 Welcome back to the House Human Services Committee and it is the second half of our April 7 morning committee meeting. And we are fortunate to be having a full briefing on a TANF or temporary assistance for needy families and joining us. This is the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and this briefing is really all thanks to voices. Voices for Vermont's children who brought the idea that given where we are and given what the pandemic has impacted Vermonters. And I want to say we have, as a legislature, it was back in the late 1990s, if not 2001 or two, when the legislature actually wrote Reach Up, Reach Ahead and Reach First. And since that time, we may have made small changes, but we haven't really looked at this as an overhaul. So I'm very, very excited and very glad and appreciative that we have national experts from NCSL, the National Conference of State Legislatures who are here, and followed by Donna Pabetti from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. And with us in the room as well is Aaron Olican, who is the Director of Reach Up in Vermont. And the House Human Services Committee was able to have a quite extensive briefing about what's happening in Vermont earlier this session. And material from that time is actually on our webpage. And I believe also on the Senate Health and Welfare Committee's webpage, if people want to review that. But any of the changes that we have happened in the recent past that have made the program a bit more responsive are thanks to the work of Aaron Olican and her staff. And I just want to say thank you to Aaron and thank you to Voices for putting this together and turn it over to Margaret. All right, thank you Madam Chair and good morning to members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here in front of all of you today. I'm going to quickly pull up our slides. Let's see. My name is Margaret. I am a Policy Director and Health and Human Services at the National Conference of State Legislatures, and myself and my colleague Shannon Saul will be presenting to you all. I'll briefly start with a little bit about who NCSL is. I see some familiar faces, but also some ones. NCSL we are the National Bipartisan and nonpartisan membership organization for all 7,383 state legislators and over 30,000 legislative staff so we are your membership organization. Our goals are really to improve effectiveness of state legislatures. So we do trainings around ethic for professional development. We also promote innovation and communication amongst legislators. So we want to make sure that states are really communicating and sharing ideas with one another. And then we also ensure a strong voice of states at the federal level so our headquarters is located in Denver, Colorado where we have about 140 staff who focus solely on state level policy. And that's where Shannon is located. And then myself I'm actually in our DC office we have a small group about 20 folks in our DC office that advocate on behalf of states at the federal level. So for this presentation I'm going to address some of the federal overview and recent action that we've seen federally and turn it over to Shannon, who's going to get into some of the more specific state samples. I'm going to take questions at the end of course. So just a brief history and rep you kind of alluded to this TANF was a block grant that was created back in 1996 the original funding in 1996 was set to expire in 2002. 2002 to 2010, it was sort of extended through the short time periods. And then in 2005, they actually revised it a little bit there were some changes that they made some things around the work requirements. Nothing too huge but there were some few minor edits. And then since 2010 until present time it's been short term extensions and when I say short term extensions. Oftentimes it's a number of four months. They're very brief extensions. So actually, our organization NCS and what we call the big seven organizations which are other state and local membership organizations like the National Governors, the mayors, we have a coalition together that is advocating with Congress to ask for a full year of reauthorization to provide some stability to the program, and then to all the work with us during that year period to come up with bipartisan solutions to really help improve the program. And most recently it was extended through September 2021 through the most recent budget bill slash COVID-19 relief package, which was the Consolidated Appropriations Act. And I'm going to talk about this bill a little bit later on in my presentation as well. So I think that's all just kind of helpful background. The way that it works it's a block grant so it's federal funding, there's a match from the states, but states have a significant amount of flexibility in terms of how they administer this program. Pretty much the main requirements are that the efforts from states or the different activities that they can spend this funding on must be a part of these four different bullets that I have here. And I won't go through and read them but those are just to give you an idea of sort of how those funds can be spent. And again just to give you a sense of sort of where this money's going here's a chart that shows, oops, let me go back one, sorry. There we go. This is the federal spending so this is on average around the nation, this is how much of states, TNF money is being spent on these different activities so you can see the light blue which is the largest portion, about 33.5% nationally is spent on childcare. The dark blue that's right up above it is basic assistance so that's what we think of when we think of cash assistance money going directly to families. And then we see that sort of teal on the left hand side and that's for fundable tax credits. And then we have the little gray portion right there and that's program management so that's just to kind of give you sort of an overall idea of what the nation looks like. And here's some specific Vermont data so as you can see, similar but sort of different to some of the national ones childcare is very similar to the national average. So this just gives you a little bit of understanding and all of the links if you're interested in sort of exploring these graphs a little bit included here on the slides but they're also on my resources slides and these all come from the administration of children and families. So I want to briefly touch on some of the most recent activity I know we had some questions from all of you before the presentation you wanted me to address. So a few things that have happened recently, originally during the CARES Act which is one of the COVID-19 relief bills, it extended it through November, and then as I mentioned before, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act which was in December of 2020 so right at the end of last year, they extended it through September of this year. So we are again advocating and hoping that when it comes to September that they will actually reauthorize it for a full year. And then there's also some administrative flexibilities that we've seen there's certain things that have to be done in statute so for example, some of the work requirement standards have to be changed in statute, but we're also hearing from the Department of Health and Human Services that while they understand that it needs to be legislatively that they can also have some flexibilities in terms of not charging fees if states are unable to meet some of these requirements. And one of the questions I was specifically asked to address today was talking about the earned income tax credit and the impact with that and TANF. And what I will say is I got an email from a congressional staffer this morning so I wasn't able to get a PowerPoint, but there was actually guidance that was just released from the administration of children and families that says that the earned income tax credit won't affect TANF. That says that as an overarching thing federally but she also said, because TANF is a block program and because there is so much flexibility and it is not necessarily a guaranteed program that states could have to create their own eligibility requirements that would exclude it, but federally it is not something that would be affecting TANF. And with that I also want to share this other last graphic which again I also appreciate graphics that sort of show the national landscape. This is also on ACF and I've included the link as well. So this looks at nationally what spending looks like on things like basic cash assistance, work, education and training activities and childcare. So, again, these are all sort of an interest and with that I will turn it over to Shannon I will just say at the end of our presentation, there's a ton of different resources. And if you have any other questions, our information will also be at the end and always happy to answer questions and with that I will turn it over to Shannon. And thank you to Representative Pugh and to Michelle for the invitation to present to the committee today. And thank you all for having us. As Margaret mentioned, I am located in the Denver office of NCSL. Margaret if you could go to the next slide please. So as Margaret mentioned, I will now be taking you all through state activity on TANF in recent years and other cash assistance programs. So beginning with TANF, in the 2019 2020 and 2021 state legislative sessions, NCSL has tracked 11 states that have considered 18 bills related to expanding access to TANF and or increasing TANF benefit amounts. These states are Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia. These bills that were considered were enacted, five of them failed and five of them are still pending in their respective legislatures. So six of these bills address monthly TANF payment amounts, specifically looking to increase the monthly benefit amount. Other topics in these bills included removing barriers to eligibility, exempting certain sources of income and assets from consideration when determining TANF eligibility and increasing some income asset limits themselves for TANF eligibility. So now I'm going to take you through some examples of these bills. You will also find these in the resource document that I have provided for you all that's titled expanding direct payments and access to TANF. That document also contains direct links to the full bill text where available so if you want to do some further reading in terms of how states are constructing and writing these bills. You can find them there and in this document I have also emboldened the most relevant parts of the bill summaries for to make it the best and most easily readable. Next slide please murder. Oh, you're already there. Never mind. So here are some examples of states removing barriers to TANF eligibility for certain families. So in the 2020 session, both New Jersey and Virginia enacted legislation to repeal the so called family cap, which prevented TANF payments from being increased with the birth of a new child in a family during the period of TANF eligibility. So with these bills, like I mentioned or listed on your resource sheet that I provided New Jersey did this by repealing an entire section of state statute, whereas Virginia just struck parts of the states eligibility language related to TANF. Next slide please. So here are some examples of states looking at exempting certain income from consideration when determining TANF eligibility. We only have a bill pending in the legislature that would exempt income when exempt income when determining eligibility that is earned by people who are pursuing a post secondary degree workforce certificate or apprenticeship. In New York, achieving a better life experience or able savings funds are tax exempt private savings accounts that act as supplements to Medicaid and permit individuals and families to support those with disabilities to maintain health independence and quality of life. In 2019, New York exempted money in those able savings accounts from the calculation of household benefits for all public assistance programs and that includes TANF. So next, here are some other ways that states are removing barriers and increasing access to TANF. In 2020, Virginia prohibited a person from being denied TANF and food stamps because of a conviction of a drug related felony. Oklahoma currently has a bill pending that would increase the amount of resources excluded when considering eligibility for TANF or an automobile from $5,000 where it currently is to $10,000. So that's just an overview of some examples of the ways that states are removing barriers and expanding access to TANF and increasing monthly benefit amounts. Like I said, there's a full list in that resource document I gave you but I just picked out some of the highlights for you all. So, next I'm going to transition into some non TANF state cash assistance efforts. So in the 2016 through 2021 state legislative sessions and CSL has tracked 10 states that have considered 22 bills related to universal basic income which is also known as UBI. These states are California, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, you all in Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Two of these bills were enacted, 12 failed and eight of them are still currently pending in their respective legislatures. Eight of these bills related to universal basic income pilot programs and seven related to creating studies or working groups on UBI and their states. Other bills related to providing universal basic income for specific populations or establishing statewide UBI programs for eligible residents that are unconditional. So I'll now take you through some examples of these bills. Again, you'll find these in the other resource document I provided titled cash assistance, and again that document contains links to the full bill text where available if you want to do further reading. So here are some examples of states that have proposed statewide universal basic income programs that are largely unconditional. So California currently has a bill pending that would establish a universal basic income of $1000 per month for all residents of the state, as long as they have been residents for at least three consecutive years and are at least 18 years of age. In 2017 bill from Wisconsin that failed would have ordered the Department of Human Services to develop a UBI program for individuals in the state whose earned income is less than the state's annual per capita personal income. This program would have been paid for by pooling money from public assistance programs. Those are the two main examples in recent years of largely unconditional cash assistance for individuals who need the demographic requirements statewide. So next, I have some examples of legislation that propose UBI for specific populations. So both Massachusetts and California currently have pending legislation that would establish universal basic income for youth aging out of foster care specifically. The Massachusetts bill draft is not yet publicly available so that's as much details I can give you on that but California's bill would specifically establish a $1000 per month UBI for duration of three years for a person who ages out of foster care at 21 years of age. So here are some examples of state legislation to create a universal basic income pilot program. In 2019 a bill failed in New York that would have established a UBI program for 10,000 participants in a pilot program to provide them with yearly cash benefit for two years. Individuals participating in the program would have had to make $35,600 or less per year, and it would have provided $7,200 to individuals and $14,400 to couples per year. Following the pilot program, the bill stated that a study would have been conducted looking at many factors including the health and mental hygiene of participants, the number of participants seeking employment, and how participants allocated the benefit money that they received. Massachusetts currently has a bill pending that would create a pilot program for at least 1500 residents to test the viability and efficacy of a universal basic income. The amount of cash benefit that would be given to participants is not specified in the bill, though the commissioner that's running the program is required to ensure that participating residents earn a monthly income that is at least equal to a living wage. The program in Massachusetts would also seek philanthropic funding to supplement state funding, and I will say there is another bill in that resource document that focuses on a public-private partnership in order to create a universal basic income. So, next here's a bit of a coming soon teaser. NCSL is soon going to be launching a 50-state searchable bill tracking database covering economic mobility. As you all might know, NCSL is known for our databases. We have them on several topics, but one is coming soon on economic mobility, and it will track all enacted legislation related to TANF, universal basic income, other public assistance programs, child tax credits, efforts on economic mobility based on race and reparations, and other topics that are related to economic mobility. So stay tuned for more information about this upcoming database because it will allow you to see all enacted legislation on these topics. Next, as Margaret mentioned earlier, we have a few slides here of NCSL resources. This first resource, TANF, where it stands today, is something that Margaret and I co-authored and really gives an overview and writing of some of the history that Margaret went over, as well as state efforts on TANF generally. Not just expanding TANF, but all legislation related to TANF. And then I'll brag a little bit about Margaret. We have a lot of resources here. And on the next slide that are from our DC office that do a really great job of synthesizing some bills that have passed at the federal level and making them more easily digestible and helping states understand what's in there for you. And then we also have some outside organization resources on the topic that you all might find helpful. So, again, thank you all for inviting us to present. We are open to questions. I'm not sure if the next presentation is going before questions or how that's working, but Brett P, I'll pass it back to you. Well, thank you. Thank you NCSL. Before we have questions, I want to put Aaron Ollican on the spot for a moment. Because as you, as Shannon, as you were going through what some of the states have done, I thought it might be illustrative for us to have a very quick summary because like I know we don't have a family cap in Vermont. And so some so we're ahead of some of the other states who are coming to that that they need to reduce it to eliminate it. And I just thought, unless, Donna, you're going to be talking about that. If if Aaron could just briefly, some of those pieces as it relates to reach up. Sure. For the record, my name is Aaron Ollican. I'm the director of the Reach Up program. I feel a bit like a pop quiz, but that's okay. I'm ready for it. Thank you, Aaron. You're welcome. In Vermont, as you mentioned, we don't have a family cap. And what we what we have done in the past few years is we've done some work on the asset limits and eligibility requirements to both through statute and through a rulemaking process to make it easier for families to access benefits. We've done a lot of streamlining for the application process. We a few years ago, I think it was three or four years ago. And this was through statute raise the asset limit to $9,000 in savings and then also excluded child savings account children's educational savings accounts retirement accounts, and any vehicles that are being used by adults or teens in the household. To get to work or participate in the program. So, while it wasn't a complete elimination of the asset limit, it was it did dramatically increase it and excluded a lot of the different types of assets that we had counted in the past for the program. I'm trying to think if there's anything else that you want those the able account did we, I mean, that is included. Yes, so that is also excluded. Any kind of IDA accounts are excluded. We, we haven't gone so far to exclude what I thought was particularly interesting I think was Massachusetts maybe exclusion of income for a certain amount of time while someone is either gone into a new job or participating in post secondary education and and training and things like that. So, do you have any other questions or comments from Aaron thank you I just thought it would be important for us to have a quick sort of review and for those of us on human services and on health and welfare, who've been in the legislature for a while. You can remember that we had a part in some of those in terms of that. And we have a committee, do you want committees. And we do have a class is going to say do we want to have a question. And yes, we've won representative red men. Thank you Madam chair, and thanks to NCSL for coming in a question about universal basic income for youth leaving foster care. Definitely an idea that's circulating in those particular communities and I wonder with those pilots if you have any kind of just initial anecdotal preliminary findings of how that's going in those pilot programs. Yeah, thank you for the question. So those bills are both still currently pending in their legislatures so they haven't actually started the pilot program yet. But I would be happy to look into if they're, I don't know that there have been any other pilot programs since I did go pretty far back in the legislation but I'm happy to look for any external resources that maybe have done a study on that. I would just add on the UBI is is that there while there's some activity at the state level, a lot of that activity is really happening at the local level. So, that's another place to look. And we also have been collecting that information there are about 40 governors that are part of the mayors for guaranteed basic income. And so there are a lot of. There's a lot of sort of activity on UBI that doesn't show up at the state legislature because it's happening at the local level. I really appreciate that and I want to add that I know at the nonprofit level there are even pilots happening with folks trying this out to kind of see and then make the case to government so thank you. Senator Lyons. Thank you Representative Pew. I thought I would do two things one I would like to say thank you for being here on behalf of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. We're very pleased to hear this update on TANF across the country, and, and then also to hear how Vermont fits in and the work that we've done in the past that I think has been pretty significant for folks in the state. Moving forward, whether or not you might be able to comment on what has happened during the pandemic. To our reach up programs or TANF programs and how any of the support from federal government support or non support has is both identifying gaps and then perhaps filling gaps so. And again thank you so much for being here. We're, we're very happy to have you here with us. I can speak a little bit on that and then maybe Margaret has something to add on the federal aspect. But I will just say that throughout the pandemic we saw lots of legislation and or executive orders that works to eliminate kind of the administrative requirements related to TANF while folks were stuck at home. So, removing the requirements of, for example, certain parts of the application process, or extending benefits for certain folks. That is something that we saw at the state level during the pandemic related to TANF Margaret I don't know if you want to speak on the federal aspect. Yeah, as far as the federal government goes I mean I think some of it was what I included around the reauthorization I don't think that there was a significant changes in the legislation as much. It tends to be an issue that Congress doesn't typically want to it can be a very lightning issue and so doing any sort of major changes I think that's why it hasn't been extended for such a long period or hasn't had a full period of time is because it is such a hot button issue. So so what you sort of saw with it being temporarily extended is pretty much what was in some of the federal packages, but I think besides TANF there was also a significant number of other different programs and funding that was included in those packages that was really focused around providing services and supports for families. So things for example like the earned income tax credit. Now being something that is available for folks who need it but don't necessarily have children those type of things. I would say more address the family unit and individuals who have low income, rather than specifically TANF and all of that information as Shannon in the different summaries that we had on each of the COVID-19 bills will pull out any of those human services provisions that are supporting families. So there is one specific TANF provision so the TANF pandemic emergency assistance fund allocates money to states for non-recurring short term benefits so each state will have their allocation and they can decide how to use that. So that was one sort of specific and then again because these were done through administrative actions they don't show up in legislation. There are about 10 states for not being one of those that did extra cash payments to TANF recipients either using TANF reserves using regular TANF funds or using their CARES Act funds. So we did see some activity of really trying to recognize sort of the hardship that TANF families were facing. We didn't see as much increase in TANF caseloads that was very variable across the states and we think some of that was because unemployment insurance expansions actually covered people who in previous recessions would have come on to TANF. Thank you. Representative Whitman. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you all for being here today. I have two questions. The first one you showed a map of the United States and all the different percentages that were allocated to things like childcare workforce supports and Kentucky was the only one that had over 75% going directly to those programs. What's Kentucky doing? How does that work there? Go ahead Margaret. I was going to say off the top of my head I'm not entirely sure but we could definitely find out that information and get back to you. Shannon I don't know if you had something else you wanted to add. That's exactly what I was going to say. I do know what's going on in Kentucky. Kentucky has a child, they use a lot of it for foster care for relative foster care and most states sort of put those payments in another category. Kentucky does not so they have a huge share of their payments that are really kinship care and that show up in those categories so that's why that is so big. So it might be more of a categorization reflection of how they categorize the payments not necessarily. It is not sort of that they're serving more people. It is not that they are providing higher benefits. It is because of this group of kinship care payments that they're doing that get categorized in that bucket. Thank you. And my second question is for our committees looking at the childcare bill that we're both working on and that basically looking at no copay for childcare under 150% federal poverty level and seeing that one of our biggest proportions of funding is childcare assistance. What does that mean for those dollars is my question. I'm sorry representative Whitman. Who is that question for or. I guess to start Aaron. How are those dollars being used currently. Well the 10 of dollars that go to straight to CDD for childcare are being used for a large population, not necessarily just reach up participants currently. So, you know from my perspective ideally we would get that money back so that we could use it for 10 of eligible participants but because of you know the total budget I don't have that complete agency DCF picture. So I'm not sure if there are plans for that. And that I think that would be a question for Commissioner Brown or Secretary Smith but. Thank you and forgive me for putting out questions like that that are too big for anyone person to answer, but thank you. You're welcome. Thanks Madam chair. As I sit here and look over the landscape of what's going on. In terms of across the country. We're talking about incomes. We're talking about making sure that people get more money on UI, then they could make their working. I'm wondering what the priority is. About prioritizing education. And training and the trades. Now, this question by the way is coming from a young fella in the 60s. Who pushed and pushed it hot. Guaranteed annual income as a way out of poverty. I think education and training in the trades is a much easier way out. So I'm just wondering from you, you people have a national perspective. And we have a state perspective here. What what is the priority given to that. So I can touch on a little piece of that and then Shannon, if you want to add on. I'm not sure as far as the priority, what I can share is that there is a federal pilot program that's been running for a few years, and I don't want to butcher the name of it because I'm trying to remember it off the top of my head but I think it's, it's called HPOG is the acronym and it's health professionals opportunity grants I think is what it's called. And what it is is it's a program for folks who are TANF recipients that if they are interested that they can enroll in this program that helps provide them with education and training to actually become a health care provider. And so it is a program that is taking sort of that population and giving them the training and education to then be able to get a job in a field where across the country we see that there's health care provider shortages. So that program was funded and one of the most recent bills I think it was the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and that was funded through I believe 2021 I think through the end of this year. Shannon, I don't know if you've had anything else you wanted to add on. Yeah, I was just going to say, in terms of specifically what you're asking about that Indiana bill is probably the closest to what you're asking and I think that if you. Sorry, there's a siren going by outside my apologies but if you go into that resource document that I provided on cash assistance, you can find the link to that full Indiana bill. And you might find it interesting how they wrote that. Okay. Oh, do you want me to jump in just from the Vermont state level quickly. So I think one thing I think is that the reasons why people are experiencing poverty are very, very complex and the level at which types of employment and education and training is going to vary tremendously by family and by individual. And some people are 100% ready and just have never had that opportunity to participate in education and and training programs that will get them that livable wage and it's really important that we focus on getting the right resources for the family and what they need at that time. And some people we have an economy and a state that relies very heavily on retail and tourism and jobs that are not necessarily the highest paying jobs. So no matter what every single family every single person is not going to make it to necessarily that highest level of education or training. So I think it's really important to understand that there are many facets to this and that we have to be able to ensure that every family has the dignity and the ability to support their family and be able to meet their needs and contribute to their community. And there are lots and lots of ways of doing that. And that also reach up. We are looking at and really working on our employment services currently and looking at how we can increase the sector based employment training, increase our participation in post secondary education and those areas as well. Thank you. Thank you, Aaron. And we have a question from Jessica representative from state. Thank you, Madam chair and thank you so much for being here today. I know we keep all saying that but it really is appreciated. I didn't even realize all the wealth of information that you have. A couple of us on this committee spent a lot of time at the very beginning of the session looking at reach up in the TANF funds and learned a huge amount and today helps to increase that learning. I especially want to thank our chair for thinking to pull this together and have you here with us today. A couple things, the economic mobility database sounds terrific. The other piece that really impresses me is the idea that states are studying what they're doing rather than studying what they want to do. Just a comment about how that seems to be a shift would be great. But secondly, I'm curious, one of the things that we saw in Vermont during COVID was what happened to a lot of our reach up families was about housing. They ended up losing their housing and ending up in some of our makeshift hotels instead of homeless shelters due to not wanting to have people all together. And that's due to the long waiting list on Section 8 vouchers and many other factors, of course. But very complex, as Erin said, the types of things that these families are struggling with. And I'm curious if other states are, what kinds of solutions they're coming up with in the area of housing as it pertains to the beneficiaries of TANF funds and whether or not we're missing something. Thank you. Sure. So couple, I'm going to address a couple of things that you asked a couple different topics there. First, we are happy to be here and we also are always here if you have specific questions. Doing requests is one of the best parts of our job. So if you have specific questions for us, always feel free to reach out. In terms of your question about state studying what they're doing. I will say that that is something that I noticed that was different when I looked into the universal basic income legislation. There's actually in the bills that I found there was one more pilot program than there were just plain studies. So I will say that that is something that I noticed as well that states are trying things out and studying them. In addition to some states just plain out or flat out creating studies or working groups and that type of thing. In terms of I actually happen to cover housing and homelessness at NCSL as well. But I am not aware of anything specifically geared towards TANF recipients. I'm happy to look into that for you though. I hope it's okay if I jump in when I sort of know the answer. Absolutely. Okay, I don't want to fail but if we do track a lot of sort of what's happening. And there are three states that actually use their TANF funds to do housing supplements for their TANF recipients. So recognizing that family situations are very different if you have a housing assistance versus if you don't. And what those states do is they provide extra benefits to families who don't have any housing subsidy. So they really try and fill the gap. So Minnesota provides just a flat amount. They provide an extra $100 to every family who doesn't have housing assistance. Maine has a, they cover the difference of sort of, I can't remember it's 50 or 75%, but I can get that tip for you. And I can't remember what the third state is. But there are states that are increasingly recognizing the difference of families when they don't have housing assistance. So they did focus groups with families. And it just is the families who don't have housing assistance just cannot make ends meet. There's just no way on a TANF grant that they can do it. So they end up in the situations that you are describing. So that's one way of thinking about how do you target resources but really thinking about how do you add to the TANF grant in a way that actually provides extra resources and uses TANF funds to provide the housing to people. Thank you, Donna. And I know Erin can comment on that because we are doing some of that for sure. It's just not quite finishing. Yours is quite small in comparison to the, I mean, you definitely, yeah, you're one of the states, but yours is quite small in comparison to what the other states do. So what we have been able to do is that we're using emergency rental assistance funding. And so of course that's not TANF funding. And so it's time limited, but it does get us up to 15 months of funding that we're able to use to pay the rent for families in all of our programs. And so we're super excited about that. Just kind of over the moon, we just launched it on Monday. And with an online application platform and the applications are flooding in, which we're thrilled about. So just to put that out there that that will really offer some serious relief for families for a while. And if we have no more questions right now. This is a great discussion because that's really what a briefing is all about. So thank you for your flexibility. And Donna, Donna, please. Thank you. And I'm delighted to be here, you know, and when I think about just sort of being here in some ways, I've been doing work on TANF since it was created and did a DC before that so we hit 25 years this year. And one of my first projects I did was in Vermont, where we were looking at the link between a reach up and the voc rehab. And I have sort of been to some of your offices and have visited Vermont many times so I am glad to be here. So what I'm going to do is to talk a little bit about why the decisions you make for reach up families really make a difference. And so I'm going to cover three three things I'm going to talk about what we know about the impact of hardship and racism on children's growth and development. I'm going to talk about what we know about the positive long term impact of providing additional cash assistance to families. And finally, I'm going to talk about improvements to reach up that really would help children to avoid the long term consequence negative consequences that we know come from living in poverty. So I'm going to start with the hardship. And we know that the pandemic has just created significant stress and challenges for many people. But it has been especially hard on families who are already struggling to make ends meet before the pandemic hit. So if you think about it, reach up we just talked about how reach up benefits are not sufficient for families to be able to afford their rent. And so if you put on top of that you need extra money because your kids are at school you need internet for your kids to be able to do their school, you need extra cleaning supplies you need mass. There's no room in budget so what we have seen is just lots of families who maybe weren't struggling who are now struggling and families who are already struggling struggling more with nowhere really to turn. So, we have been tracking through the census, the census does a data called analysis called the household pulse survey, and that has a sufficient to look at state by state and so we know that in Vermont. This is from the late February sort of data that there are 12,000 adults in Vermont that responded with a saying that they, the children were not eating enough, because they couldn't afford enough food. And that's about 9% of the household in Vermont. It's pretty comparable to what is going on nationally, the food insecurity that we've seen is like through the roof, it is unlike what we saw in the great recession, and we really do know that that has long term consequences. We were just talking about the issue about people not being able to pay their housing there was a study that was done. It was conducted by the Social Policy Institute at Washington University in St. Louis, and they, they did an analysis looking at eviction, and they found that TANF recipients were addicted at significantly higher rates than non recipients, even when they sort of counted for differences in demographics income assets, recent job loss, lots of factors that may happen that. So there were about half of those who were receiving TANF were evicted. I mean that's just astounding, and sort of really points up to the issues that families who are receiving TANF are facing. That and other studies have found that the hardship that we're seeing is most prevalent among Black, Latinx and single parent households and also households with a child with a disability. And it really, well, again, their hardship is very widespread. There is this concentration in families that, again, have sort of traditionally been discriminated against or have experienced hardship at higher levels. So I have been talking with Phil Fisher, who is the chair of the Department of Psychology at the University of Oregon and is an early childhood specialist. He started last year with some of his colleagues doing a survey of families with young kids, and he's really trying to understand what their experiences are. And he did that because he knows the importance of investments in early childhood from his long term work and being an expert in that area. And what they found in looking at those surveys over time is that they see the sequencing of events that they find very troubling. And that that sequence of events is basically what happens is you see an increase in hardship that results from people not being able to meet their basic needs. And then that is followed by distress among parents who are really just beside themselves and trying to figure out how do they really take care of their kids, which is what they see as their primary role. And then that is followed by distress among the kids. So it's this sequence of not having enough resources to make ends meet. It's becoming very stressed and not being able to meet their responsibilities and then that translating to the kids. The reason why that matters is that we know that that is sort of the perfect set of circumstances to create what is known in the field as toxic stress. And what toxic stress is is when your system is overloaded with more stress than it can handle. What we know about toxic stress in early childhood is that it is not a one time occurrence. It has long term consequences that last into adulthood. And what we know from the research is that the sequence there is that when you experience toxic stress, it impacts both your brain development and it impacts physical development. So what you see among families where kids are experiencing high levels of stress are there that is correlated with outcomes that have worse academic outcomes, worth health outcomes, worth nutritional intake. And then into adulthood, it means that there is lower earnings capacity. And what I think is really important is there is an increasing body of research that shows that what happens in early childhood and that toxic stress that happens has very significant impacts on long term health. So what we know is that those long term health consequences are both significant and costly. So children who experience significant adversity in childhood are at increased risk of many chronic health conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, depression, arthritis, gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune diseases, multiple types of cancer, dementia. So all of these health problems that we're seeing are actually correlated with COVID. The stress in childhood really sort of helps to stress affects the body in ways that predisposes them to have those later on. So not providing enough resources in childhood actually has this very long tail of having very significant consequences, both for what it means for the health system in terms of costs, but also what it means for their life and quality of life as adults. So the other thing we know, and there's sort of increasing research on, is that part of what contributes to stress is racism and discrimination, that there really is, there are two parts to that. There are a part of that that is that if you look at all of the hardship data you see that hardship is higher among BIPOCs. But the other part of that is racism itself and discrimination creates and adds to the stress that also, that really sort of affects that cycle and where it has to create those negative consequences. So that's the bad side of the story. The good side of the story is we also know that interventions and providing more income to families can really change the trajectory. So we're not stuck with saying that we can't do anything about this. The choices that we make now really are choices that can affect the long term future of children and the future adults and residents of Vermont. So what we know from the research is that if we increase income for families, we see just a reversal of what I just described. So we see better health outcomes, we see better school outcomes, we see better employment outcomes. And those investments really do make a difference. And some of that evidence comes from lots of different sort of ways, but one of the most compelling is in the early 90s, before TANF was created there was a series of experiments and the experiments that really show the most significant impacts are those that provided extra cash to families. So we have as a country had resistance to providing cash, but you heard from what NCSL sort of presented. There really is a growing recognition that cash really makes a difference. And not only in the short term, but the long term, and that it not only makes a difference in having better outcomes, but it also makes a difference in the dignity in which people are able to live their lives, that having enough resources to make ends meet really does change the quality of life, as well as changing the outcomes of that. Just to put sort of Vermont in some context, so Vermont's Reach Up Grant, if I have it correct, is $700 a month for the balance of the state and $725 for Kittenden County. And that puts you at about, ooh, I can't remember. It has lost 29% in real value since 1996. And it is at about 30, roughly 40% of the federal poverty line. So it means that families who are on Reach Up are living in what we call deep poverty. And for those who are on an extended period, it means that they are living in deep poverty every month of the year. And for those who are on for longer periods, it just is sort of this continuous cycle. We know that for housing, so it's lost value of 30% just from where it was in 1996. But the value when you think of it in relationship to housing is even greater. So in 1996, with the balance of the state, the Reach Up grant at that time was about 98% of the fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment. And that has now declined and is about less than 60%. So even though the decline in the grant itself is 30%, what it means for a family in terms of being able to find housing or being able to meet their basic needs is really sort of greater than that because as the grant has gone down, housing costs have increased dramatically. So prior to the start of the pandemic, this talking about just sort of research on what states are doing, Minnesota did a study looking at really trying to understand the circumstances of families who were living with incomes below 50% of the poverty line. So very much sort of the group of families that would be on Reach Up in Vermont. And what they found is that very similar to what we found in the surveys of COVID-19. So when this was done prior to the pandemic, so this goes back to my point that families are struggling before, it's just worse now. So what the, the, you know, I think those study findings are directly applicable to Reach Up families in Vermont. And what they found is that those parents in deep poverty reported skipping meals to ensure that their children have enough to eat. They struggle getting to jobs or critical appointments because they didn't have reliable transportation. Some described the many barriers they face trying to meet their own and their children's needs. Some described how living in deep poverty made it very difficult for them to engage in healthy behaviors. So things they knew that would be good for them to do. They just couldn't do because they didn't have the resources to do it. They reported experiencing a near constant worry about how they might afford the basic necessities. And most reported that that worry resulted in sleeplessness, inability to function and focus, and other symptoms that not only were hard on them physically and emotionally, but it also made getting out of poverty that much harder. So when we think about just sort of wanting to think about how do we move families out of poverty and give them the education and the training that we know will make a difference in their lives. So what we're doing by providing limited income to them is impacting negatively their variability to really be able to take advantage of those. And so it all in so many ways when you look at their research really goes back to thinking about how much income matters and how much when I think of sort of what income does is it provides that foundation that allows people that then sort of a stepping point to build the house above it. And if you don't have the foundation or the foundation is crumbling, building the house on top of it, it's just going to fall at some point. So I think that again thinking about the cash and, and just helping families to meet their basic needs is is just sort of a significant part. And I just wanted to read sort of a quote from the Minnesota study when I read this I thought we again we had just done some focus groups and this sort of felt to me like it captured so much of what we hear from families about what their lives are like. I struggle on a monthly basis rent utilities and phone, we don't have TV or internet, because that's an extra bill we can't afford. We use phone providers that take minute cards because it's the cheapest not fancy Verizon, with having to travel 20 miles, either way to go to whatever town you need to go to for a small Aaron like getting milk, that's gas money. We get our necessities, what the kids needs have a little bit extra to put gas in the fan so I go out and do job searching and stay on this program. By the time the third week gets in, we're broke again. One of the things that stayed with me from the focus groups that we did with channel recipients was one woman who said, and this is about sort of the work requirements that come with channel and how we implement those and they are undignified they are, and that we sort of sanctioned people for not participating. And if you think about what I just described, many times people are not participating because of the things that they don't have gas money they don't have childcare. They didn't get any sleep last night there are many reasons why that goes into. And what this woman said is when they, when they sanction us, they're not taking away the money for a movie ticket. They're not taking away the money that we use to put food on the table to feed our kids. And I think that is sort of what what we need to think about is just whatever action we take, what impact it has, and how that really does, on which side of the, in some ways, if you think of the scales, you have the scales of what are we doing that is creating the negative sort of consequences for families, and how are we really counteracting that with the positive that we're doing to really try to help families meet their basic needs. And how can we really sort of think about policy shifts and investments that really shifts so that the weight is much higher on the great on the positive rather than on the negative. So I want to shift a little bit just to talk about things that Vermont could do. One is I'll just use the example that Governor Hogan has acted very quickly about how they will use their funds from the American Rescue Plan Act and what they are going to do is they are giving an extra $100 per person. For every TANF family for a year. So they started in January. So every family of three will get an extra $300 on top of their TANF grant to really try and sort of help families to be able to meet their basic needs. Other states like Vermont did this did one time sort of payments. But again there are resources that come through the TANF pandemic emergency assistance but there are also the general sort of funds that are flexible for state holidays. So I think that you know that again sort of thinking about what are the ways to get more cash to families and reach up. How can you Aaron sort of mentioned the issue about childcare and how much money of the TANF grant goes to childcare. We are seeking a resurgence of interest in and funding for childcare. And is this the time to really sort of say, you know, there was a $25 billion pot of money for childcare investments that will be debated out to the state so there will be substantial money going to childcare. And does that child is there enough money that you can really sort of take some of the TANF money that is going to childcare now and really use that to be able to provide more cash to families. So the childcare investment in some ways pays off even more. I do think there are lots of opportunities to think about education and training and how to do more of that for families. Aaron mentioned, I'm doing more around sectoral employment. I'm doing more of just how do you support different kinds of training and how do you use the flexibility you have. I'm always struck by how much states are sort of stuck in a mode of what the requirements require them to do when in fact there is lots of flexibility that states often have that they're not taking advantage of. And is this the moment to really say how can we sort of recognize the diversity of the caseload and really make investments that will allow every family on the caseload to really realize their greatest potential. And not for every family that is not going to be a job that pays a high wage. But if it can be a family where they are able to meet the needs of their kids they are able to have less stress and we are able to reduce the toxic stress in their family, that is a win. And so I think that there are, again, I see this as a moment that we need to seize. And if we don't sort of really think about how can we use some of the resources that we can use to benefit families who are struggling the most, we will have failed. And so with that, I'm going to stop. I do think this is an opportunity. I think there are lots of sort of things that can be done. And it's really just sort of trying to make that a priority and recognizing again that it's not just about what happens for kids today, but is really building the future workforce. It is future reducing health care costs. There are lots of ways in which making those investments now really will make a difference for the long term. Thank you. Thank you, Donna. And I see that Senator Lyons, you hardly finished and her hand went up. Thank you, Representative Pugh and thank you very much. Is it Dr. Pivetti? You can just call me. Donna is fine. It is Dr. Pivetti, but it's fine, just Donna is fine. Thank you, Dr. Pivetti, very much for your presentation. And as we hear about, we're very committed, I think in both of our committees to prevention opportunities and particularly prevention of costs later on with respect to health care. The chronic costs, chronic care costs associated with toxic stress is critically important. One of the questions that always comes up and I don't know whether you have access to information or research on some savings that can be identified as a result of investment in the prevention of toxic stress. So I know that Maine did a study several years ago in particular areas of toxic stress, but I'm not familiar with a number, you know, of an analysis that would demonstrate savings for early investment. So do you have any information on that? I think that it's hard to have that information. To get that information, what you really would need is an experiment that gives some people sort of more resources than others and we really just haven't done those experiments. That is some of what is happening in the guaranteed basic income space. Those are set up as experiments and really trying to look for the long term. I am not aware of any study that is sort of very specific and I think part of that is just time. It takes so long to be able to get to the point to be able to show those. And a lot of the research that I just described is relatively new so that we haven't gotten to the point yet where we can sort of say if we make this investment we can see this decrease down the road. So I think that some of it is going to have to be going on the faith that it will happen and believing in the science that we have. Last year, was it last year, it might have been last year or the two years ago, the National Academy of Sciences put out a report. It was the first time that a group of researchers actually were willing to make causal statement that income matters for the long term outcomes. And so again that is all relatively new. But we do I think have more of the research that really sort of ties the negative consequences to not investing in kids. It's just difficult when we see so many immediate acute needs and then to try to explain the long term gains with this kind of investment. Yeah. Oh, sorry, you know what, I think the Minnesota study may be helpful because what the Minnesota study does is it compares people with income below 50% of the poverty line. And then to those between 15 100 and those 100 and it looks at the Medicaid use and can, at least on a correlation level show that people with the lower incomes have much higher sort of healthcare costs. So that may be sort of one thing that is useful and I can make sure there is actually a link to it in the document that I sent, but I can also send that separately. It's a very long report and a very detailed report, but what they it is very focused on deep poverty and health. I mean that's really was that they were trying to, I think, grapple with the exact question that you were asking. Sorry, if I could jump in also, I'm going to send right now in the chat a link to the CDC's page on ACEs adverse child experiences they have a good compilation there of research and some prevention strategies that talk about the kind of environments that you're talking about in toxic stress and adverse childhood experiences and how that affects long term well being so. Senator Hooker you have a question. Thank you madam chair. I'm struck by the history of the extensions of the funding. And I'm thinking, you know, this is not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon. Why has it been such a short sighted in continuation of the funding what's sort of getting in the way and that may be a naive question because you know it's money but but I hear, you know, what are some of the problems that are causing this to be extended for such short periods and here we are looking at, you know, one year. So, so I've been doing this for 25 years and there is probably no program that is more toxic on Capitol Hill than can. So that is part of the problem is that there isn't agreement. Regardless of party there is an agreement on what really the right next steps are. So it always gets the can kicks gets kicked down the road. So I think the last time there was any serious sort of effort at trying to come up with a bipartisan sort of bill was in 2015. And they got further than they had gotten in a very long time, but one of the things that happens when you have a block grant, and you try part of the interest from folks on the hill is to constrain the funding. So that the funding really the, it is really sort of viewed as a, as a flush fund for states. And so, some of the agreement at that time was about really trying to constrain that funding, but states that really have used TANF funds in ways that it was not originally intended, really pushed back hard against that. So every state is somewhat in a unique position because they have had so much flexibility. So trying to get any changes is really just incredibly difficult. And then there is and you see this now with the child tax credit sort of discussions. There is sort of an ongoing concern about whether or not if you provide more cash to people people work less. And the evidence actually does not suggest that to be true. But they're sort of for some older studies that did show some very small decline in work for people that people who really believe that everybody should be working and regardless of what that job is and how much stress it causes or how much it provides really pushed back against any sort of changes there. So there are just lots of very thorny issues that people just avoid TANF if they can and they just kick the can down the road. We have never been in a position where we have been concerned that it would not be extended. This is the first year we've actually had proposals of eliminating it. This is the last minute, the last minute and given where we are now. I think it is pretty far down on anyone's agenda. So, I would probably be willing to bet some money that in September we'll see another short term extension other at most a year, if we get more than a year would be quite unusual. So I think it's a good way of saying it's all about politics to be honest. I also wondered if there were any studies on the effects of this insecurity, if you will, for people who are on the program. I mean, do they, you know, are they affected by it, you know, knowing that it may or may not be there. My, my sense is that states generally assume it will be there even though it's last minute. So I don't think that instability sort of is impacts families. I think the instability that impacts families is losing their benefits because the paperwork is complicated or losing their benefits because they didn't do their hours for the month so they're on and off because of that life is complicated and they haven't met all the requirements. So I don't think that the what's happening politically filters down the instability of just not knowing ahead I don't think that filters down to families I think there are other policy aspects of it to create instability though. And can I just add on to that to Donna. One other thing that we have seen quite a bit and heard a lot from our members is the instability with benefits clips so the idea that an individual might have childcare or TANF or some other kind of an intelligence program, and then they get a raise at their job and then all of a sudden they're no longer eligible for those services but the amount that they got the raise at their job isn't going to cover whatever was cut off and so that's definitely a TANF childcare are two of the big ones but we definitely see states that are trying to figure out ways to kind of transition that so it's not such a steep cliff as well. That continues to be a conversation in both the House and the Senate here. And it does and it's also relates to the, the cliff that's seen as your, as your salary goes up with Medicaid so there's a lot of instability in people's lives when they think about getting a raise. So part of it too is that we have this assumption that people's jobs are stable, and often you know people's hours go up and down, they're in and out of you know particularly low wage jobs and new ones start. And so we have a system that doesn't provide sort of a foundation that goes on until people are able to get to a point where life is much more stable. And I also recently compiled a resource that has all recently introduced state legislation related to benefits cliffs I'm happy to share that with you all if that would be something of interest. You know what that would be very helpful and I'm looking at all the links that have been now posted in the chat and it would be very helpful to have you send those links along Shannon and Donna and Margaret to our administrative administrative assistance to Julie and Nellie so that we can post those on our web pages. I'm sure that there'll be a lot of interest in those. So thank you. I'm looking across the board I've got to two screens of folks and I'm looking for other questions or comments from representatives or senators. I'll open it up to Michelle Fay Michelle did you want to say anything at this point. If you're there you're there. Hi, I am here I don't think I have anything to add this has exceeded my expectations. And I've learned a lot even having been working on reach up for several years so thank you for providing the opportunity to bring these national experts into Vermont. Well thank you I know when the this was raised in February and we were all in the midst of trying to sort out our next steps for covert. It's really terrific that we've been able to have you folks and we we very much appreciate the time and expertise that you are bringing to us. Any, any questions, discussion. Yes representative McFawn. Thanks madam chair, one quick question to the national people. Is there any state that has done any kind of an experiment where they carved out, let's say the people that are on reach up and provided them with an incentive whereby they kept the money. They kept their grant, and they kept the money that they earned. And there was a period of time where they were supported. So if they had money, they had stabilized housing, and then they had all the benefits. And then as, and then you start reducing as the person becomes successful in their employment, or they have bought the their degree, or their education, or their training. Then you, and then now now they have a job, and they, and that's when you start cutting back on the recheck. Is any state done that are doing that. So I can sort of states have done sort of a variety of things. And I can sort of put that together for you. There are some states that continue the full grant for a period of time. So I have a program where they, I do, they have a 24 months sort of period for a group of people others might do six months to try and sort of ease that transition. So there are states that do it and they do it in sort of how they design their phase out at the end. So I can sort of see if I can identify some specific states I can't think off the top of my head. Exactly. So I can state at least that does a six month sort of window and but I can pull that together for you. Aaron, did you want to comment at all from Vermont perspective. Um, yeah, I mean that's something I think as a program that we would absolutely. That's a really a difficult time for folks when they when they transition off of reach up and of course in Vermont they're going on to reach ahead so they do have some support services, but, but not the income and so it would be interesting to hear what some other states might be doing along that line. And I, my understanding just from hearing from my 10 of colleagues is that there are a few states who are doing some version of that. Maybe more than a few actually I think it's actually pretty common to have some sort of transitional program that helps people as they're going into employment. And I expect we could learn from that. I'm looking at the whole picture right now. And so to be good to get that. And then we could add to that maybe might be a tough one to do in Vermont, but won't be the first time it's talked about I can tell you that. I think the issue you raise is so critical to people getting their feet on the ground. And now I, and especially when when children are involved. So, but now I think so many families have an appreciation for what it means to lose income that. You know, have, have any of you, Shannon, Margaret or Donna have any of you that been looking at the sort of the transition issues out of the pandemic. It's related to ARPA funding. I, is there anything there with either families that are currently Tana families or families that are moving out of the devastating effects of the COVID. I think those, those conversations are just starting to happen as sort of there are more resources to help people and really trying to think about how do you track sort of what happens to families. I will just sort of tell you I have a concern that, you know, we have a lot of sort of resources that will go out to families there's a lot of money in childcare there's a lot of money in housing there's, you know utility assistance there's a little bit more in Tana, that I expect we could continue to see hardship for quite some time, because there are also studies that show that families have got into such deep debt by trying to just sort of survive that some of what they get is just going to go to pay down debt, and so that they won't be getting ahead they'll just not be going into a deeper hole. I think it will be some time before we really know sort of how those transitions happen. And, and I think the thing that we maybe are not paying enough attention to is how much distress has happened in families, and what the mental health needs are, and we need to address that before people are going to be in a position where they will be stable, and will be able to really take advantage of the employment or the education or other opportunities so I think really thinking about investments in mental health, and really sort of recognizing how much of a toll, the pandemic has taken on both parents and kids is really important. So thank you for that last comment I think it's a huge concern, particularly in the Senate health and welfare, and we're, we're working. We're putting our heads together on that one representative Redmond. Thank you very much chair. I have a question kind of in a different direction, and that relates to public, and it was mentioned earlier I think Shannon mentioned it public private partnerships, and where those are happening successfully I think it relates that you can point to. We have looked at pay for success models relative to incarceration and other other issues but what we run into is that Vermont is such a small state we don't have enough of a population for an adequate demonstration project, and I'm curious if there's an opportunity for us here. Not as not as an endpoint, because you know I believe that government should be doing this and be invested in it but as like a, a next step point a way to get us there and I'm curious if you know of public private endeavors projects that are happening in other states that are helping in this area of getting people out of deep poverty. I can jump in on that so I did briefly mentioned that during my presentation, I will say, one of the states in general doing the most on universal basic income and non conditional cash assistance right now as Massachusetts, and they currently have a bill pending that would direct one of their departments to establish implement a public private partnership for a universal basic income pilot program. And I have not seen any that have been implemented at the state level but I would bet that there are likely ones at the local level and I'm happy to look into that for you to send you whatever I can find. Almost all of the UBI. I only know of one that is funded with public funds, all of the local UBI experiments are being funded with private dollars. So, you know they're sort of, and a lot of that has come from the tech sort of world. There's sort of an interest in the private sector in funding those experiments. And again, I only know of a couple. I think of two that are actually underway, they're being funded with public dollars. And there's, you know, a lot ongoing that are starting now and they're almost all private dollars. Representative Whitman. I'm going to ask maybe another big question and I understand that we're getting close to time but I think it's for Donna. I really appreciate your words about kind of seeing this as an opportunity to help families reach their full potential and I think we're looking at this, you know, year. This couple years where we see this influx of one time dollars and looking at these kind of critical ways that we can begin to make systemic change, looking at mental health supports, workforce supports. You don't need to answer this question if you don't have an answer but as we prioritize different ways to spend one time funding. Is there anything that you would caution, caution against using that money for. Is there anything that you can see as sort of. Do you understand my question. I do. That's an interesting question. I think that I guess I sort of think more in the, the, what are the good investments. Sort of when I describe this to people, I sort of say, I think of this as a dig saw puzzle. It's thinking about what are the needs and where are the various pots of money that can help meet those meet those needs. When you have flexible funds, then you have choices to make and I think the choices are trying to sort of think about what are the best choices in two ways one that will produce the long term outcomes that you want. But that also will help to build a foundation for the future that you would like to have. What's interesting to me about the guaranteed basic income experiments is they really are, they are almost all small pilot projects, but they are doing that intentionally because they want to be able to build an evidence base that says this makes a difference for families, so they can then use that to expand. And so I think that there is sort of this what do you need to do to just meet basic needs, but what do you need to do that can build the future that you want, and, you know, start to play that foundation. So that's the way I would think about it I can't think of anything I think that it's more prioritizing because I think the needs are so great that even though there is more money than we've seen in a long time to be able to help people meet their basic needs, there's not enough to cover everything. So it's really having to think about what are the best investments and what are the tradeoffs to get to where you want to go. I appreciate that thank you. Okay, any other questions for our guests. Wow. This is your opportunity for the expertise in the room. So I can't tell you how informative this has been. It's even for some of us who have been through multiple changes in our reach up program. It's been very, very educational and very helpful. And I want to thank each one of you. I want to Shannon thank you. Margaret thank you. And Donna thank you. I should say doctor, doctor, doctor. To use the proper way of addressing you but I certainly thank you all for being here and unless Michelle did you want to offer one last comment you were so instrumental and putting this all together. I would turn to you. I appreciate that I mean that the comment I guess is that we hope that this presentation is the beginning of a conversation about, you know, making both policy and investment changes to to reach up and potentially looking beyond reach up to explore other, you know, ways to support family economic security in Vermont. And also express I haven't had a chance to say thank you to the House human services for the attempt that you made to increase the reach up allocation and the budget this year and I'm sorry. That wasn't taken up by House approach. And I look forward to having a similar conversation with Senate health and welfare. We will look forward to that. All right. Thank you. There are other questions or comments representative Pugh had had to leave, which is unfortunate because she worked so hard to help put this all together. I think that we have a tradition and Senate health and welfare of finishing our committee meetings, a little bit early, but this really eclipses the little bit piece. Thank you all. I can't say enough about how important this has been and we look forward to seeing the links that you send along to us and if you think there is information that would be helpful to us. Please by all means send it along I know there were questions about foster children. There were questions about transitioning. And so thank you and Aaron I am not leaving you out. I just want to say thank you also for the work that you're doing and for keeping us informed about our own reach up program. So thank you very much.