 All right, well, thank you everyone for coming to our webinar today. Today, we're going to hear about Maryland's coordinated intake project. We have Sarah, John here to give us all the information. So, I'm going to turn it over to Sarah now to introduce herself and tell us all about this really great project. Wonderful. Thanks, Shelly. And good afternoon, everybody. Thanks for attending. I'm Sarah, John, I'm the project manager of the Access to Council and Evictions, coordinated intake system at Civil Justice here in Maryland. Today, I'm going to talk a bit about how the coordinated intake project came to be and give you a bit of background in it. So it's currently in its launch stage and soft launch. We've just launched in Baltimore City. We will do our full launch in October, and then we plan to expand statewide. So it's a very new project. So I want to give you some background on how it came to be the goals of the intake system and the landscape that we faced here in Maryland and what the chief challenges that we faced are, which are probably peculiar to to Maryland. But I'm sure there's some similarities for you all trying to do similar things in other places. Then I'll talk about the technological solutions that we used to address the challenges we faced. I'm not an especially tacky person, so they may not be as detailed as they could be. But I think they'll give you a good idea as to how we approached the specific Maryland landscape for coordinated intake. I'll give you an update on the status of the project and discuss some lessons learned and then we'll turn over to questions. So I asked that you use the chat or the Q and A function for questions and I'll get to them at the end. I'm terrible with these multiple screens and checking all the different places, making sure I click in the right place. By way of introduction, the coordinated intake system is part of a broader Maryland access to council innovations program, which was established in 2021 by the state legislature. So the program provides eligible tenants who are those who come from households that earn less than 50% of the Maryland median income provides eligible tenants in in access to free legal representation for a judicial or administrative proceeding to evict or terminate the tenancy or housing subsidy of the tenant. So it's a relatively narrow, narrowly defined program for evictions specifically for people that below 50% of the median income in the state. Now, the bill came on the heels of a right to council and evictions program that was introduced in Baltimore City in 2020 and can be thought of, I think, as part of that broader right to council movement that gains some at some steam during the pandemic, especially in evictions matters. The coordinated, so coordinated intake or intake generally is not mentioned at all in the bill, but what was created was an access to council or ACE task force that was created to evaluate service provision under the program to study funding and to make recommendations about how to improve it. And it's been a quite a prominent and prolific task force and in its first major report in January 2022, it recommended the creation of a coordinated intake system to help with access to council innovations. These the administrator of the grant the Maryland legal services corporation just a few months later issued the RFP for the coordinated intake system, which we then apply for. And so the RFP set out. The task of the coordinated intake system to be design, build, operate and manage a coordinated intake system, including these three elements. So centralized telephone number that can be accessed anywhere in the state. An online intake portal likewise accessed anywhere in the state and guide people to the appropriate help, including people who aren't eligible for race. And then an electronic referral system where we can track referrals and the progress of each applicant's case. Civil justice in partnership with United Way of Central Maryland and A2J apply to this RFP and want it. You can see that each three of the partners have a very different backgrounds and expertise. So A2J tech develops and maintains the coordinated intake system technology, the architecture and all that sort of technical stuff behind the scenes. United Way of Central Maryland runs the 211 number service in Central Maryland, so around the Baltimore area, and it provides the staff to field calls from tenants to review online intakes and of course provides that centralized well known number that 211, that was part of the RFP. And then we at Civil Justice, we bring in the legal knowledge and the connections. We're a small legal services organization. And so we do things like training 211 staff to work on the phones. We work with Civil Justice, we work with the legal service providers to get their important feedback on the system and make it work for them. And we're also there in more difficult cases to help review case files or assist when urgent action is required so we can make that connection between tenants and legal providers. So next I'll briefly talk about the goals of the Access to Counseling and Evictions Coordinated Intake System, the very awkward acronym of ASIS. So the main goal and the one that was in the RFP and it's one that we have been guided by is to simplify the process for tenants for seeking and obtaining legal assistance in evictions matters. So one of like the guiding principles for us has been that we don't want to have applicants having to go around some multiple providers having to tell their story multiple times, having to do multiple intake interviews. We don't want to be a barrier to representation. We actually want to make things easier. And then of course, two very closely related goals of broadening access to representation. So having 2-1-1 is that sort of central funnel, broad, wide funnel that captures as many tenants as we can and connects them to legal representation. And then of course, finally, we want to improve outcomes for tenants because we know the main thing, the main correlation between improved outcomes in eviction matters is having legal representation, much more likely to avoid eviction or to have a better outcome if you have legal representation. So there are our goals. And then we have the peculiar case of Maryland. And so the landscape in Maryland is in some ways interesting because we had a very favorable political and funding landscape, which may not and probably does not exist in a lot of other places. We have a bill creating a program funded by funding a program from the state legislature. And so there's little risk and certainly little political risk to the existence of the program. We also have a powerful and supportive partner in the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, which is the state's largest funder of civil legal aid and which administers the ACE program generally. And so legal providers apply to MLSC for funds to provide ACE services. And as part of that, they're required to participate in the coordinated intake system. And so that part was relatively easy for that sort of political and funding world. So what was more difficult was the technical challenge. Because what we have in Maryland are these four points that I'll go through high potential demand of very specific legislative coverage, numerous and highly specialized providers and lagging capacity. So the first one is that in Maryland there are extraordinarily high rates of eviction filings. Partially, this is due to low filing fees. It costs $25 to file in for a failure to pay rent case in Baltimore City and $15 elsewhere in the state. And so in 2008, the eviction filing rate was about 70%, which means that there were seven eviction filings for every 10 Maryland rental households in 2018. And so when we're thinking about how we are thinking about potential demand in the system, we came up with an upper ceiling unrealistic, though it may be of 800,000 potential tenants contacting us in a year. Of course, we won't get anywhere near that, but we do think a reasonable estimate when the system is fully operational statewide is probably in the order of tens of thousands with hundreds of intakes being performed each day potentially. So we have this tremendous demand of tremendous potential demand and the need to be able to get through a lot of intakes efficiently. But then combined with that, we have the next three points. We have very specific coverage. The ACE program legislation carves out specific types of eviction filings that it covers. So failure, pay rent, breach of lease, tenant holding over, sure. But it doesn't include retaliatory eviction except in Baltimore City where there's a right to council that's a bit more expanded. In Baltimore City, it also includes affirmative escrow, even though that's not really an eviction matter. It doesn't cover a wrongful detainee anywhere or security bond actions includes constructive evictions but not illegal evictions again, except in Baltimore City. I'm going to only includes the first appeal that does include subsidy terminations, even if they're separate from an evictions matter. But it doesn't cover brief advice, but does cover further consultation. So we have like this interesting set of inclusions for eligibility that mean we have to get a fair bit of information about the callers case before we know even whether or not it's eligible for this program. Then we have an issue with having a lot of providers and a lot of providers who have very specific speciality. So there are 10 ACE providers across the state of Maryland, they each operate in a different set of jurisdictions, and they each have a set of specializations unique to them. So some don't accept tenants in subsidized housing, some would do appeals, some specialize in day of court representation for failure to pay rent cases. Some are really interested in the big meaty policy issues and impact litigation. Others are focused on training more students and so on sort of archetypal failure to pay rent cases that are reasonably simple. So there's some very distinct preferences that we need to take into account. And then of course, on top of that we have issues relating to demographic demographic focuses that the different organizations have. So one of our providers focuses on immigrants, they're a priority population and other serves particularly people with disabilities. And another one has a grant that only allows them to serve households that have young people in them. And then of course we have the LSE requirements for the LSE funder in the state. We have a lot, we have a lot of information and preferences that we need to get from the caller and match them to the provider's preferences. And then finally, of course we have lagging capacity, which I think is pretty common amongst right to council programs in which the demand for lawyers and council is increased quite suddenly, but qualified attorneys in Maryland to do this work are in short supply. And we expect that to continue for a little while yet. And so as programs work on building up their capacity, we expect that some we will frequently have, they will frequently have read capacity when people are taking any more cases will need to change their preferences. And so we need to take into account provider capacity as we make, as we make referrals. So in totality what we really have is this challenge of a potential client volume of applicants that we need to efficiently connect to providers, but in order to do that, without sort of making them have to go to multiple places and sort of wasting time, we need to get a fair amount of information from, we need information that we can match to the specific preferences of the organizations and of course first establish that they're eligible. And the way that we address this problem was largely through technology so our approach involved these four pillars, if you will, that each has each sort of addresses one element of the landscape. I will go through each one in a bit of detail but for now, we've got housing the intake system into one one. We using technology to create an efficient data collection and referral matching system that's perhaps faster than otherwise would be. We need to develop a two way communication between providers and the system so we know that their current status we also know whether or not their particular cases past conflict check whether or not they're accepting a particular case and they sort of evaluate the ability to transmit a case file directly into a provider CMS on a particular trigger. And then finally, we have the implementation of accessible applicant notifications and a client portal to keep people informed so I'll go over and each of one of those in a little bit of detail. I'll tell you more about how it sort of helped us in that environment. So the first sort of pillar is to house the system into one one. So United Way of Central Maryland, one of the partners in this project run to one one year Central Maryland in Central Maryland, and we get to utilize their professional staff who have experience in that high volume call center who are used to having to process lots of calls quickly. We train them on or trained a set of those staff on legal information provision and land more tenant more. And they are now dedicated full time workers on the legal intake line. So we get the advantage of their social worker training and their tool and their call center experience and sort of augment it with some legal knowledge. So and then we created a dedicated phone one phone intake queue that tenants can either navigate to using the menus and to one one, or they can be referred to by other parts of 211. And then when the online intake system is launched the same staff will be reviewing and reaching out to applicants to see clarifying information and moving the process along. So, with 211, what we've essentially done is created this broad funnel. So tenants, including tenants with eviction problems who weren't aware that free legal help was available they didn't know about the program they didn't even know that they had legal rights and we're calling about something else perhaps rental assistance can use 211 and be and the referral to our ecosystem to be connected with legal. It also means that we can bundle legal help with other social services so tenants can call and get information on rental assistance for banks and other social services in the same call as they apply for legal. So that's certainly expanding access and making things a bit more simple, efficient for tenants. And then part of our approach relates to the technology aspect in particular using technology to create an efficient way of collecting a lot of information and then matching that information with information provided from providers. So 211 intake staff are not paralegals and they're not attorneys and so they do get extensive informal legal training before they start. But they're not, they're not paralegals. So we have this kind of challenge where we need these non-legal professionals to efficiently collect legally salient information about the type of evictions cases as well as the characteristics of the individual. And to do this we used technology to sort of strategically help them out. So we created a set for so the first thing we did was we mapped out the facts scenarios that are consistent with different eligible and ineligible land or tenant matters. So civil justice used its legal expertise to map that out and have a decision set of all of the key decisions show you this is an excerpt of the mapping that we did. And it looks reasonably complicated but the thing just to get away from, to get from this is that we very methodologically went through and identified all the different pieces of information and decision points behind categorizing a case as the most likely type of evictions case it was. So we could identify whether it was likely to be an eligible ace matter and if so what type. Using this mapping we developed questions and a guided interview flows to collect the information and characterize attendance case by the legal issue that it was most likely to be by its urgency so how soon say court was how recently they received notice. As well as the likely level of legal help required. Does it seem to be more of a brief advice situation or is this an ace eligible representation or non legal help that's most appropriate. We'll also use this map to undergird our online intake system as we, which is what we're developing right at the moment. And here is an example of the interface that 211 staff use as they collect information using that guarded interview. It is a stacker database or sorry a stacker interface that sits upon an air table database has some complicated branch logic that reflects that diagram that I just showed. And means that not every, or indeed, no, no caller will ever be asked every single question they'll only be asked the questions that are relevant to their case. And so you can relatively expeditiously conduct an intake interview. Okay, and then our next. Sorry, continue once we've developed it once we develop this interview sequence. We tested it out and we wanted to make sure that we were doing sort of accurate characterization of each legal problem and make sure our highly trained but non lawyers who were collecting the information we're able to do so in a comfortable and natural way that didn't sort of overwhelm callers or overpromise on outcomes. We're still in the process of making improvements on that. I think it's probably always going to be improvements to make on the, the guided interview process. So, now we have a bunch of information that the tenant has provided so next task for us is to match that with information from legal providers on their current capacity on the case type preferences on the services they can't provide on the people they can't serve. Their availability at particular days. And so we do that again using a stacker interface providers can update all of their information relatively easily in a in stacker. It's updated in real time. It looks like this. This is an excerpt from one of the providers showing the case type preferences and the failure to pay rent court documents covered they can edit that at any time. And then as soon as they do that. The algorithm that we developed to match individuals individual applicants with providers will update. You can see up the top there there's a big on off switch and that's essentially if a provider just doesn't have capacity to take right and take cases right now they switch that to off. And immediately they won't get any more cases may switch it back on and they'll stop included back in the algorithm again. So, we've got lots of information that we've collected. We're matching it and we're using technology to do so. The third element of our approach was the setting up of communication between providers and the coordinated intake system about individual referrals that we make. So about conducting, sorry, sending over information to do conflict checks, sending back information on whether or not conflict check past or fail, then sending over the full case file. And then sending information on case acceptance or declining. So once a referral is made providers are notified by email and they're provided conflict check information in our system. They can parcel fail the conflict check there. If the conflict check passes providers can access the full case file. They can accept or decline a case there or increasingly what they do is we can transmit the full case file into their case management system so they don't have to do any copying and pasting and sort of wasting time like that. Currently we've integrated legal server but we're soon going to integrate other API compatible case management systems. And the trigger for when we transmit that information into the case management system varies by organization so we can customize it to whatever their process requires. It's output that the case file that we transmit to an organization should provide enough information that the provider only has to perform a expedited intake interview not full intake interview and perhaps no intake interview at all in some some cases. And we really hope that because we want to sort of make the process a bit quicker and simpler for tenants rather than having them have to do two interviews. The further advantage that we have is that a lot of the information we collect is being used by providers in reporting so the evaluator and the funder have a specific set of data that they want sent over and we're collecting a lot of that for them. And so that was kind of this nice value add that we are providing providers and help them be a bit more enthusiastic about our system. The final aspect of our approach is the creation of a system of notifications for applicants including the ability for them to contact us by email or text and to update their contact information, as well as an applicant portal that provides them status updates it provides contact information for their referral and for us, and useful information about the process. So this is all about making sure the client the caller the applicant whatever you call them has an idea about that something is happening on the case. And what the process is and where they're at in it. So this is what the client portal looks like currently it's giving them the status of their case with our service, giving them contact information on a different tab. So this is all about what to expect at courts, how will play for rental assistance, what to do before your court date how to collect information on your case is an FAQ section and links to other important contacts like this portal utilizes the Maryland justice passport, which is an innovation by civil justice that is essentially a digital portfolio, where users contract other applications and this one for services they can store and upload documents with their legal provider, they can essentially keep all their case information organized. And the goal of the justice passport really is to prevent that constant having constantly having to repeat the same stories and some multiple providers to sort of keep it in a nice central area. So looking at the system as a whole. This is kind of a silly diagram but it's fun, but you can see the process from beginning to end starting on the left with the phone intake or the online intake. An applicant calls 211 or they go online in the middle there the person sitting in purple at the computer is 211 intake staff working on our system entering information. The referral generated the 211 staff check that that referral makes sense. And if it does they send it they send it off to the provider. If there's any complications you can see CJ civil justice is referenced either side here we can perform review and provide extra insight. It gets sent off to a provider for a conflict check. If they accept it. Oh, sorry if it passes conflict check. The file can be transmitted at that point and get more information about the client. If it fails, we go back and do the process again for another backup referral here. The one bit that's not shown here is the communication that a case has been accepted, which would come. And that's the end of the process. So that's what the system looks like from maybe 10,000 miles. I'm not sure 5,000 miles. Currently we're still as I mentioned in a soft launch stage so not all of the pieces are perfectly assembled just yet, including online intake that's a thing that we're currently working on. But the project was soft launched in Baltimore City in May. The launch was deliberately a very soft launch so there was no fanfare or publicity initially. We only had referrals from callers who had called 211 already and had called 211 about some other issue. And during the process of the discussion with the 211 and evictions issue was revealed. They were told that this was a pilot program and we worked with them through the process as well as with the providers in their first few referrals. So we got a lot of feedback early on that we were able to incorporate pretty well. And so it worked quite well, I think. Since then we've been adding to the system. We've worked with providers to integrate with their CMSs. We added the client notifications and developed the client portal that's in the last month or two. We've worked on developing internal data dashboards and reporting functions. We've improved our case assignment algorithm. So the thing that matches the data from the client or from the applicant and the provider to make it work a little bit better. We are currently working on an online intake form. We discovered a gap in the system for potential appeals and post-judgment motions where the timeline is really compressed. So we've added a project attorney and sort of a fast action limited service style of representation. At the moment we're fielding on average about 25 pools a day and doing about five intakes a little bit less this week where it's been pretty quiet. But we expect this volume to increase pretty substantially particularly as outreach efforts and publicity increase closer to the launch. And then of course once we move statewide. So our full and public launch in Baltimore City will happen on October 2. There'll be a bit of press and the online intake form will be unveiled. And then we quickly pivot to statewide expansion so increasing the number of jurisdictions pretty rapidly. And we plan to have the full system in place by mid 2025, if not earlier. And then just briefly in the last few minutes, some lessons learned from this process so far. The first one is a lesson that we sort of already knew, but we did not appreciate just how significant it was going to be and that is that collecting this information is time consuming. We are lucky in that our information capturing efforts have three purposes essentially. An accurate referral, very important, providing a complete case file to organizations so they don't have to do as much work at the beginning. And then the third purpose is that much of the data are used for reporting to the funder and the evaluator. So organizations would have to do that anyway. And applicants would have to go through the process of answering those questions anyway. It's still a central concern of us that ours that the intake process does take a little bit long. We're looking at sort of almost 30 minutes for a lot of intakes. And so we're continually working on making the technology more efficient and making that process smoother for tenants. The second lesson we learned is how important it is to be flexible and willing to say, oops, that thing that we put a lot of effort into doesn't really quite work the way that we thought it would. And so we need to now do something differently. Of course, this means that we need to be constantly updating and training our staff because the system is changing quite often and we're asking a lot of our staff essentially to be quite flexible. And they've done a really amazing job at that. And I think finally, our process has shown that there are some advantages to launching very slowly, you know, sort of not kind of with a big bang and excitement, but to sort of slowly get there. We were aware that it was a bit of a risk to soft launch in May, in part because all of the pieces of the puzzle weren't yet complete. So there were some moments where things didn't work quite as well as they should or we didn't have things set up. But overall, I think that it ended up working pretty well for us because it did give us the opportunity to work closely with providers when demand was quite low. The intensity was less intense, I guess, when we were just recruiting people from who had called 211 not specifically for legal advice, but it was sort of a value add to their conversation. So they're a bit more patient, they understood that this was a pilot program and they could help us out developing the process. Certainly, I think we've built some good relationships with providers, partially in response to how responsive we have been to their feedback from those early days. And so I think all in all that was probably a good call, a risky one, but a good call. Okay, and so now I think that's all from me. It looks like there are some questions in the chat. Shelly, should I just go through them one by one or I was going to help you out by reading them off for yourself. All right, so we'll start with this one with regard to the thousands of requests for service. Can you share how many people staff the call center and what wait times are like. So the intake line in particular currently has four full time staff. At the moment wait times aren't particularly high. I get you the exact stats on it, but I don't think people are waiting much more than a couple of minutes on average. We have plans to increase the staffing. Once we launch more fully. So I think the stuff will double at the end of this of this calendar year. And then we have more plans as we go across the state, but there is a bit of an unknown as to how much that statewide expansion will increase demand. Okay, our second question is, do you think law students who are trained and supported could staff a similar intake system. Oh, yeah. The main issue would be the consistency so you probably want some other staff, like some permanent staff who could always be there for to help out. Certainly a well designed intake system with that guided interview certainly could be done by all students. Our next question you've addressed a little bit, but the question is how is it going with capacity. And then they continue on to I imagine orgs are already are always overwhelmed, but appreciate how this might free up some of their time, wondering also if participating orgs feel the funder pressure to always do intake. That's a very, very good question. So organizations so far haven't been especially overwhelmed and I do think that they appreciate especially once the content of the case management system is integrated that set time saving for them. Yeah, but I don't know how under pressure they're feeling that's probably a question they're better placed to answer than I am. Right. What happens if. What happens if an organization declines a case after collecting additional information, what applicants tend to go out on their own and try another org for intake. So our process for that is that they, the provider lets us know that they've declined the case, and they send it back to us. And then we reassigned it. The provider should be explaining to the applicant, but that's the process. We are in the process of developing a joint interest agreement so that there can be more communication about cases between providers at the moment. It's up to the provider providers discretion as to how they feel about indicating about sharing that additional information. But in future, there will be a joint interest agreement that'll make that a little bit easier for all the ACE providers. But we are definitely encouraging providers and our system is designed that they come back the applicant will come back to us and we will refer them to the next best place provider. Okay. The next question is a barrier to coordinated centralized intake in my area is that LSE program has expressed concern that their advice slash brief service numbers would be cannibalized by the central intake. And therefore they would be reporting lower numbers to LSE. Was that a concern in Maryland. Not that I'm aware of the LSE funded provider in Maryland, there's only one of them. And they were already moving towards centralized intake. So I think it kind of fit in well with their overall goals. But again, that's something that's probably better to ask Marilyn later about than me. And we're going going back to the previous set of questions. Is that reassignment process fairly manual or have you successfully automated it. It is, it is quite automated. So essentially what happened is we removed that one case that one provider from the pool of app of pool of providers that in our algorithm and so it suggested as the next obvious. So we do often intervene CJ stuff just to make sure it's an appropriate referral and to get a handle on the reasons why a case might have been rejected. And we do ask those providers that are comfortable with indicating whether or not they think the case should be reassigned to someone else. We asked them to indicate that we also asked them to indicate whether the reason they were unable to take it was due to capacity and in those cases we would always refer to another organization. And we have another question and I may be able to answer at least part of this. What's the tech stack running the intake managing data, etc. Legal servers the case management system screenshots look like maybe air table and or stacker being used to and I can confirm that Sarah told us told us during the presentation that stacker on an air table was being used but is there anything else Sarah. We haven't decided yet on the platform for online intake but that will certainly be using a table underneath it as well. On the 211 side, they're doing the early part of the call for their sort of records using a proprietary system called iCarol but predominantly it's yeah stacker on top of a table. So I had a question you mentioned how long it was taking about 30 minutes for the phone intake. Do you know anything on it online intake. Do you know the time on that. We don't because we don't have that system developed yet that's the sort of the softness of the soft launch getting it's what we're working on right now. So there'll be lots of user testing coming up on that and so in a few months I'll be able to tell you. Right, we don't have any questions in the queue right now so I'm going to ask another one because I'm just curious what mapping system did you use for all of your mapping. Oh yeah. The terrifyingness that there was an application called Lucid shot. Love Lucid chart. I'm always watching for fun new things to try and Lucid chart is a great one. So here we have one. How quickly are providers connecting with applicants after receiving the referral from 211. So that varies a little bit by provider. And it's one of the areas we need to work on but the providers that take most of the cases are passing conflict checks within a few hours often and then contacting clients within two or three days. So getting more from the audience. I'd like to know how the partnership came about how how all the are all the pieces came together to build a very good question actually comes from before my time so these partners were all assembled. But I do think Sarah coffee bows is on the line she might be able to tell us if she's on. I am. I just got back from running some errands. So I'm a little late. So the partnership started civil justice is a small organization with big dreams, I'll say. And but we have a history of working in the technology field to improve how people in need of legal help find the right fit the right organization. So the Maryland legal services corporation is part of their access to justice. I'm sorry access to counsel in eviction program. Put out a request for proposals to launch this coordinated intake system. We knew we had a passion for it, but we're not prepared to run a large scale hotline. So, one of our fellow legal services providers connected us with the United Way of central Maryland who was also thinking, can we help in this space. What we were able to do is really use their experience running a large scale hotline with their very compassionate and well trained staff and match that up with our legal knowledge as well as our technology and our partnership with a to J tech. And it really came together because of people in our community thinking, is there a match to be made here and it's, it's really been a great partnership. Awesome thank you. Next question. How did you order the priorities slash criteria for sorting the organization match, ie geography versus case case type, or whatever criteria, and then they ask if there is a conflict check. There is a conflict check done by the provider. So when we send them an initial referral they just get the information they need for a conflict check and will later on get the full case information. In terms of ordering priorities and criteria. We have a hierarchy where jurisdiction is at the very top because there's a very strict. Well firstly the expansion of the system was beginning in one jurisdiction and moving to others so the most important thing. It's also the way that legal services in Maryland organize the service delivery by county or groups of county. And then we have a hierarchy that looks at the next thing is populations that are not served under any circumstances so some organizations will not serve people in subsidized housing. The same is true of people without legal status for LSE providers so those absolutes. The next thing was about case type preferences so their preferences. They're not hard and fast and we would ask people what they types of cases they prioritize versus what they accept and what they will not accept. And finally the final hierarchy final part of the hierarchy was priority populations so sorts of people when cases that you'd like to serve but there's not no sort of restriction on doing so. And say one of our organizations preference for serving immigrant communities fits in so they will accept from everyone else but when we get to hear if there's more than if there's a multiple potential options for provider service provision. We will tend to send immigrants to that provider. So I guess there's sort of three or four levels. Okay, and the next question is are there any available evaluation reports that detail the progress of implementation and the impact metrics that you're all tracking. Not just yet. So we started in July reporting those metrics to our evaluator, which is stout. So I think they've done a lot of evaluations across the right to council space. So there will be soon enough, but there's not just yet. So again, this is still in soft launch phase and a lot of those early data we have internally, but there's there's there's nothing publicly available yet. Perfect. And I encourage anyone if you have questions to go ahead and you're welcome to unmute as well. And let's get those questions answered otherwise we'll be bringing this to a close here shortly. While we're waiting for questions I thought I would mention that. Alison tap is always looking to partner with organizations and learn and spread the word about interesting projects going on across the country. So if you have a or know a project that you think should be featured in some kind of way we do have the project highlight feature that we do by in our list serve. And on our website, but this is another platform that we have available so please send us any any anyone that you think should be highlighted and we also just gather information on tech projects so that they're available on our website as well. We have a form for that and I will see if I can add that link here shortly. We have a question is it wondering if the slide deck would be available. Absolutely. So we will include that with the link on our YouTube channel. It will be available there and I will send that out to the listserv. If you're not a member of the listserv. That's easy enough to join, but it will also be available on the YouTube channel. So here is our website and on the website. If you're not a member of the listserv you can join there by clicking on the join the community sign up here link. And I've already added the YouTube link in the chat. And I am not seeing any other questions so Sarah you answered them all as you were going through. Thank you everyone for joining us today I really appreciate you taking the time out of your day to learn about this really interesting project. I hope it sparks thoughts on maybe creating similar projects in your jurisdictions. And we're certainly open to learning about projects that you're doing in your jurisdiction as well. Thank you Sarah and Sarah for being here with us today. And everyone I hope you have a great day. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks everyone.