 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont. We are continuing our discussion on age 546 actually the racial justice statistics. And we are going to start with Kristen McClure chief data officer, agency of digital services so good afternoon and you could please introduce yourself for the record and welcome. Sorry, actually, sorry. That's all right. I mean, before we get started, Mr. Moore, I just want to kind of framing a little bit letter by no kind of where we are with this and focus for for today. So last time that you testified, you did some initial information as far as the resources that might be needed for standing up this division and doing the work as set forth in this bill. But since then I have had some conversations with folks in the appropriations committee and others, and we need to dig into that a little bit more to have a little bit more understanding of what the resources are needed, both initially and perhaps longer term. And some of the questions that have come up is, you know, it may take some number of months to hire the right people that there are certain there's certain foundational work that presumably needs to be done before we get into serious data analysis and questions. And as far as understanding the availability of data, the reliability of data, the systems that are available to provide the data in, you know, for this, etc. So we kind of want to understand how you would see this rolling out. So we want to try to understand a little bit better of what the resources are of the agency of digital services, what exactly, or maybe not exactly but a little more detailed level as far as what would they be doing, given the cost that that we would incur for that from from DBS. And what we would anticipate the division itself would be doing and when so we're trying to dig into the details a little bit more to justify whatever those resources are that are necessary, particularly for this first year, and what we would anticipate over a longer term, if that if that all makes some sense now, I know when we get this to Director Davis, you know, there are some other questions that are out there that I'd like to explore a little bit with folks today, such as the the advisory panel I don't really think that's so much on this course area as much as Director Davis, but we'll wait for her to get into some of those other issues. And I guess I'd ask, if there's anything additional that you want to throw out there up front, as far as what we're looking to understand today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. For the record, Kristen McClure, Chief Data Officer with ADS. Thanks for having me today. So, I'll go through and talk about the ADS resources, like staffing resources, and the timing of when I would anticipate the division. I would anticipate meeting them. So, we're talking identified data, so I'll focus in that space. So one is a database administrator. And the role the DBA database administrator is really to take the data, put it into a database, manage the database, really do that, that technical detail. Just make sure it has the appropriate security. They would also write the code to do the matching of the person from one data set to another to make sure the linkage is there. They would create the unified data set and then provide access to the division. So that role, that role you can like phase in a little later, probably about I would say a month before the data is actually going to be sent to the division. It's not one of the earlier roles that you need. So you would need about probably about a month to set up the database, get the tables ready, get the schema ready. But it's not one of the early phased roles. Any questions on that before I go to the project manager role. Yeah, I just, just one other, I just wanted to throw out one other item if you could address it as far as some of the issues I raised but also the data sharing agreements and how that fits into this process and who would be managing that as well but I didn't have any questions about the administrator. Thank you. Okay, yeah, but I'll make sure we touch on the DUAs. And I would sprinkle that in as part of the division work. Just take a note. For the other ADS role, there is one other ADS role that we recommend and that's a project management role. I would see this role as needing to start quite early on with the division roles to really plan the work, scope out the work, determine the deliverables, assess any risks and keep the project, create a project plan and keep it on track. I would see that quite early on in the process. That covers those are really only the two ADS staffing roles. Both we have scoped out is contractor at the contractor rate. So it's worth noting that as part of the cost structure. Alan, do you want me to go into the division staffing or would you like to stick with ADS cost? Let's stick with the ADS cost first if we could and then transition to the division. I appreciate that. Thank you. So there are two other components to the ADS cost one is specifically the technology component, which I'll go through. And the other is what I'll refer to as like the division costs of ADS, which kind of every division occurs in their two components to that. So the first one on the technology cost. I'll just step through the different components of it. We have the data transfer, which is each business area sending the data to the division. So that's essentially a no cost feature, very, very low and minimal cost. So I assess that at about $0. There is a hosting cost that'll be needed. So to really house the data and the database, the cost structure around that about $5,000. And again, it's based on assumptions around the size of the data. So as we better hone in on how many different data sets and the size of the data. And if the committee would like historical data included, because I did not assess any cost of historical data since it wasn't noted in the bill. But if we do have a very broad big set of data that we want included, we can better refine that. The other cost which I talked about last time was the one time CGIS setup cost, and that's a criminal justice information system cost. That's required for working with CGIS data so we would need the environment where the data lives to be CGIS compliant. So it's really a configuration cost, again a one time cost, and to create that safe CGIS environment for the data. There are a few other items listed in the bill around technology cost. One is having a public website. Again, that's essentially no cost so it's tested $0. Having a dashboard and this is, it's roughly $96 per person per year. So if we're assuming five headcount for the division is about $500. And then the last item in the technology cost is around publishing the raw data file online, which we call to open data. That's essentially zero cost as well. So from a technology cost perspective to the identified data, it's about $45,500. The last component to the ADS cost are basically costs that each agency division incurred incurs, and that's consisted of allocation and SLA which is service level agreement. So allocation costs are costs that are statewide costs. So really every agency division department in the state benefits from. So it's allocated evenly based on headcount. So for the assumptions here we modeled it after another division that has five headcount, and that would be about $30,000 for allocation costs, which is like cybersecurity. So open data would fall into that security around how we log into the computers to make sure it's a safe network. The SLA component, the service level agreement component. Again, we modeled this after a division with five headcount. It has includes an licensing cost so Microsoft Office license cost and any additional hosting cost. That's about $20,000 we've all parked for that. Any questions on the technology costs before I talk about division staffing. So, so, yeah, I did have one question. So you said the 30,000 based on five 20,000 based on five so would it pretty much be 4,000 per person for the service level and 6000 per person for the agency division I mean if so if there's fewer people we just take, we reduce that amount. For the most part, yes, exactly the where the allocation fluctuates is, if there are more state employees one year than a previous year it would be less. You know the peanut butter spread would be less if they're fewer be a little more, but for the example we have here yes that's exactly how it work. Thank you. Yeah, Kristen just a quick clarification of the cost that you just work your way through. For the most part, I think it was only one that was probably a one time cost. He's an annual cost correct. Correct. Okay thank you. Did you say how much does these. The Seages cost $40,000. Okay, I missed that okay and that would be a one time cost one time correct. And yes, the office stated were annual costs as well. And that's the one, the only one time cost. And how long would, would you expect that the project manager would be on board. I would estimate about a year and a half, potentially two years. Probably the database administrator once they start their own ongoing costs. They're an ongoing cost, I would expect. And we can kind of talk about the out years more. I would expect after the first two years, there to be a rhythm and a pattern to the, the data that's being sent and it being a little more standard and repetitive. At which point, I would expect a lower level of support needed from the database administrator. If the data continues to be every year it's like a brand new set of data and data elements and data schema and very messy. It could be the same amount of headcount throughout. I would, I would not anticipate that scenario though, I would anticipate the division getting in a groove with the business. Consistent data sets and schemas being sent. So needing less support from the DBA over time. Okay, thank you. Thank you. See the other hands right now. Okay. So I'll step through the kind of the division headcount but also, Suzanne also defer to you and please feel free to jump in. I'll start with kind of the data roles of the division. And I should mention because it was brought up last time for testimony. I think coach had brought it up. So the roles that I'm going to talk about are also included. And they were comprehended as part of our depth, some of the terminology we use is different for the responsibilities, but really similar overlap in terms of the primary responsibilities responsibilities with the exception of the database administrator that wasn't as specifically called out in our depth for the staffing. So for their two specific data roles that I had recommended for the division one was a data analyst and the other was a data steward. So a data analyst primary responsibility, analyzing the data, really doing that deep, deep analysis around the data. So I would expect the data analyst to create and maintain the dashboard that's outlined in the bill. I would expect the data analyst to be able to perform all the roles and functions that the state data steward would do. So the data analyst has somewhat of a broader skill set than a data steward. So I would expect the data analyst to also be part of the discussions around data governance with that lead. So working with the business to establish the data governance and the data definitions and standards. And the data steward typically focuses on cleaning the data, high quality of data KPIs around the data, and being the role that executes the vision of data governance so making sure the data governance is being implemented. And then Suzanne I don't want to speak for you at all talk through the lead role, if that's okay. And then you can correct me. So, certainly for the lead role to lead and coordinate the team in the direction, I would expect the lead to have the vision for how they want to roll out the data governance, how they want the business which data elements that they want to receive from the business, how to standardize the data collection of the different elements to do the to do the DUAs the data usage agreements with the different owning areas to do any contract management grant application. I think those are the key responsibilities I would see from the lead. So, as far as as timing on on when these folks should be coming on board. So, so there's, we have down five in the bill, but I've really been quite questioning whether we're going to have the work for them to do initially since isn't the first step. So I think that's one of the foundational issues of getting actually getting the agreements in place, figuring out the data. Or am I wrong, it just it just seems that we would ramp up to that level but does one need that initially to get this started. I could see where we could ramp up and when I say ramp up. Where we would want to start with the lead, at least a data analyst and a data steward to create the data usage agreements start having those discussions with the business. And then maybe once there's some traction in place to bring on the next data analyst and data steward, but I would really see that that core team of the data analyst steward lead really working at the beginning and doing all that foundation work together. Okay. So, Yeah, good. Yeah, I guess. Just sort of follow up to what you're discussing Kristen. What do you see as a timeline let's say we approve this bill gets signed we get started in July. How quickly can this all ramp up. How quickly could it all ramp up to the point where we would have. I just want to make sure I'm understanding the school. For instance, when I look at the bill. There's a report to the very beginning of 23. So this expectation there but things would be operating fully. But that's the way I read that okay is that is that is that too optimistic or is that your estimation realistic. I think that's a very aggressive timeline to be at that end state I think it's realistic to have a report of. Maybe it's four or five data sets that are complete that you've worked with the business on to anticipate full completeness in six months I think is very aggressive. Yeah, okay. Thank you. So just following up with that. Would the work progress perhaps that when you said you just mentioned the number of data sets. Would the division perhaps look at, say law enforcement, as perhaps for our system providing a data set. And then the state's attorney with whatever their new system is that's a, I understand that they're moving to, and then the courts. Those are considered each data sets essentially. Exactly. So for, for instance, the DPS side of it, I would consider traffic stops one data set use of force, a different data set. I'm not familiar with the system, I'm less familiar with that space but kind of any unique distinct data that they're collecting around bail or acquittals or convictions, maybe the same data set potentially. And in your experience are there going to be some data sets that might be a little more straightforward to deal with than others. I certainly would expect there to be some mature more mature data sets that have existing data dictionaries standard definitions around their data elements. The one that comes to mind is do see they have a very complete comprehensive data set. It's a little more mature than some other systems. So I certainly would expect them all to be at somewhat different levels. Some areas and maybe this has changed since I last investigated it but on the judicial side in the court system, I would say it's probably a less mature data set they weren't collecting race and ethnicity data at the time that may have changed over the last year and half, but for instance that I would say is probably a less mature data set. So going, going into this, if there are three individuals that we start with. They're not necessarily going to try to gather everything from everyone right up the bat they may, there may be some discussions and what the highest priorities are, or what might be the most straightforward one to bring in. I don't have a question for this is for you but so so there's work that could be done with three people pretty close to right off the bat presumably. Although there's going to be some tougher nuts to crack on some of those data sets presumably. So I guess the one other thing I, you know, I've, we'll probably hear, we may hear a little bit from Karen Gannett as well. And we're familiar with some what familiar with the work of the crime research group. Well, we're familiar with a lot of the work they do a lot of work for us here. And we talked and she was mentioning various foundational type work and perhaps you can speak a little bit more to it but really looking at each of the data sets as we're talking about it and understanding how reliable or credible they are or what kind of systems there's what what she term foundational work and this is, would this be more of ADS or would it be both ADS the resources you talked about and the division or would that responsibility be more than division. I see that more as the division, it's a lot of that process work of creating standards, which elements to collect. Are they being collected in a consistent way across the different business areas really understanding the data collection. That foundational work I would see coming from the division. I think that's the questions I have. Are you good represents world on those issues. I am right now. Thank you. So you're going to get all that money in the budget for us now that you've heard this is that just kidding. You don't have to answer that. I'm not actually kidding. I really appreciate that I miss before that that's very helpful to have those additional details. Great, thank you. Hey else. Welcome on directors. Davis, your chance to add testimony. Thank you. Thank you all when a Saturday for the record to Santa Davis racial equity director for the state. And I am grateful to the chief data officer for being able to walk us through some of those technical costs and staffing resources. And I'm going to add a little bit more to consider, because while that is a great summary of the data and technological needs for this division to be successful, there are also a couple of additional operational slash administrative things that should be considered namely first administrative support. So I just wanted to. I find it helpful to remind folks sometimes that the agency of administration is actually a lot smaller than that we tend to think it is the AOA for example, would under the still support the council and the division, but also that would be on top of its existing capacity. So the administrative support for the agency also supports the secretary's office, the chief performance office, the racial equity office in its existing capacity, the office of risk management, the workers comp division, services, the ICAR, the interagency council on room making, and a number of other pieces to that. So would we add this division that would create an additional burden for our central staff that's already spread a bit thin and so I would just encourage us to consider that capacity and how we could support that. The other thing I wanted to mention is legal assistance. I know that in order to execute and manage the data sharing agreements and other legal questions and agreements and contracts and challenges. We're going to need robust legal support, particularly at the outset when we're setting all of this up. And I did just want to remind the room that the AOA also does not have a general counsel. A lot of other agencies around the state do what we do not. We actually rely on the general office for all of our legal assistance because we don't have a general counsel. So that's another thing just to keep in mind the necessity for that legal support again especially during the setup period. So those were the two items that I wanted to add on to what the Chief Data Officer just said. So thank you. Go ahead, Martin. I can ask a question there. Is that something that those administrative roles such as presumably setting up the advisory panel meetings, those kind of things. Is that something that would be encompassed by what we're calling the lead using the floor's terminology I mean is that, or are we talking in an additional half an FT as an administrator or how's that, how's that panel at the end. You know potentially if we consider a lead role. If we consider, well, so we want to understand the relationship between the lead who may or may not be the person referred to you as the deputy here. So if we're thinking about the lead as being maybe not a 1.0 FTE or being able to spread duties a little bit thinner than perhaps. I would just say that, you know, a big component of this is we want to make sure that we. That's this in a way that people are being compensated fairly for all of the work that we're asking them to do and that we understand what we're asking them to do at the outset. I think it would be good just to see a detailed breakdown of what we would be if we were to put those more administrative duties onto a lead. It would be helpful to see a more detailed breakdown about what exactly would be encompassed in that with these rules going together. And whether administrative support because some of that administrative support. Support the division, but may not be exclusive to the division. Right. So for example, I suppose I can think of. Well, I can't on the spot, but someone could probably think of a situation where the administrative support might be needed for the office of racial equity on the whole and it might. Benefit or support the division, but maybe not be exclusive to it. If this is somebody who may need to liaise with AOA more broadly, or with other departments and agencies, then just a clear definition of whether that person is specifically hired to support the division exclusively or whether it's a little bit of a more fluid support role as needed. That would be, I'm so sorry. I don't even know if I've answered this question. Well, I think there's still questions are I guess I'm trying to understand what this bill would be asking of appropriations and what I'm seeing right now is is that we probably can get away for a while with three people to lead the analyst the board and I'm using lead and law deputy director. I'm considering that kind of the same role, but are we adding something in addition, as far as some point something of administrative support. That that's really a question presumably Trevor that's what we need to know. We wouldn't need to know that I have just a follow on question to Suzanne. How is your space in your office a bit to your office in terms of accommodating additional folks. There is none. Okay. So we need to solve that problem too. Correct. Yes. And I mean, you know, if we're thinking with our 21st century brains, then conceivably perhaps a number of these roles could be partly or fully remote. There are tech based roles and so the possibility that maybe we could forgo some office space but again I know that a lot of data do need to be housed on site somewhere. So I don't necessarily want to volunteer staff not to have office space. They even get in the door. But I would say that right now where we are located. There is not a comfortable. I'll share that when we were hiring just or planning to hire the two racial equity staff that were authorized last year. It was a bit of a challenge just figuring out where we could find for the two workstation. So that would be another another consideration for us here. Um, so. So I guess that if we could, it's still not quite understanding how to nail that last issue down. Presumably we can talk to the AG's office, we can offline see if that this causes any resource issues with the AG's office, if they're going to have to provide this additional assistance, legal assistance. But how can we get to the point of understanding what additional resource we need for an administrator. Yeah, I mean I really I do think that it probably is appropriate to consider whether one of the existing roles might be able to be split. If, if we determine and I really would lean on the judgment of the chief data officer and the CS to the CRG representatives to let us know, can a lead the half time. At least at the beginning, you know, at the beginning of this project, if that's the case, then perhaps we could consider having that person also serve in it in a semi in a part time administrative role. But, you know, again, we just we want to make sure that the support is there not just from a data infrastructure perspective but also just from the operational side so maybe that is a good role, a good path to explore. Yeah. I know I don't want to start change this I just want to really try to nail it down so that we're having only the staff that we need. Certainly, and I guess. If Mr. Plur if you have any, could weigh in on whether that's a possibility that somebody that's in a week and do some of that work, for instance with the advisory panel and report reporting requirements. Yeah, to Susanna's point of potentially have the lead be like half head count and then other responsibilities in addition to that I think that's totally appropriate. And then much like we had talked about the DBA kind of ramping down over a few years when things are more in a steady state and established. I think that could also be appropriate for the lead to if Susanna feels the same way. I appreciate that. Thank you. So I had a couple of questions on the bill and then I wanted to turn to the advisory panel and then certainly want to open it up. I don't know if you have any other particular issues or questions with the latest draft but just from the discussion right now. I'm just looking I don't know if you have the bill in front of you but it's, I'm, I'm probably actually a draft behind but it's the same page. I'm just looking at where we're talking about the duties of the executive director of racial equity. And it's subsection e to the director main consultation with the racial justice statistics advisory board, hire a deputy director to oversee the administration and operation of the division. Is that the language necessary is that the right language, if we're not necessarily, maybe this isn't the title shouldn't be deputy director. I do need that language in there to give the authority to hire, whatever we're calling this position the lead or not or is that not necessary maybe this is a question as much for represents world as well. So here, or do we just spell it out when we're getting to the appropriation. Let me ask represents world that question first. I would have to think on a little bit of my initial reaction to that is probably doesn't need to be spelled out. We're getting the discretion to the division to figure out precisely what the title is. And, and, you know, we're getting the responsibilities at a higher level and we want to leave the discretion as much as possible with with the division to make sure they're staffing it the way they want to have it staffed. I'm just suggesting that we delete that section. There's a reason to keep that there. If you're troubled by that director Davis or not. No, I would agree. While I'm not 100% certain whether the language would be required, I would agree that if we don't need it then you could cut it. Okay. So, the other thing I'd like to jump to talking a little bit about. I mean, like I said, I certainly would like any kind of additional feedback since you've had the bill for a little bit longer is with respect to, if I can find it with respect to the, the advisory panel. And I have a couple questions I've had pushed back on on how large that advisory panel is not not just necessarily in this committee but elsewhere. It's often to have huge advisory panels, and there was a rationale for it but I have a couple things I want to throw out there and get your comment on, if I could. One would be to essentially eliminate all the members who are there as in representing their entity that's providing data. And that would be the Supreme Court, you know, Chief Justice, the Attorney General designee defender general etc. And there's that gets rid of probably 10 people, and instead have some form of language that would require each of those entities to have a committee available to the advisory panel to provide it to provide information so we can actually designate rather than they have to be at every meeting. They can be called upon by the rest of the advisory panel and the rest of the advisory panel I would certainly get rid of the two members of the General Assembly. They need to be on there. But there may be some questions on a couple of these people, but certainly the six individuals that are representing the affected communities being I think critical. Somebody who deals with mental health treatment. So if you have expertise in community based research on racial equity, maybe maybe not somebody from Human Rights Commission but any of those affected entities providing advice with these other individuals available. So I wonder if you can comment on that concept that troubles you, or if that's one way to try to have some more manageable. Martin. In our discussions. One of the possibilities was to think in terms of a liaison, you know, from those respective entities, because as the need changes over time. There might be a signing it let's say if I was the director of health. I might have one health officer be the liaison to direct certain data. And at other times, I might direct someone else, but having the liaison relationship with that entity is the key factor, I think, I think that's exactly what I'm trying to get out but you said it better than I did. That's always quote so, but yeah that's that's the concept, trying to make the panel. Easier to handle as far as the size. Any input on that and I have a second idea to throw out there as well the chat about but I think that it would be appropriate so I noticed that we have a friend of creating a new council board or commission for every new initiative that we pass. And I think that if we're judicious about how many we're creating and how large they are, then they can be useful and they can work with one another, and it can be valuable. When we do though, one of the most important pieces of it is process equity. I care less about the number of people and more about who those people are and what constituencies they represent. So if we're considering reducing the number of members of the advisory council, then I would agree with you in wanting to protect the seats that are dedicated for community members, providers, people with lived experience, etc. If we're thinking about reducing the size of the advisory council and I actually do believe that we should reduce the size of the advisory council. So I think we're really thinking along the same lines here. In terms of having access to those seats, such as the General Assembly, the Chief Justice of the court, Attorney General, Defender General, etc. I'm confident that because of the vested interest that each of those entities has in the outcome and in the process here that we wouldn't have a problem having a close working relationship with those offices, even if they don't have roles on the council. So I'm feeling fine about that. The idea of liaison is a good one. And I think it actually reminds me of another point that I wanted to make here, which was that, you know, in the bill, one of the things that I that we had concerns about was an enforcement mechanism. What happens when reporting agencies are unwilling or unable to send their data? What kind of relationship do we have with those reporting agencies and what are their mechanisms in place to ensure that that happens? And so when we think about liaison for the council and those reporting agencies, it makes sense to consider whether and to what degree those intermediaries would participate in any kind of enforcement mechanism, to make sure there needs to be one. I hope I said that clearly, but I think the summary of what I'm saying here is, sure, let's reduce the number. Yes, let's reduce it on the government side, not the community side. And also, let's think about the relationship between those government entities and not just the role that they play on the council, but also what happens when we don't get the data required. The other thing that I would say about the advisory council is that we may, you know, we do want to make sure that we're not duplicating work. I noticed that one of the duties of the council is to report on any disparities in criminal and juvenile justice, and to report on the impact of progress made and recommendations for further action to address systemic racial bias. Those two sound extremely similar to some of the reporting duties through the racial equity director and racial equity advisory panel. So, if there's an opportunity for collaboration on those, then maybe there's a good opportunity for joint reporting. Otherwise, I don't want to saddle you all as legislators, what happened to be three reports on the same topic. So those are my comments on the advisory. So, and that's page 10, I believe, subsection four of A and B, I think that you're just referring to as far as status reporting. So the idea is, perhaps, fold that in with the reporting requirements that your office already has. Well, see. Excuse me, I'm sorry. No, I apologize. Being that the Office of Racial Equities mandate by statute is those reports already. It seemed to me that in agreement with Director Davis, that if attorney Fitzpatrick can give us a little guidance around language as to how we can wrap those reports together, because they are in the same space, and they will be directed under within that office, it would seem only, you know, you know, judicious to go ahead and have those two reports linked together, because otherwise it's just another piece of paper. I think that by having the two entities work together on that report, we're going to get more robust information as to where things actually are at any given point in time. So, anyways, thank you representative and actually I know that I'm the one who raised the point but I'd also I think it's fair for me to use the counter argument which is, I know that there's a strong, a strong desire for this work to be as honest and independent as possible. And so it's very possible that we want these to be separate reports. If it's folded into the racial equity office under the executive then you know I understand that there were concerns about whether to what degree this work is housed in the office and so if the legislature so chooses we could leave those reports separate as a way to ensure that there are different work rules reporting on this so that it's not you know too consolidated so I did want to raise that I think that that would be fine, but just wanted to point it out at least. So I guess the other option. And if you can comment on whether this is workable and the independence issue already is a problematic but there is a racial equity advisory panel. And what would be the pros and cons just expanding the membership of that current panel and expanding their duties, as opposed to having this as a separate advisory panel. Okay, so that is a fascinating question and it's one that the panel and I have also considered. I think that the enabling statute that established the racial equity advisory panel and the executive director racial equity role. Did a great job of stating what were the goals of our work, but I don't think that it did a clear job of explaining the panel's concrete duties. And so, I believe that the panel would welcome a revision slash expansion of its charge, provided that that was accompanied by a commensurate bump in support and I say that because the support person for the advisory panel is again in the agency of administration, specifically the department of human resources. And that staff person also wears very many hats, as it is so the short answer is, yes, we could do that. But then let's look again at, we are in three BSA chapter 68, 5002 and 5050. Maybe we take another look at those kind of good fit. So, if I may, representative squirrel in looking at consolidating and utilizing staff, most expeditiously, and effectively, what I'm hearing is, there will be a need. For administrative support within this division. There's also built in already administrative support that is being offered by the administration itself. They need the support. And the question becomes effectiveness, but also with the growth of the office. It may be that we might look at assigning an administrator that has the functionality to be that entity that supports the advisory panel. And also supports the office and division as well. And I think that we might be able to get, you know, the most or the best value, you know, for, you know, that dollar, you know, spent, and also answer those, those needs that were bought up. And then also to look at this expansion piece, something that comes to my mind are the people who've been involved in this process, especially the community members that are specialists in the area of data. They're the same people. And so if I was recruiting someone to join the other panel, it would be one of the members from the racial equity panel already, because he's probably one of the most talented data people in that field. So we're already going to be knocking on his door. So what I'm saying is Director Davis's idea about expanding the advisory panel and possibly having a subcommittee in the panel as we redesign the charge that has the responsibility for the data. Being that the statute already enables the work to be done. Because the enabling statute has the responsibility of that office is a major data collection piece as well. So does I hope that helps a little bit representative score. No, I think the thought process is, is going in the right direction. We've already talked about some of the administrative duties, potentially being part of the lead. I think we have to have more conversation about this. I don't think from an appropriation standpoint, but this is a big issue. Thank you. So again, it comes back to a representative alone and director Davis policy perspective around design. And that's where we go to the magic man attorney Fitzpatrick, you know, I guess a question I would have is what if you could comment director Davis that is there. Would there be an issue related to the independence if we hold this into the racial equity advisory panel because just to reiterate that's one of the primary purposes of the advisory panel that has a strong presence of members communities on that panel. So we could modify the equity advisory panel adding some more members but I'm not sure. So if you just comment on what whether you can we maintain the independence critical to the structure, if we were to use the racial equity advisory panel that exists now and just expand that scope membership and support. Yeah, I mean, you know, independence and objectivity of course are two different things. I am confident that whatever work is assigned to the racial equity director slash office of racial equity will be conducted objectively, but in terms of the perception of independence from the community. We would be received negatively if we did hold these this council's duties into the racial equity advisory panel, because the advisory panel is advisory to the governor. So that public perception is likely to be what it is. But yeah. Okay, no that's that's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. I had but were there any other, any other suggestions of what we should look at with the with the bill. Either director Davis or or this before any other issues that you could raise are we are we getting close with the rest of the language. I have no further comments on the latest version. Thank you. How about you director Davis, anything else. For now I don't think so thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. So what was hoping that we could hear from from Karen and, and, and Dr Crocker just, you know, if we could just get a sense from them because they dealt with this kind of data. I feel that we're on the right track if they have any input on where we're going. That would be helpful and also, we haven't gone into this that much and maybe we back up to director Davis for a moment if, if you can. We've gotten really technical I would like to before we get to Karen go back up to a higher level and if you could explain to us again, the importance of what we're trying to accomplish here. I know that that came out previous testimony, but that'd be very helpful for us to kind of reset kind of why are we doing this. Absolutely. So, you know, it's 2020 is certainly not the beginning of racial equity work in this country or state by any means. But it was really pivotal, I think in a lot of ways for state government and local government and for communities and corporations and everyone under the sun. It really marked the time where we started seeing more conversation and more gesture and has to be much more discerning about which of them were performative, and which of them were good faith, sincere efforts to move the needle on equity. And I cannot help myself, but to remind everybody all the time that equity benefits everybody always. And so, if we have work that we say is valuable and needs to be done and important. That is only true unless we meaningfully and tangibly invest in that work. We can't say we love our youth without investing in youth. We can't say we want to fix housing unless we invest in housing. Similarly, we can't say that we really want to move the needle on equity and not just in criminal justice, but in any other sector, without really being able to do what it takes and pay what it costs. So, if we were to create this work flow, and if we do it right, then what we're going to do is have more eyes and more focus on disparities in justice. And we know that criminal justice is both an upstream and a downstream factor. There are a lot of things that happen in a person's life before getting involved in the justice system. And that person's involvement in the justice system leads to cascading other consequences. So, once we have better focus and more attention and more resources to support these analyses, then we're going to be able to make smarter, better and more economical policy decisions as a result. What it also does is signal to all of the law enforcement agencies around the state and to the state as whole that this is a priority. It's something that we care about. It's not just a two page policy or a resolution or a declaration that we signed one and never revisited. It's an active and ongoing effort to monitor what we already know to be unjust so that we can get to the point where it stopped being unjust by default. If I can continue to predict people's outcomes based on their skin color, we're not there yet. And if we want to keep being upset and disappointed in ourselves by not getting there yet, then let's just do what we've been doing. But if we want to get to the point where we are leaders locally and nationally, which we often are the state, then it seems to me that the past forward is do more look closely and again, tangibly invest in the things that we say are important. I am going to stop there because I could do this for hours. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I wonder if I can ask Karen a question off the bat. I see why don't we let Karen introduce herself for the record. Welcome. Good afternoon. Hi everyone. Thank you for having me. I'm Karen Gannett, the executive director of crime research group. Well, this is Gannett. So, I know that you've been dealing with criminal justice data in Vermont for years, and you certainly provided us in the judiciary committee with a lot of very important data where actually we're looking at some of your output. Just yesterday with respect to different offenses, but given given that history given the work you've done. Why, why do we need to be doing this initiative what what's the benefit from your perspective. Well, I can't say that I can say it any better than Susanna just said it. She's way more articulate than I am on the issue. But I will say, I can add that one of the documents that we've been looking at in our in the ARDAT meetings and we've been very active in the ARDAT meetings. We did the summer meetings weekly from six to eight on Monday nights, which was everyone grown. But we all were there and we, you know, got to work and we did a lot of work on and getting that report out to you all. And we use the actionable intelligence for social policy toolkit for centering racial equity throughout data integration. And I think it's ASIP AISP. It's a toolkit from the University of Pennsylvania and they did they did a phenomenal job of putting together a toolkit that really talks about exactly that centering racial equity throughout data integration, which is exactly what we're doing here. And one of the things that they said that I that I think really captures what's what what's behind this bill and what ARDAT was trying to do striving to do. And they said and I'm going to I'm going to quote something from that toolkit. In moment in history, we can co create data infrastructure to promote racial equity and the public good, or we can invest in data infrastructure that disregards the historical social and political context, reinforcing racial inequity that continues to harm communities. Data infrastructure without a racial equity lens and understanding of historical context will exacerbate existing inequalities along the lines of race, gender class and ability. Instead, we commit to contextualize our work and the historical and structural oppression that shapes it and organize stakeholders across geography sector and experience to center racial equity throughout data integration. And that's exactly what this bill and what our DAP has been attempting to do and I do think it's a historical moment in Vermont's history. I think the setup of the office of racial equity was historic. And I think this is historic. And I think that I think one of the last things I was I was going to end with this but I'll start with it is that so many projects and initiatives are stood up without the appropriate funding to make them successful. And, and I understand you all want this to be successful but so many times we're trying to chip away at what's in the budget that people present. And the leaders of those projects and initiatives and I could, I could name some scramble from day one to make it work without the necessary funding. And then we watched this happen and then we wonder why we're not getting the outcomes that we were hoping to achieve. And the answer is always what wasn't funded appropriately so I would encourage you to really consider in your deliberations to fund this as best you can to the highest extent you can possible to make sure ADS and the new division are successful. And I so totally understand the budget implications, but one of the things that I think is really important to understand is the foundational work that has to happen before any data analysis happens. And this is where I think that the lead person, whatever their responsibilities is incredibly important to helping put together that foundational work. We're doing some of it be in the background, trying to get things set up for ADS and the division, going forward and we're hoping to hand that work off to them as soon as the bill passes and they're set up. And one of the things we've I know you've heard from Tonya Marshall not too long ago in this committee that the archivist and data records, the director for. I actually don't even know her, her formal title but she was, she did a phenomenal job in your committee and she's been working with us and she's, she's actually working with us on looking at people systems and data, and having people that are responsible in the departments that have to get the data to ADS and the division, and having someone responsible and have the authority for getting the data over to ADS and the new division, making sure the systems have what they need. When, when director Davis mentions you know what's the, what's the consequence for for department not sharing data. Some of what we found in our work is that sometimes departments don't have the data to share or they can extract it from their systems they don't know what to do they don't know how to get it out of their systems. They can work with them over time to actually make that happen. And so making sure the systems are built up and enhanced enough to make that possible is a really important piece to this and then the other piece he talks about is the data themselves and making sure that the data has is reliable and is credible and what needs to be done to make sure that happens in not only each one of the departments but sometimes the departments have more than one data system. So this is some of the foundational work that has to happen up front. And I think it's really important to recognize this it's not the, it's not the fun part of data analysis getting data and doing data analysis. It's really the, the foundational grunt work that has to happen. And that includes getting the data sharing agreements and the MOUs and making sure someone is there that can help make that happen right off the bat is is a really critically critically important function. And I think I went way beyond answering your question representative long. I answered my three other questions that I was going to follow up with. So that's handy. So, do you feel I mean, it would be the lead analyst and the steward as we defined it that would be doing this foundational work or is that your understanding that that's kind of the appropriate setup. We could presumably do more if we had more of them but but those are the positions that would do this kind of work. Yes, and I think and Christian current can correct me if I'm wrong but I think the project manager AGS is critical to this as well. Okay, thank you. I just want to mention that, you know, as we've been talking about data, it's not just new data that we're looking at here but there are also existing data sets, and there's existing data that can be accessed. So, having having the analyst on board to help identify data and existing data sets and learning about Vermont data is also a really important piece it's not like someone can be hired and come on and immediately start analyzing data. There are a lot of nuances to the criminal justice system and the criminal justice data. And so there is a period of learning that's going to have to happen for that data analyst and the data steward. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not see. No question or if that's your hand from before. Thank you Karen anything else before we. Thanks. That was a leg legacy and Madam chair. Thank you. Okay. Professor Crocker. You would like to. Thank you for your conversation. Good afternoon and welcome. Hi, I'm Abby Crocker. I'm a professor of statistics at the University of Vermont. And I'll just sort of echo my, my support for this bill as I'll, and also like thank you for doing all the work to get it to this point and being so intentional about it. And I think what some others have said about the, the potential that this sort of division has for being sort of a game changer for the state is, you know, is something that, you know, I can't emphasize enough. I think it's just centering racial equity and data integration, which, you know, the, the platform that is developed right now, I actually think is a great way to sort of scaffold and add to it sort of across domains, you know, start with criminal justice, but there's no reason not to add education or health or whatever down the road. By starting small, you're ensuring that you're setting up the system well for expansion. The positions you've described sound great to me. I really appreciated. Kristen, you're walking through a lot of the process and the details of the balance between the division and ADS for how it will physically work and appreciated the attention to the data use agreements. It might echo that the lead person. I would hope that that person would also, you know, mentioning focusing on the legal issues around ensuring the right data use agreements to build the data set. But at the same time, another complimentary data use agreement about how to share it with external researchers like myself and all of the faculty at the University of Vermont and graduate students and such. And I think having a centralized data resource that's connected so well and grounded in the Office of Racial Equity and has this advisory group function means, you know, it's sort of like a one place to go to for to partner to do sort of state level or policy level kinds of processes and answer research questions that are, you know, in of interest to the state and so when we talk about investing in these, you know, this handful of positions as a way to actually invest resources to increase analytic capacity I would also add that I actually think investing in these few positions you increase the analytic capacity of the state, you know, exponentially, because it creates a pathway for folks like myself and partner with the state to do this kind of work which, which has been more challenging for everybody in the past, and it's just something that hasn't existed which is, I think one of the reasons we're here today is, we don't have enough analytic capacity we don't have enough of the, the centralized resources to answer the questions that we know are really important to inform the work I think this, this, this division supports that, and I would just say, as you're thinking about ramping it up. The, the thing that jumps out to me is this importance of the foundational work and that mention of, well once we get the data system set up well then it's sort of just running and the intention would be to set it up well as early as possible, meaning also when you're thinking about what data to collect from the different systems. Be thinking sort of broadly so that you don't have to go back to the same data set and say oh we should have gotten that while we were in there we should have gotten that while we were in there. And so thinking about meeting the needs not only of like the specific dashboarding requirements but also the future research questions in the future potential of those different data sets. So that when we do find ourselves X number of years down the road saying oh let's let's work together to do this analysis to answer this question. We're not saying oh we'd have to go back and go back to that original data set and rebuild it so I think that foundational work and building a as much of a comprehensive data set as possible from the beginning. So recognizing we'd add entities, you know, sort of one at a time would be great, as well as the intentionality of establishing some of those data use agreements. Not only to build the data set but also to leverage more of the analytic capacity across the state would be things to consider. Thank you. Okay, thank you this is for me very very. It really has Trevor. Yeah, I have a question for Kristen. Am I correct in thinking that when you talked about the database administrator and the project manager for ADS that these are going to be contractors these are people you're going to bring on board or people you've worked with before. Yes, they will be contractor. Okay, and then, given your experience probably in the workplace, knowing all the workforce challenges we've had across every department, every group. Do you foresee any real challenges and hiring the kinds of people were talking about to do the work. Well short answer yes. Getting strong qualified candidates is really challenging especially in the technology space. So, yes, that's, I'd say an ongoing challenge. Okay, I expected that answer. I don't have any other questions at this time, but committee thanks for inviting me. This has been very helpful for me to do a deeper dive into this this bill and the expectations of the bill. Thank you. Thank you representative squirrel thank you so much for coming. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Yes, please. Thank you.