 We'll hear from tomorrow, I hope, with some concerns about the probation proposal, a good time proposal. And I'll try to understand how they figure out when they're sentencing somebody for programming, and maybe somebody today from Corrections could help me, understand when somebody's being sentenced for programming, how does the Department of Corrections inform the court? DOC programming, so those are some of the questions. And those were the concerns of the state's attorneys. They were also concerned about probation for the same reason somebody fails in the program. Thank you. OK. Brin, do you want to just walk quickly through the changes, and then we'll hear from Commissioner Baker and others? Do you want to do it from there? We're kind of crowded. Yeah, maybe it'd be better if you held your seat. Yeah, it'll be fun. OK, so for the record, we're in here from Legislative Council. So we're talking about draft 4.2 of the Justice for your investment bill, and I'll just preface this by saying that I sent out a draft 4.1 on Monday. And so this draft 4.2 does incorporate some of the feedback that I got from some stakeholders, but I didn't hear from everyone. So I'll just leave that as it is. So the first changes, everything is in yellow highlight. All the new sections are in yellow highlight. Oh, they're in gray. Or gray, OK. So the first two are on page two. These are some additional findings that came from the Justice Center's presentation. The first is they're both statistics about the sentenced prison population and returns on furlough. And we also have some additional language on page three. Two new. These are not findings. This is sort of the purpose section. So this is all session law. It wouldn't go into the green books. It would just be in the bill itself. Do you want us to comment as good? Bren, I'm just wondering if it might make sense to have a comment under community. On line two, page three. OK. I will. Sure. Asgard, our editors, to take a look at that. OK. OK, so the next section is compassion of release. The new language on the bottom of page three just provides that presentation on how frequently petition can be filed by an inmate. So this language is, I think this comes from our expungement statute. It just provides that a person can bring a petition only every four months unless a shorter duration is authorized by the court. New language on page four provides that the state's attorney or the attorney general is required to give notice of a petition for compassionate release to any victim who's associated with the offense. And it provides some language about what that notice has to look like by any reasonable means to the victim's last known address. And then upon request of the victim, the state's attorney or the attorney general has to give notice of any hearing on the petition and inform the victim of the outcome of the petition. Is it similar to what we do with post-conviction? Perrol. It's similar to what we do for post-conviction movies. And parole, yes. So the way it would work is the petition has been filed, the AG or the state's attorney gave written notice to the victim, and the victim has to proactively ask to be notified after that point of the hearing. For any, yes, moving forward, the victim would have to let the prosecutor know that they want to be notified of the outcome and any further hearings. OK. Some new length, you're going to see this throughout the bill. There's a couple of options in the brackets. This is just based on some feedback I heard from stakeholders. So this provides that a court does grant the hearing. Either the attorney general or the state's attorney or the Department of Corrections shall appear as a party for the state. I think you may hear from some people on their opinions about that. If you turn to page five, we're now, we're still in compassionate release. This changes the last draft to require that the person be 65 years of age or older and suffer from a chronic or serious medical condition. So this takes out that age limitation and just provides that if a person suffers from a chronic or serious medical condition and is experiencing deteriorating mental or physical health, that person would be eligible to petition for compassionate release. Eligible to petition. Yes. Right. Would just walk through so that, unless there's a technical, I'd prefer to just walk through and then hear testimony. Adds some additional requirements for the court to find. So the court can grant a petition if there's additional language, if compassionate release is appropriate, and also there's an appropriate placement and supports available for that person in the community. And the new, the highlighted language of subdivision D there just provides that if the court grants a petition, it can impose a term of probation. And it removes some language there that allows the court to change the duration of the incarceration. The next change is on page six. This just adds a new section to the compassionate release sub-chapter that provides that the court can appoint a counsel if the petitioner is unable to afford to the her own counsel. And then it talks about costs and expenses. And this language comes directly from the post-conviction relief chapter. Committee members have issues with the policy and want further clarification. We can do that tomorrow morning. OK. There may be comments from the witnesses or they about some of this. OK. We turn to page eight. We're now moving into the probation section. So the changes here came from some testimony that you heard last week about proposals, policy proposals for this section. So I think that this first language here on page eight was a recommendation from the Office of the Defender General with all terms of probation set by the court. She'll be for a specific duration that can't exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for the offense. So no indefinite probation terms. If you turn to page nine, you'll see that we've struck some language that provides that the court could set an indefinite period of probation. Page 12, this is the language that provides that credit. So if a person serves their probation without violating, they receive credit towards that sentence. So this changes the language here, provides that person gets a day of credit towards their minimum sentence for each day that they serve probation without a violation filed. And it specifies that those days cease to accrue on the date that any violation is actually filed with the court. And it provides that that credit ceases to accrue on the date that the violation is filed. And then it also provides that once a person has accrued, credit equal to the maximum term of their suspended sentence, then the court shall terminate the probation and discharge the person from probation. Brinn, is there so somebody has a violation filed, they stop receiving credit? Is it possible for them to go back on status where they are receiving credit? Yes, I don't think there's no specific language to that, but there's nothing that prohibits that. So if we wanted to make it clear that they could go back to receiving credit, then I could put in some language that makes that clear. I need to look why that. OK, I've made a note. OK, now we're going to move to the presumptive parole section. So I'm on page 15. So this provides that this is language that comes from the Compensation Outrelease Bill. I thought we should have taken that out. We took out the 55 language, and we left in the 65. OK, we'll talk about that tomorrow. OK, so the question here is whether that goes, well, right now it's in the regular parole section, so the person would be eligible for a parole hearing rather than in the presumptive parole. So moving to page 16, now we're in the presumptive parole part of the statute. So the changes here are that a person is eligible for presumptive parole. If they have no outstanding warrants to tanners, commitments, or pending charges, the last draft you saw said for a list of crimes. So this just takes out the list of crime and says they don't have any outstanding charges for any crime. And then if you go down to subdivision D here, it provides that if the person has to be compliant with the conditions of their supervision for the entire period, if their term of supervision is 90 days or less, or if their term is longer than 90 days, then they have to be compliant with the terms of their supervision for at least the 90 days prior. And then I've just made a note down here that I think the committee is thinking about whether or not they want this to apply to people who have committed anything but a listed crime or anything but a big 12th offense. So I just made a note of that there. Next, if we turn to page 20, this is we're still in presumptive parole. And here we're looking at some new language that was contemplated by the parole board and the department. So this provides that the department to sort of set out the protocol. How are people getting onto presumptive parole? How are they being recommended for presumptive parole? So this language provides that the department has to identify everybody who meets those criteria that we just talked about in the previous section and refer those eligible inmates to the parole board at least 60 days prior to their eligibility date. This would be the date that they've reached their minimum. And then the department shall recommend presumptive release for each of those eligible inmates to the parole board unless it makes a determination. And here we've got the standard of proof here based on the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence that neither one of these factors is true or that there's a reasonable probability that the inmate can't be released or that the inmate is not available. So this puts in that burden of proof on the department that the department is the one that is required to ensure that neither of these risk factors is true before they recommend an inmate to the parole board for presumptive release. And then, I'm sorry, I'm going so fast. Is that every good so far? Page line eight, sub three A. This is what the parole board does after the department identifies and recommends people for presumptive release. So it provides the parole board has to conduct an administrative review of each of those eligible inmates that the department has identified within 30 days of their eligibility date. And the board can disqualify an inmate for presumptive release. This is important for presumptive release and set up hearing. If a victim, if the parole board identifies that there's some of our victims that should be notified of the hearing and have an opportunity to participate. I'm just wondering about the language that the board made disqualify. Yeah, that, so this is all drafted early this morning. There may be better wording here. Yeah, well, what I'm thinking, we'll just go, I really want to walk through on that. Okay, I thought you wanted to clarify technically. Okay, well technically. So the idea is that they would no longer be eligible for presumptive release, they presumptive release that they would instead have a hearing in which a victim could participate. So there may be a better way to phrase this. Okay. I could think like that. Sure. And then the next subdivision, sub-B, provides that the board shall conduct a parole hearing for each inmate who's identified as eligible by the department, but for whom the department has to assume that one of those risk criteria is true. So if an inmate is otherwise eligible that the department's identified that there's a risk factor associated with that inmate, then the parole board has to conduct a hearing for that inmate. Excuse me. And on page 24, the highlighted language here, this is the medical furlough language. You heard some testimony that the department should retain its authority to place an inmate on medical furlough. So that was removed in the previous version and it's just put back in in this version. If you turn to page 28, this is that new status of community supervision furlough. The previous version provided that the department and the member of the parole board should make any determination of the violation. And that language has just been changed. The note is just the department now. Not a member of the parole board. And then if you look at page 29, this is some, this was just put in this morning. This is an idea to institute some due process for any interrupt of community supervision furlough. This provides that the department, if the department interrupts or revokes furlough for an inmate for a certain duration of time, either six months or longer or 90 days or longer, following a technical violation of conditions, if the offender commits a new crime. And the department is required to notify the office of the defender general of that interrupt. Oh, we were talking about five days, but, okay. I'll put that in the bracket. Oh, about two hours. And I think that that may be as the other thing I just wanted to point out. There are additional changes coming to the section 19, the racial disparities report section. So I don't know if we're gonna walk through that just yet. No, we're waiting to hear from the Center for Justice Research. Yeah. I think that's the right term. And then, so the last thing I want to point out is just that reintegration furlough appeared in your last version of the bill with some amendments to it at section of law has now been repealed. Okay. You know, I found you from the dressing room. Hi, Cassandra Dick Sears, and we've got many folks here in the room, and thank you for taking time to listen in. If you need it. Thank you so much. I'll be able to speak just all of it. I won't be able to see you raise your hand. I won't be able to see you raise your hand. Commissioner Baker. Good morning. Good morning. For the record, I'm Jim Baker. I'm the interim commissioner of corrections, and I appreciate the opportunity then to come in again, Senator, to give feedback on the latest version. I think what we just heard, there's nothing there that we actually have any issues. As far as the change. One of the things, this is some technical stuff that I would make some suggestions on is there's several versions of talking about the medical for a long. And the language used may not be consistent nor we're describing serious medical condition, terminal illness. I would ask that that gets defined because that can become really tricky for us from a standpoint of us determining what serious illness is. And the language is good. It's just that several, it's described several different ways throughout the bill. Now, I haven't looked at the latest version to see if the language is consistent to it. I would just ask that, maybe bring you take a look at that, just to make sure that language stays consistent. General observation, again, I'll repeat what I said earlier, is that this is very helpful for us. The good times are very helpful for us. And cleaning up the furlough status is very good for us, from an internal process of processing. So it's very helpful for us, as far as us being able to manage, especially the highest risk folks. So for us, we're appreciative of that. I do think, I want Dale just to explain one point on, at what point does good times stop and start? That's the issue, right? I would just ask Dale to kind of touch on this because there may be an unintended consequence to the language that could reward someone at a higher risk for bad behavior. But I'll let Dale explain that if that's okay. Yeah, sure. For the record, Dale Crocombe, the director of field services for the Vermont Department of Corrections. So how the probation language is written right now, they're getting credit until a violation is filed. We would recommend that that language change until an arrest warrant is filed, because supervision is still gonna be continuing with that offender. We don't want to, one reason is that that language, the new language that I just suggested, matches all of our other legal statuses, that they still get credit on their sentence while they're being supervised, even though they may be pending violations. Once a warrant is filed, someone's abscond or leave, the time stops at that point. So it's consistent with all of our other legal statuses that we're trying to manage. Another reason is we want to create a kind of, we don't want to reward that behavior. So if someone does something really bad and we arrest them and lodge them in jail, they'll get credit for that. If someone doesn't do something quite as bad, and we just give them a citation to appear a couple of months down before court to address it, then they would stop getting credit. And I don't think we want to sit up that dynamics. And a lot of times during that situation, is where the probation officer and the offender are working together, they kind of correct that behavior. Did Picasso and violated a condition of probation? Doesn't mean we stop working with them and supervising them. A lot of times those violations of probation can lead to behavior change. We'll actually supervise them at a more intense rate that they correct behavior before they go before the judge. I'm looking at page 12. There is also the situation where somebody is brought in on a probation violation complaint, but case is de minimis in some fashion. So parties agree, and we're going to note the violation and continue. And I don't know whether the intention is to allow them to continue getting credit or not, because they technically have violated, but... I thought somebody just said no. Well, it's not even a slightly different way. It's just something to think about. Have they been arrested? They would still get credit, because once, even as detained, they're getting credit toward their sentence. So... Are you confused, I think? This is talking about probation credit. Correct. And not credit, well, I suppose, same thing. If you're in jail, are you getting credit for your probation term? Yeah, you're getting credit toward your sentence. So, in the way that the new language is written, yes, because they're getting credit toward their sentence on probation now. What we need to understand and what the state's attorneys need to understand is how does that affect programming, whether it be in the community or in the jail, in the facility. So, the violation component, not so much. What would matter is, I think, what the state's attorneys and, I think, the pepper earlier, is they're looking at what kind of sentence do we impose on someone, is that correct? And what that would entail is because they're not getting credit to probation. A lot of times they'll have shorter terms, but with a longer max, I don't know, a longer max, longer term with a shorter maximum, I'm getting confused here, sorry, where they would be doing programming at a longer period, past their, could be past their maximum date, until they completed whatever program they were required. So, how this plays out, the more serious the offense and the longer the sentence really has less of an impact on this, as we're getting credit toward it anyway and the sentences are pretty so far out. The shorter sentences, I think, the sentencing bodies are gonna have to understand that the term and the max, and I think the defender general identified this, should be relatively closer together. And that way, you don't wanna have someone, sort of a situation where they may hit their term, or hit their maximum sentence, but their term's still out, farther out, where they actually have to violate and order to be done with supervision. We don't wanna sit up in a situation like that. Is that helping you, Senator? Yeah, I think so, but we're still a little late. I'm not sure, it raises the question of, we want a good time to be, and that's where we also need, this probation thing is sort of like good time. So if you screw up, you shouldn't get, the day for the day, for that month or whatever, maybe it should be operated in the same sense, so that people are getting a certain credit towards their probation term, for not doing, screwing up, but if they screw up during that month, they don't get credit for that month. It seems like a cleaner way to do it, and the good time, you say, you wanted to refine that sum to make sure it's not unintended consequences. And we do too, but it seems like, so guy A goes through, does everything he or she is supposed to do on probation, and gets credit day for a day, B screws up repeatedly on probation, and gets the same amount of credit, doesn't seem to fit. And that does not to say that we should, violate his or her probation, but it seems like we ought to be rewarding what is acceptable behavior and not rewarding unacceptable behavior. So I think we should really look at it similar to the good time. That would also match with, if they do get violated and they're put into jail, they're getting credit at seven days off that minimum, right? Correct. So if I make sure this is not, it's a different concept, it's not good time, they're getting credit. It would be the same as parole. So parole, as it's written now, is not getting good time credit. Now the situation you identified earlier, someone's doing exceptionally well, doing everything they need to go, there's other parts of legislation that's already been implemented, such as midpoint review, that actually would reward that person at a greater rate, so they could actually be recommended for a discharge at the midpoint of their term or their sentence that takes into account that overly good behavior. Okay. If you're okay, yes. We're good with the language about when the credit begins with... Okay, any other areas? I think on the appropriation piece, I just think I want to be on the record, Senator, that we've been working on housing issues for a while inside corrections. We recognize the fact that we need to do more work to stop some of the furlough, for example, violations that occur around housing issues. And I just, I want to caution, you all know this, I just want to caution the committee about one-time funding and the expectation of what the return on that one-time funding is. And the expectation on corrections, that somehow we're going to solve this housing challenge that we've had for a very long time with a shadow one-time funding. It's going to take a while before we see that reinvestment of the money in the reduction of beds around the issue of someone who loses housing. Because even though it can be said that it's a technical violation of someone who loses housing, you know, the staff advises me that many times it's just more than housing. There's an underlying issue as to why they lost the housing and it appears as if they've been violated for losing housing. Because housing, we all know this, housing is one of those stability situations that allow people to do well in the community. I don't see this as, there's a difference of opinion here. And I don't know where the majority of the committee is, but I don't see this as one-time, I see it as one-time money. I use the $2 million of surplus funds. I don't see it as a one-time appropriation because the expectation is that you will reduce the cost of out-of-state placements by even more than $2 million by 2025. So what we're trying to do is in advance to start reinvesting now, but what we expect will be savings in actually some of those savings will occur in FY21. More, if you look at the projection by CSG for FY22, 23, 24, 25, you see it continuing to rise. So the idea here is, and we kick some up-front money in to actually accelerate the savings. So I realized that the administration usually opposes these sorts of things, and I'm fine with that. But my hope is that we'll be able to convince the appropriations committees in the Senate and the House that this is really an investment, not a one-time kick to a bunch of programs that we think will do good. I didn't want to send you away, Senator, that I was thinking, I knew what you were thinking. I did say to staff when we went over this that I am in the position of representing the administration on the financial side, right? With that said, I just wanted to be on the record that it isn't going to be, you're not going to see massive savings in 2021. It's going to take a while to get to 2025. It'd just be clear on what the expectations on corrections is because after I'm gone, I don't want to see it come back on corrections that there wasn't savings in FY22, for example, that people expected, that I think it's going to take a while to build up that capacity to really impact it. And with that said, the staff clearly realizes that we've been working on this for a while and that we do have to push it, we do have to push it to the next level to get to where we need it. Well, if I look at the chart here, the expectation is by FY22, potential averted between 2.3 million and 3 million. That's the potential averted of savings. So if you just say 2.3 million and FY22, you'd actually be 300,000 ahead if you do the minimum that they've projected. I was trying to find my copy of the Justice Reinvestment, the first Justice Reinvestment in Vermont, but I know that it was done in a way that appeared to, I keep getting New Hampshire for some reason. I don't care about New Hampshire in this case. May I ask a question? Yeah, go ahead. Would you, on page 29 of this version, it seems we have a difference of five days or six months or longer? I mean. What page is that, son? It's a page 29. It's the Department, Interoffices, and offenders communities supervision for R04. If six months are longer, 90 days are longer, and then Senator Sears just said five days are longer following a couple of violations. They notify, you'd notify the defender general. Would you comment on, that's a, we're talking about five days, six months, or 90 days. What, where would you put the, put it? At five days? With five days, it would probably be, it takes longer for that for our due process hearing to go through. So we'd be notifying, generally, probably the Prisoner's Rights Office for every time someone is lodged. We can do that. It's just a hugely administrative burden when you're sending paperwork constantly. What we're trying to, when we work with CSG in this language was to give kind of a clue or a flag to the Prisoner's Rights Office when it would appear that the department might be overly heavy-handed. Many of our sanctions were throughout the one year. What this would do, we would recommend six months, because that seems like a fair amount of time, that if interruption or violations are over six months, we notify the Prisoner's Rights Office. At that point, the Prisoner's Rights Office can basically follow up and investigate or receive a death. So you would, but you notify them right away that it's going to be a six month, not after the six month. Correct. Yeah, okay. Okay, I see. So we have a central staffing process. So at the end of that staffing process, a determination is made, and if that determination is for whatever timeframe we're at there, let's say six months, then we would notify the Prisoner's Rights Office saying this is the reason, this is the offender, this is the reason this is our justification. And at that point, they can, and they can do that. Now that that just gives them an opportunity to look at the case and just say, you want to challenge, or it's just, it's more of a transparent system. And you would go with six months rather than the 90 days. I clearly hear you say you don't want five days. Yeah, I mean, this is an administrative, I mean, so we can live with 90 days, or we'd be the first six. Okay, that's wonderful. Okay, thank you. Moving right ahead. Where else are we commending? I think we fucked on the issues there. What's that? Something for all right. Do you feel comfortable, Ellen or Cassandra, with the projection for FY 22? I was just talking about that with Monica. I mean, that's, so far I've been updating Ed, our researcher on all of the changes. And he said that where things stand as of last night, and I don't think anything is essentially changed this morning, all of the modeling would remain the same. But something that Monica and I were just talking about is how critical that implementation period in 2021 is of really getting to a place where things are operating the way they're intended. And David actually testified to this last week too, of the proof will come in how effectively these processes are put in place so that by 2022 those beds are really being reduced at that number that's projected. So that's something that we would be working with DOC on as soon as possible. And DOC in the pro board and other relevant agencies. I would point out in 2008 that the reinvestment was basically in probation. And in things like diversion, and we actually have invested heavily in diversion in this state. And other things that came out of the 2008, and that resulted in a reduction of over 400 to 500 people out of state. So those savings, if considered as reinvestment, and you also have a continued reinvestment in some community programs, so that you've been cut back in recent years. If you don't reinvest the funds, you won't get the results. And I'm wondering how you get the results if you don't start to reinvest before you make the changes. If the programs aren't there, then I will think it's doomed to fail. So that's why I'm gonna argue against it, not funding this. Our models are, there are three main policy plays that inform those projections. The first is during good time. The second to a much lesser degree is because we love to parole. The third is different assumptions around reducing recidivism and revocations to prison. And the way that you get to any of those assumptions, whether it's a 5% reduction up to 20% is certainly by changing process to a certain point. But also it's connecting people with services in their community and that only comes from an upfront investment. So we don't think you can get anywhere to those savings without some initial funding. Thank you for that. So I'm glad I took you off on this course, I apologize. But I guess your point about, the point I was trying to make was about the reinvestment. Right. I used my old term from state government one time money. And... Well it is one time money. Right, but my point about, if money isn't reinvested, you're not gonna escalate. No. You're not gonna escalate the savings. That's what... And I'm trying to protect the department of corrections for becoming a scapegoat for that time. Right, and that's how Kansas failed. Right. They chose not to reinvest, they chose just to save. Right. And judges weren't different. The judges were pretty tricky. Yeah, well they've got the chiefs now. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. Somebody made a suggestion to me that I should've called you yesterday, knowing that you were a 49er family. I didn't have the heart to call you, sir. No, but now I know where the chiefs are from. The only other piece that we have that just got brought to my attention is, and I'm looking at the older version because I didn't slide to this. We, under the presumptive parole, we would ask for the clear and convincing evidence. Um, gosh. We would ask for the clear and convincing evidence language. It's on page 21. 20, line seven. Five-spot. Actually, it's on page 21. Is it mine, one, two, three? Actually, I think Matt Valerio made the same suggestion. Yeah. Amazing that Matt and I agree. I agree with you on that. You both want clear and convincing? That's my note. You're going to have confidence in that. I think, I'll just look at my staff on that, but I think we touched on the points. You know, and my last comment, Senator, is that the department of corrections is fully in and is ready to move forward. Looking at our systems to do better, to have better outcomes. I believe we do great work now, but I think it's tying to work with the different stakeholders to even have better outcomes to provide better public safety. We know that, and we're all in to do it. So, I know you had some questions around programming that you talked about. Yeah, the question, when courts are fashioning sentencing, and it'll get even more confusing with good time re-established, I think. They're usually looking, in many cases, I suppose it's to make the judge feel better, the prosecutor will never feel better that they've targeted this person for programming. But in many cases, you hear particularly with short-term incarceration, I mean less than a year, or maybe a little more than a year, where they're looking for the programming, but they rely on information, and I don't know where they're getting it from. And it seems to be different in county to county. And Senator Benning raised his client, I guess, not constituent or maybe both, who needs nine months of programming, gets a year's sentence so they can match the programming with the, and how, and if you're doing that with good time and you assume that the person's gonna get seven times 12 months, how many, you know, now are we gonna just add that to the question? How often, yeah, that's the question, right? Yeah. I don't think we have a chance, right? I mean, I think Senator, one of the things that, when I staffed this morning with staff on coming in today, I think there's a lot of things that we have to, we have to take this information back and start working on how do you resolve an issue like that, right? Because if you agree on a six-month sentence as a defense attorney with a prosecutor, but it takes nine months of programming. It's almost out to other people, too. It's almost punishing the person that they can't get programming. They're too hard on the post office. The post office doesn't affect the programming. Instead of the sentence fitting what the judge thinks is appropriate for the offenses in front of them. Am I capturing that accurately? We're figuring out a way to have the programming start in the facility and move to the community. And then move to the community while still in it because I'm talking specifically about risk reduction programming. Understood. It starts quarterly. So a defendant has to be sentenced, whenever they're being sentenced, they can't start the day of risk reduction program and commence it. And so common, you end up with a year on the minimum in order to accommodate the nine months. It's not gonna start for a couple of months. So we're basically warehousing. And I may say something right now that staff's gonna poke me in the back. But with the good time, with acceleration of good time, it could even make it work out. Am I right? Yeah, you gotta have something that starts in the facility immediately and lets them out to finish it. But if you can't start it immediately and there's gotta be a philosophy change, that they can actually get the programming in the community and still be safe. I don't know if you're gonna cross that bridge, but good luck when you get there. But I think we have to walk up to that bridge to figure out a crossing. And I don't think we have the answer today, but we'll go back and start talking about this because a lot of what we think is good in this, like good time, it's kind of interesting, the state's attorneys may not see it the way we see it on good time. We see good time as a way to manage folks to a better place, right? And so I can't give you that answer today and I don't think the staff can, but I promise you maybe on the language around coming back in April to talk to you about where we're moving forward that we can put this on the list of things we need to talk about. Is that? What I handed out to the committee or what Peggy handed out to the committee is the 2008 issue brief by the Justice Center on the projections and everything. If you re-invested the same discussion that we're having today, Peggy's gonna post this on the website. She's got a couple of extra copies here, but I think it was instructed to look back at what we did and how accurate they really were. They projected drop of 436 beds. It's posted already. Thank you. And you'll see. We dropped more. We actually dropped more, but so if you're looking at it, will we get to the minimum of 2.3 million if we do their investments? I would suggest that they're pretty accurate. Kansas, which I did point out, was this state that chose to get through justice re-investment and for whatever reason didn't re-invest. They would say, wow, it's a failure, justice re-investment was a failure in Kansas, but it may be their own failure to follow through with the re-investment of the savings. The other thing I'll say, this is that BJA, which funds the implementation assistance that's available to states that pass justice re-investment legislation, has become more focused in recent years for that reason. On states being eligible for that only, it's a identified how and when and where, concretely, they will be re-investing. So that is very much something that they look to because this has become a pretty clear indicator of a measure of success or failure and whether or not the policies are. So the language and our appropriations, is that? I can double-check, but I feel like that would be won't receive by BJA, yeah. Okay. Commissioner, anything else? Before we turn it over to Senator Stapp, I'm good, bless him, bless him, bless him for me. I think you answered most of my questions, but, Dale, if you have anything additional? The only thing I would add, sir, is there's a couple of decision points around presumptive parole around the Big 12 and listed offenses. We would prefer listed offenses. The Big 12 has a lot more victim impact, and presumptive parole, not preventing someone from getting paroled, it's kind of, it will move certain things quicker without administrative burdens. I think having victims, the opportunity to be heard, and that is mainly captured with the listed offenses with the Big 12, it's not really, and it titles that department in the courts as far as criminal courts like this are used, it's title 33, it's a different title, it's a different listed. Help me understand something, and maybe both of you or anyone in the room can answer it. So we take the women, for example, we noted that there were a lot of low risk women incarcerated in treatment, something like 40%. Now many of them may have committed a Big 12 offense, or even at least a listed offense. So if they're in an eligible for presumptive parole, we're then focusing on the offense and not the risk. And I thought we were trying to move more towards a risk-based system than a fence-driven system. Once they're incarcerated, obviously, you're gonna get a certain sentence for certain crimes, and that's just down to the community and the public, look at it that way. But if inside we're looking at risk, and we don't at some point include everybody in the eligibility, I mean, how do we deal with that? We're still gonna have low risk people incarcerated for longer periods than they need to be. And some high risk offenders are in the non-listed offense category. So we're gonna be, it's just, because did you wanna? Yeah, I was gonna say, I mean, on that piece, I think just, I keep coming back to when we think about, or when I think about the female population, how many of them are incarcerated on revocations or furlough interrupts? So that's still the majority of the reason why women are incarcerated today is because of some sort of failure on supervision. So I think everything we're talking about, including an additional due process layer around the furlough interrupts, but also community transitional housing will be enormous, community programming, a lot of that I think we'll have. And Ed is going to specifically be modeling all of this out for the women as well, specific to show kind of what that might look like. The other thing I would say just more broadly to what Dale is saying about presumptive parole, I think in conversations with the parole board, the addition of the language here rather than allowing the board the opportunity to call for a hearing for people if there is a victim, would mean that in the case of all that they 12, there would be, that would almost automatically mean all of those folks are getting a hearing anyway. Everyone right now pretty much is getting out at their minimum on furlough. So we see both of these policies as sort of continuing to allow people to be released at their minimum, putting them into different populations, but really critically connecting them with community services so that they're not coming back quite so often or so quickly. I think one of the findings is that furlough is a failure. One of the things in the bill is furlough continues. But I think Senator furlough continues, right? But it's much, for us, it's kind of whittled down to a much more manageable with the understanding that we see the data on the technical violations. What I would like to add about the conversation about the women's population is that Secretary Smith has charged all the AHS agencies. We've started a working group to bring back the 2005 incarcerated women's project to start really taking a hard look at. And this is where I think the work with the Council of State Governors will be helpful in this conversation, especially around the issue of informed trauma, those relationships crossroads between trauma and how women end up incarcerated and what kind of supports they need. So that conversation started separate from this conversation, but clearly it's gonna cross paths at some point in our work hopefully in the future with CSG. I know furlough has been identified as a problem, but from our perspective, what's in that bill has helped us better think about our role in the furlough process. That makes it 100, 100, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30. That is exact. I think it's also the first of potential many steps towards a really different system. And this still signifies a pretty big shift for where people are moving and what the state's doing. It doesn't need to be the sum total of what the legislature or lawmakers decide they want the system to look like, but I think it's a first pretty big step in the direction of really rethinking community supervision and how it's designed and implemented. And we still feel comfortable that this incremental approach is the one that allows all of the different agencies and entities and places where people may go to be really measured and implemented with care and caution to make sure that it's working out the way that it's supposed to. Mary Jane Ainsworth, pro board director, just also wanted to put out there that not to lose sight that even though if somebody's not granted presumptive parole, there still is the regular minimum hearing process. So the offender is still going to go before the board and sometimes those hearings more comes to light around the risk around all the factors of victims. So I just don't want to lose sight of how valuable a hearing process can also be with some of these cases and that they can still, and as chairman George testified to, the pro board has been using furlough as a crutch and that is a cultural shift that we are starting to change. I think the staff, I've represented the staff pretty well in our conversation, obviously I have questions for them. I know specifically for Andy and then there, I don't know about Monica if she wants to comment, but Andy, who can speak to the DV programming, domestic violence program? Right, I can. That was one of the, I've been trying to find the slide and I can't find David's slide on the domestic violence program, would you, because that was one of the criticisms was we've seen to have lost our domestic violence programming. Maybe that's not true or maybe David was wrong or? So my name is Kim Buschie, I'm the program services director for the Department of Corrections. So as you may remember, Senator, because I do believe that I testified in here when we started making this transition back in 2013, 14, we started, I was tasked with reexamining the way we were delivering services and our adherence to the evidence and we brought the University of Cincinnati here more than once, several times actually and they conducted a program evaluation tool called the Correctional Program Checklist which is based out of a Canadian tool. In any case, part of what they represented in terms of what the department was delivering with domestic violence was we were delivering the Intensive Domestic Abuse Program which you may remember was part of a pre-approval, pre-approved treatment program, okay? So it was part of PAS and it was for felony violence, felony domestic violence, so it was issue specific and part of some of the things that the University of Cincinnati pointed out, not only about IDAP but about all of our programs was that we were not fully adhering to the risk-need-responsivity principles and that by focusing on an offense-based system, the way that we were delivering services was based on the conviction and the offense, not based on risk and criminogenic needs. What we were seeing is that we were not, we had domestic abuse offenders, for example, who had a number of other criminogenic needs that we were not as a department addressing. We had no mechanism to address them. So for example, as you may well know, domestic violence has several other criminogenic needs that have high correlates. So those high correlates include things like substance abuse, under-employment or unemployment, financial challenges, sometimes mental health or women with disabilities and so in our old system, we had no mechanism for addressing any of that. So we transitioned the way that we deliver services now and we pretty much fully transitioned into an integrated model where corrections education and where we have worked, like BCI or facility employment, along with our various curriculum. So we have like 10 different curriculum that we've selected that address different, that target different criminogenic needs. So some of them target anti-social thinking, some of them target your responsibility, some of them target coping skills and emotional regulation, and then we use corrections education to help us target learning disabilities, basic skill disabilities and employment workforce readiness. So those that are able, we target industry certifications. That side is only in the facility because we don't have full campuses of corrections at or community high school Vermont and the community anymore. But that's what the department has done. I think what Karen Tronskart-Scott has referenced is that when the department made this transition, we provided a grant of about $100,000 to the Vermont network against domestic and social violence. As part of that transition, because we had been allocated, as part of our allocation, we had been in part supporting the, what was called at that point, the battery accountability coordinator. And so that money had for a period of time helped support that position. We provided bridge money 2014, I think it was 2014. It might have gone into 2015, I'm a little messy on my dates, but thereabouts. That amounted to about $100,000 to support the network in bridging into other financial resources and also to take a look at how they might be able to support certification as a build a broader system. And so what I think the network has found is that in the absence of the state consistent allocation that was originally coming through the department, those DVAP programs, which the department never paid for, they were always a fee for service in the community, but what happened was at that level, struggled because they no longer had Spectrum, which was an overarching organization that had sort of created an infrastructure, both in providing IDAP and in providing some training and coordination for the That was a better intervention program. Exactly. They did run it statewide. They did run it statewide. So they provided some training capacity through IDAP and through, I think some other monies as well, that helped support the network in supporting those community DV programs when both the department and then subsequently Spectrum changed, I mean, we changed direction. And then I think a year or so later, Spectrum re-evaluated, they sort of returned to their original mission, which was new, right? And they re-evaluated how they wanted to focus on their mission. Those two things, I think then pulled out some resources that the network had previously been able to, or that the state had previously been able to support community that are intervention or community domestic abuse programs. So I think if I'm not, I think I'm accurately representing what Karen is referencing. Well, I'm referencing a slide that you'll all soon have a copy of from David, the Amora from the Justice Center, but it basically says, Rematch Domestic Violence Community Program is weakened by the current funding model lack of state investment in support. And recidivism, these guys domestic violence up 23%. Who's that from? David. Those are the conviction volumes. Conviction volume. Yeah. And between FY15 and FY19, and he thinks there should be, as soon as we get the copy, I'll hand it out to people, but Vermont no longer has a statewide domestic violence program coordinator. That's the position we were just talking about. What she thinks should be put back in out of this 400,000, I don't know, 400,000, enough. I don't actually operate, nor have I ever operated that program, sir, so I don't have a number. I know that Karen and Sarah are doing some numbers, Frenching on their end. It's changed. We've got a million for housing and 600,000 for other evidence-based programs. Senator, we've been having this conversation since I arrived at corrections around the domestic violence piece. And I think my conversation with staff is that we saw that slide. I saw that slide. I've talked to David directly about this. And I think we've got to regroup internally and work in partnership with the network to figure out the most impactful way that we can do programming. Because I remember the adapt days from my police days, right? And that was pretty standard. Sitting on domestic violence task forces around the state, that was a pretty standard conversation that happened all the time. We recognize that we're concerned about the fact that those, you know, we don't necessarily have programming right now that's reaching who we need to reach, especially outside. You know, I don't disagree that domestic violence is not just the violent act, but frequently it's alcohol or other substance abuse or mental health issues, you know, other things. So I don't have a problem with looking at the whole totality of it, but it seems like we've kind of had also the fee-based model for many of them is impossible. It was, you know, I understand the need for buy-in. And so maybe they should contribute, but if they can only afford $10, that's what they should contribute, not $45. Something else in this that we've talked a lot with Karen and Sarah about is that the standards for the programming in the community are set by the state's Council on Domestic Violence. And the anecdote that stays with me and when we first learned about this is that the fee-for-service model is too expensive for the people who are paying for it. And then for the programs, not enough money, the example they gave was a county that I'm totally forgetting which one it is, where the consequence of not enough resources is that the staff are not able to maintain the standards of their training and their evidence-based and evidence-informed practices that meet what the state's Council is setting. And so they're at risk of being decertified, but then the county's in the unfortunate position of saying, but this is the only program we have. That conundrum really I think illustrates why the current funding model without any state investment is unsustainable, but also how something like the statewide coordinator, I think Sarah and Karen testified to this, even just reestablishing that condition and step in allowing and providing resources to those programs where they can remain current on the training and the standards that are being set for them by that Council. So anyway, those are some of the nitty-gritty pieces and I know that they're working to put together some specific number information. I don't wanna go out on the ledge that I can't walk back from, but I think $400,000 is plenty from our initial conversations with them and then we'll keep trying to pull that together. We're also speaking in depth with Kim and Monica and folks at DOC to try to get more of a number on the risk-production programming expansion so that that is a priority in whatever upfront investment and really being highlighted as well. I also wanna also let you know, Senator and Senators, that when we trained domestic violence curriculum, the active curriculum that was agreed to both by the network and by the department, the department told the network that we would not compete with them in the community and the delivery of that curriculum. So part of this is that the network wanted to deliver this curriculum through its domestic abuse providers and at the community level. And so domestic violence offenders are still able to participate in our RP in the community and access that DV specific curriculum through the domestic abuse providers. The page of this document is in the head of the health which is also, I think, connected there. Thank you. Are there any other questions about the DV? That's helpful, Kim, so I understand what happened. I heard a different story and that was that Specter said we can't forward on the based upon the grant and we're not gonna do it anymore. Mark Larson, who was here as a representative was also part of that employed by Specter in the DV Battery and Prevention Program. So, didn't get quite a bit of attention. Are you good with us? I'm good. Well, Annie and then Jeremy, I'm gonna do the task. Let's try to say avoidance, I don't care. This letter asked me if I was really saying, are you done? Are we done with you? No. I may be done with you, Kim. It was the last 20 minutes. But I'd really like to hear from Zarek on that or from Amy on that, sorry, I mean. There was an Amy Super Bowl Sunday that hosted a party, that's up to you. Zarek, do you wanna explain housing to us? It seems to get a lot of criticism. You got a couple of weeks? We've got about 10 minutes. I do have to do it. I feel it's a low life, low version. We actually heard at one of our meetings at the final Justice Reinvestment Working Group meeting from somebody and I think it said everything about it, you need to know, which was probably announced that their program didn't allow social media for 90 days of placement in that housing program. And a lot of us turned to each other and said, I'm not big on social programming myself, but I think 90 days might be a long time before somebody has been incarcerated coming out. And we heard from others that same day about policies regarding if you drink, you're gonna be out of here, you know, just substance abuse housing and sober housing. If you have an MAT, you can't be in this program. So those are the challenges I think we wanna look at is how do we fit it? And we put a million dollars at least proposing to be built, how do we do it? Yeah. So for the record, Derrick Mio-Devnik, M-I-O-D-O-W-N-I-K, Community and Restorative Justice Executive with the Vermont Department of Corrections. Thank you for your attention to all of this and to the housing component of it. And allow me to thank our interim commissioner for doing such a fantastic job uploading all of this and representing our work so effectively as well as our partnership with the Council for State's Government, which has been really fruitful. So what I think I'm hearing Senator, and please correct me if this is inaccurate, is different pieces and illustrations, pieces of information and illustrations that suggest that perhaps there's potential misaligned between the specific program policies that run transitional housing services as funded by the Department of Corrections and the population that we're trying to have served by them and that some of those tensions or potential mismatches really emerge. There's been many of the programs that have evolved to change the way that the people who are no longer with them, maybe there were good programs for people that are no longer in the department. So they've been diverted. Yeah, I'm in agreement with you, sir. I think to your request of trying to frame this within the next couple of minutes, I would submit that when we look at the list of individuals who are eligible for a lease, but their primary barrier to being released is housing. And I'm sure you've heard of us talking about this. This is the B-1 list over time. That's the shorthand. Stepping back, we see two distinct sub-populations on that B-1 list, which as of the other day was at 131 folks. I haven't checked it this morning. Is that probably about that? Approximately, and this was 131 individuals who the main barrier for being released since they hit their men was housing. But when we dig into that, to give you just, I think, what hopefully will be a contextualizing picture of this. Approximately, and these are approximations, I have not done a statistical count, but probably about 40% of on any given day that was our folks who are convicted for sexual offenses and are waiting to release. And it is, as I think we all know, very hard to thread the needle between the conditions of release and the prohibitions or the restrictions, if you will, about what will constitute appropriate housing and finding housing stock that aligns with that. So that's a population that tends to sit on that B-1 list for quite some time. Conversely, that's a population that does not recidivate to as nearly a high degree. So when we are successful in finding transitional housing for the population who have been convicted for sexual offenses, we see fewer returns on revocations for that population. And that's a public myth that sex offenders are constantly, you know, constant predators out there. I think that you've probably heard and well from a correctional perspective, that's a population that, from a supervisory perspective, again, there are individuals that are going to be anomalies to this, but on a population level, our biggest challenge is housing there. And finding housing stock, which gets into the challenge of how do we bring on private landlords into what is a public health problem, right? Housing is a public asset that a lot of it is held privately. And so it raises an interesting policy and challenge for us of how does a public institution sufficiently influence a privately regulated market? And if any of you are landlords and you ask yourself, if I have an appointment to rent, who would I rent it to? And that's a challenge. The other sub-population that we have on the few landlords are folks who've been released multiple times often and do make their way back. And I think that that gets into your question about what's happening with these programs? Why do we have a program that would prohibit somebody from social media for, you know, and I think that speaks to the challenge of what for a long time has been the potential transformation of a congregate setting and the efficacy of a therapeutic community. And the theory of change there builds on collective efficacy. It says, you know, if I'm in a place where everybody's goal is sobriety and recovery, I'm going to be naturally held accountable to this informal authority that we're creating. And I do think that 15 and 20 years ago, the population who we were serving, the individuals were at a different stage of change. They were in a planning and in action, maybe even in maintenance phase of their recovery, such that they could leverage support and accountability from one another in congregate settings. The individuals we're releasing now, in my perspective, and I'm not a clinician, I'm a housing administrator, but I believe they're in a pre-contemplative or maybe at best a contemplative stage of change. And so when we congregate folks who are that vulnerable in their own recovery, we can't leverage that collective efficacy. And the promise of congregate settings is also the downside risk. Is that they haven't necessarily all figured out how to implement a harm reduction approach such that if you've relapsed in a group setting, it's still safe for you and safe for the other residents and safe for the staff to be in that program. So unfortunately, we do have a lot of programs that while many people come through effectively, so it's not an all or nothing. What we know is the population that we serve who are coming out are coming out still very vulnerable to relapse. Many of whom, this is their second or third episode of release. The fact is if you're making your way into a transitional housing program in DOC, odds are that that's not your first release. You've probably been put out to your moms and it didn't work. And then maybe another private resident and it didn't work. So our transitional housing population is in and of itself, folks that's usually not their first time out. They're in and when they're in these congregate settings, the risks tolerance because it's not just about the individual. It's about the broader safety of the program and the staff doesn't really have a place for that person. I'm not going to specifics of the example you cite. I think that that's the context under which you're seeing policies that adhere more to the abstinence model. And what we know about harm reduction is that the effective strategies are predicated on an understanding that somebody will likely relapse and how can we optimize for stability and safety with the least collateral consequences possible. And the challenge for us is that in many of these, again, congregate settings, we don't have an option if somebody violates these programs and finds themselves exited, emergency exited from the program. They don't have a place to stay that night. So yeah. I get a letter or email from a mother or sometimes the person who's got kicked out of a program because they went off the porch to talk to somebody in a vehicle. The allegation is that's a violation of the rules and it makes me, you know, when I see that, I wonder, you know, having run a program for years, I'm wondering why you needed to kick the person out for that or some other strategy that could be used. So I'm kind of curious about that. But on the other hand, that person found back in jail sometimes 90 days to six months in there on what do you call intercept or whatever. Now they're back, you know, it's another failure and they frequently just give up. Sure. Yeah. I mean, well, that sounds draconian and I would hope that we have programs that wouldn't literally, and you know, again, there tend to be varying narratives from different perspectives about why, however. But I think the broader point being that the more you congregate, the more that rules, however granular, often have to be enforced with the greatest degree of consistency because then any violation has a signaling value and that signaling value is to the other residents in that program that says, oh, okay, so the porch rule is in fact really squishy. Let's check out the curfew rule. Oh, well the curfew rule, I came in a half an hour after curfew, all right, no big deal. So the challenge with congregate sites is you have to apply or I believe that the program administrators on the community side feel that the only way to create a safe and responsible environment for the totality of their staff and residents is to set rules with a degree of rigidity that provides a structural integrity. But any time you look at a granular level about a decision like that, it has the potential to look somewhat absurd. And this is why our scattered site housing solutions tend to optimize for stability because those aren't things that the Department of Corrections would exit somebody from their own housing for. And the challenge to finding that scattered site housing is that it either needs to be naturally used by organizations and or facilitated so that the offender, him or herself leases those and so it gets into how do we permeate the private housing market in a state with a less than 1% vacancy rate for a population that is generally not exactly the most appealing to most private landlords. And that's where we are faced with truly a public NGO and private collaborative challenge. So of those, the B group of 131, do you know how many of those are sex accountable? Well, my left count, and again, I did not do a forensic count but it looked to me about 40% of the 141, so I'm gonna do some rough math that would probably put us at about 60 or so. I could be off by a standard deviation of maybe 10%. Well, just say it's 60. Okay, yeah, and I'm turning to the college to see if I'm off based on that. Dale spends more time on that. I mean, it might, I don't know. Yeah, no, it's quite, it's a lot. It's generally between 30 and 50%. I mean, it's a little bit of a 50 now. It's between 30 and 40, but we can get you the exact number. What is it? To be about 40. Between 30 and 40, 40 and 50. Between 30 and 40, not 40 and 50. Okay, so even at 30% are sex offenders. They're difficult to place. The community here is sex offender. You want one living next to you. With your family, with the young kids. Even the family without young kids. Peace. So it is interesting that the, who are from this bucket? I didn't disagree with you. No, no, no. I disagree. It's really hard. Well, but Senator White. So I had just a couple of comments and I think that one of the problems is the perception. Absolutely. And I don't know how you change that perception. It's, I get notices. Don't ask me why on earth I get these notices, but I get a notice that says a sex offender has been placed in your community. I don't ever remember signing up for anything like that. I don't want to know. I never check it out. I never look at the picture because I don't really care. I mean, not that I don't care, but so how do we change that perception? And then two other things that I think that public housing or subsidized housing is that subsidized by the federal government in any way, if you're on a lifetime registry, you do not qualify, period. And I think that that, because we can't change those guys in Washington, but we should try to make some changes and talk with our, I work for Housing Authority. Right, because some housing authorities also impose those prohibitions. Well, they have to. Oh, no. No, they have to if they're getting insurance for the properties sometimes that. Not the public housing authorities have got to because they have, they're getting federally funded. So they have to. But the other thing is that with our vacancy rate of 1%, we have people on in my, where I work, we have people on a waiting list for section eight housing that have been on the waiting list for five years. So it's really hard to say we should be providing transitional housing which we can't provide housing for people who are desperate. Anyway, it is a real problem. One of the measures is to educate that not all section vendors are created equal. Yeah. Just like not all people are created equal. Yeah. I mean, we don't have differences. There are different levels of, of risk of a different level. Pardon me? I thought all people were created equal. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Silly boy. That came out, that did not come out the way. That did not come out the way. We know. Not all section vendors are. Should the risk, the variable risk profiles. The variable risk profiles, repeat that, that all people are created equal. However, there are various risk profiles for all people, particularly with section vendors. So some of them are more dangerous than others to different populations. But when you get down to an individual basis, who wants to court a certain amount of personal risk for the greater good? You know, ultimately this is an individual risk versus greater good proposition that has a critical dependency on the private housing market. That's our place to be. The next, the last word that Joe. I was actually gonna, Cassandra on the phone was gonna say something. So I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry Cassandra. Go ahead. Hello committee members. I just wanted to mention that the recommendations around housing are focused on helping DOC to expand access to different types of housing options, including supportive housing. And so to settle down on what Derek was talking about was that group of 131 people, 40% who are part of, are in different sex offenses and 50% who are kind of in that category of on the road to recovery. Supportive housing is a really great housing model for those folks. I know Pathways has been a housing option that DOC has worked with closely to be able to get sex offenders out in the housing. And when thinking about the challenges around congregate settings that Derek was fighting, Pathways supportive housing model uses scatter site approaches, which helps to be able to keep those folks in the community. So I just wanted to flag those recommendations and how they're aimed and designed to try to address some of these challenges that DOC is facing with reentry and housing. Thank you. The department has 50 vacant beds. 50 vacant beds? Yeah. That's, that's, that's, that's great. Oh, okay. That's great. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. Cognitive beds. Yeah. If we, if there are 50 single room occupancy apartments, we could probably fill those and maintain people in them immediately. I think, thanks for bringing that St. Jasper to conversation. Yeah. I said, thanks for bringing that St. Jasper to conversation. Yeah. Well, it's important to remember that they exist. We can supervise the individualized risk when people are in individualized housing settings. I think it's the point I'd like folks to understand. We sacrifice some ability as a department to supervise the individualized risky behaviors when they're in congregate settings because there are other primary and critical dependencies and immediate stakeholders in that house that the Department of Corrections, you know, has to share our public safety overarching concerns with more of the more immediate house concerns. The pathway does more than just corrections popular. Yes, they serve the mental health population. They said they needed 360,000 to expand the Pennington County, for example. They're only in six counties right now. So, it's not clear to me, you know, whether that's, you know, sometimes we fall on our sword for certain programs that seem to be the answer for this week. I'm not sure that they're the answer for all of our programs. Well, they use the housing first model. And my point to that, respectfully, would be that housing first does say any of your efficacy to make behavioral change, if not anchored in housing stability. If you are in the existential crisis of not knowing if you're one bad decision away from losing your housing, you are fundamentally compromised in your self-efficacy, your ability to manifest those other changes. So if we can start from anchoring people on housing, we can at least clear the space to then make targeted interventions relative to the risks they propose and not have collateral consequences bound up in your housing. And that's housing first. And our department supports that. When the department contracts with providers, do they contract for a certain occupancy level or do they just provide a contract of X thousands of dollars? So the procurement model that the Department of Corrections currently uses technically as grants, and I mentioned that because there are some differences between grants and contracts. Grants procure the organizational capacity up to a certain point. We do specify the number of beds and then we essentially set a floor of 80% utilization. And when our data tells us that there is any trending for a grant that puts them below 80% for multiple quarters, then we begin to question what's going on? Have we over-patured relative to demand? Are there other, you know, what's preventing us from optimizing that? And that's part of our grant management process. So we have a baseline. When it's below that, that becomes a data flag that me and my staff in concert with our local probation and parole management start looking at, you know, what's happening with this investment. We've gone a minute over time. Senator Bruce, just one last thing. We've already been a minute over. So we'll pick up here tomorrow. Thank you all very much. Thank you. If you have thoughts, your friend, please. Thank you very much.