don't get interrupted. So I would hate to think that there was anything specific that has had nobody's eyes on it, or participation in an ongoing effort. There's so much in public health that we are required to report on that were required to maintain programming on in our roles in health promotion and disease prevention that have to continue. And that they are continuing, you know, at some point at some in some places with less of the manpower than normally would be present. So, perhaps the bare minimum as opposed to abandonment altogether. I wouldn't want you to think that that's not happening. Like I mentioned in ADAP. Lots is still going on in a very ongoing way with tobacco prevention. Those programs have not, you know, been disturbed, and we have actually manpower who continue to work on those programs chronic disease prevention. A lot of federal grant money with regards to asthma, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and those things are not stopping even if we're not highlighting them all the time at this point in time during a pandemic response. And then, you know, COVID is an infectious disease. But there are many other infectious diseases that are an ongoing basis require health surveillance, whether they be sexually transmitted diseases tuberculosis, etc. And none of that can stop either. I'd say the one area that I definitely we've had to reallocate some of the work is in our laboratory. Because as you know, our laboratory is literally working. It's not three shifts yet but it could be if we needed it to be with a surge on providing this testing for COVID-19. There are other basic functions the lab has to continue to do during the seasons when we see various types of infections. But then there are other basic functions our lab does that we're actually shifting and allowing to go to other places. So our microbiologists and lab technicians can devote their time to the effort at hand. So that is one area where the work isn't stopping it's just not happening within the context of our own laboratory anymore, while it's so pressured by the needs for the pandemic. So, you know, I could go on and on, you know, division by division, but I don't think I want you to come away with the impression that we haven't taken our eye off of any ball. But many of them you're not going to hear about with as much vigor from us, just because of the fact that people are so involved in the pandemic response. And in a couple of cases, if I can just add on the federal government has allowed us some waivers on some aspects. So WIC continues, but the federal government allowed us not to have to bring people in person to certify them. So that's been a piece of work that we've been able to delay while we still continue WIC lab testing is another area. Some evaluations that we planned we pushed off. So it's some of the larger initiatives where we slow it down we continue to do the program, but maybe a new piece or an evaluation, or something that would have been more involved we push off and in a lot of cases we're doing it in cooperation with their federal partners. Please don't understand me to be asking to be critical of what you're doing and I totally understand your effort to bring focus to those areas. My large concern, and, and I'll leave this to our policy committee to probe if they think it's appropriate, but the success of programs during the pandemic has been based on their resilience and robustness. I'm really concerned that as we move to address this one urgent area that we are reducing the capacity of our other systems, and that some other unintended consequence will be coming in. I believe that we should be making deeper investments in public health, rather than just trying to manage on what we have and and that's the source of my question. It's a big question, we can't talk about it in depth here, but if the policy committee thinks there's some value to it, I would hope that we would have a conversation about how we make those investments to assure the robustness of the entire system. And I do appreciate your intent. And not only this August body but clearly on a federal basis. The nation needs to learn its lessons from this pandemic. And one of those lessons is so well stated by you that upfront investment in public health will pay dividends when it's needed. And a country that spends so little money on prevention and public health traditionally needs to understand that this is an important investment that they are making, not just from an emergency preparedness standpoint, but from multiple other aspects of public health as well. Thank you, Mary. Thank you. We have a question from Representative McFawn and then we need to wrap this up as we have another budget coming following right after yours. Topper. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, this is probably going to be a controversial question. Dr. With the need for us to, I think there may be a need for us to look at the exemptions that are in place now for vaccinations, especially with the flu. I'm wondering if anybody in your department is thinking about recommending that we as a legislative take a look at some of the exemptions in terms of vaccination, ie the religious exemption. Representative McFawn, if I could just jump in here, I would be, it's not being comfortable or uncomfortable and whether it's a hot topic. It's a topic that's not on the table and because our timeframe is so short, I want to focus on the budget items and the policy items that are being included and I think that this topic is one that needs probably a full presentation on its own and to just hit upon it quickly in a budget presentation. I'm afraid wouldn't give it the justice it needs for all sides that are listening in who are, whose ears are really perked up now. Okay, that's fine, Madam Chair. I just was referring to the piece in the presentation about the importance of vaccinations and money and so on. So okay, that's cool. I think it's absolutely fair for the commissioner to respond to the piece that's before us with those vaccinations. But I don't want to get into philosophical exemptions, but absolutely, if there's more that you can respond to commissioner on the piece that's in your presentation, please do so. Yeah, no, it would be a much broader discussion, I think, and not the first time this question's been asked. So, certainly fair game for us for for a future time. So, do you have more to add. I'm pulling up on my iPhone your presentation because it's not in front of us where vaccines were were mentioned Teresa can you pull that back up I can't find it on my iPhone right now. The screen's too small and by I had take one moment. The bottom of the first page. There it is. I've got it. No. And it's specific to COVID vaccine as opposed to any other vaccine. That's right. Okay, in the event that an immunization becomes available. This is asking for the question and whether they'll be sufficient federal funding for those individuals seeking this vaccination. Is that precisely, precisely, and I would anticipate there will be abundant federal funding but it's very unclear to me. If we use the word sufficient, you know, look in your crystal ball. It would be challenging to understand, I will say that we have stood up an entire vaccine working group, specifically not on the issues that copper raised but the issues that are raised in equitably dispersing a vaccine for COVID to an entire population. And doing it in a way that gets it to the highest priority groups first but gets it to everybody eventually, and make sure that equity considerations are always front and center. But, you know, it's also looking at things like what are the syringe needs, needle needs. Do we do what we run out of those like the country ran out of PPE, or ran out of certain reagents for testing. So trying to be as proactive, if you will, as possible, so that all the issues that we need to get our hands around or on the table. Instead of whenever vaccines available and whenever any federal funding becomes ready for us to utilize. Thank you Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you topper for the question and as you said so much of this is still looking into a crystal ball not knowing what the fall is going to bring not knowing the availability of a vaccine. Who would be first in line there there's so many unanswered questions and what funding will be needed and how much will be available through federal dollars. If money is needed. Obviously that would be a budget adjustment in January question for perhaps use of CRF dollars if you know to supplement other federal dollars. I think that we need to close this testimony as as we are getting ready to hear from mental health which is coming the Department of Mental Health which is coming in next. Peter you will work with representative pew and her committee. As a second page of the presentation that talked about some CRF funding initiatives, but the big pieces were the $1.1 million reductions which really has to do with the delay of being able to implement the home visiting program, as well as two other smaller changes with IFS charges and the estimate changing with the federal share of administrative costs. Representative Clark is work. Other pieces of the healthcare budget that were proposed in. that we will need to bring in as part of this discussion and she is also working on a sheet that will update or overlap or make it very clear that the ups and downs sheet that we're working off from now is based off January, but doesn't reflect clearly the January over fiscal year 2020 to help us get a quick, clear understanding of the full year changes, not just the Delta from 2020. And so I wanna thank the Human Services Committee. I wanna thank the chair and thank you for working with us. We look forward to closing these off. If a budget like the healthcare closes out more quickly than maybe the DCF, if you could shoot us an email with things that you're comfortable with, the faster we get it, the faster we all get our work done and for adjournment at the end of some closing remarks, Representative Pugh. No, these last two days have been very interesting and we will see you tomorrow for Dale. Very interesting sounds like when you have a new piece of clothing and your husband tells you it's fine. I don't know how to take very interesting. My eighth grade English teacher said never use that. Never use that, fine. It's Amanda. Thank you so much. And our committee will get together next week because I don't think, you know, really begin to figure out and committee members know what their areas of expertise in the budget are if they wanna begin to take those as well. Thank you very much. I think this has been a wonderful process. And again, thank you, Commissioner Levine and your staff for an absolutely outstanding level headed response and leadership. Thank you. And I do wanna apologize to those of you that are here. I've been extremely distracted. I was getting my daughter out the door and then in the middle of this was the goodbye to drive to Michigan and it's an uneasy time for a mother, but then when your daughter's a little nervous too and the tears start spilling, so that's why I've been very distracted and on and off the screen. But I think I'll be focused now. We'll see till the phone calls start coming in. But thank you all and we're going to jump off our committee because we have to jump on with a fresh new screen for the health care, mental health. I'm not live now, Madam Chair. Please.