 Hello folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Tuesday, March 30th and our 2 o'clock meeting. We have now started work on Senate Bill 18, which deals with earned time. And this is a follow-up piece of legislation from the legislation that we did last year to put in place earned time for folks who are incarcerated as well as those folks who are on furlough. And one thing that we did a lot of work with the Council of State Governments on Justice Reinvestment II. And one of the recommendations from Justice Reinvestment II was to re-institute earned time. And their recommendation was also to have the ability of up to seven days per month for earned time. This bill proposes the way we passed it last year that everyone would be eligible regardless of their conviction, crime they were convicted of. There were issues when this started to get rolled out in the promulgation of rules that the victim's community was really unclear what the legislation was. Some folks felt that it basically came out of nowhere. They had no prior knowledge was being worked on. And there was quite a concern raised from the victim's community on some of the sentences that were agreed to. And the victim's community were feeling this was undermining some of those agreements. As a result of some of that, the Senate worked on S18 and it allows earned time to go forward, but it carves out a handful of crimes that for those folks convicted of those crimes, for those currently sentenced, not those sentenced after this bill becomes law, but for those currently serving a sentence, they would be disqualified from earning earned time for those particular crimes. And we wanted to reach out to council state governments to see what the data indicates in terms of how this will have impact on our justice reinvestment too in terms of our projected savings, bed savings due to earned time, and how this carve out would really affect that if it's a monumental effect or if it's pretty minimal. So that's what we're going to be looking at with the folks in council state governments. So welcome. So I don't know, Sarah, if you start or Angela, and I know there is a document on our committee webpage as well. So I'll turn it over to you folks. Yeah, hi, Sarah Friedman with the council of state governments justice center. Good to see all of you. As representative Emmons mentioned, we submitted a one page memo style document that just shows kind of walks through what we think the effect of these carve outs will be on the original justice reinvestment impact projections. And so that is available for everyone's career as well. And I'll be mostly reiterating what in that document. But I wonder if I should take a step back and just talk about what the impact projections are to begin with before. Yes, okay, that's that's what I figured. So you all have heard me talk, I think a couple of times now about the justice reinvestment process, but part of the phase one policy development process that for Vermont took place primarily throughout throughout the fall of 2019 into the 2020 session. Part of that kind of standard justice reinvestment approach is for the CSG Justice Center team to look at historic data in the state and create projections for the impact of the policy package that a state is proposing. So for all those policy proposed policy options that were evaluated by the justice reinvestment to working group in late 2019 through January 2020, if you all pass those, you know, what might that actually do to your prison population. And so that's what those projections initially were. They were created in early 2020 prior to COVID, based on historic data saying, you know, if things continue as they are, or you know, based on these previous criminal criminal justice trends, this is what we think the quantitative impact of these policy changes will be on your prison population. So what we were asked to do is, you know, with the since the earned good time policy or that now the good time policy was part of those projections, you know, we fielded a lot of questions as well, you know, how does that change, you know, what what will now be the projected prison impact if you take out those offenses from, you know, those people from being able to to earn time. And that's what the memo addresses. And you'll see that the I guess the headline or banner message is really it has very little impact on what we expect the what the initial per prison population projections were due to justice reinvestment policies, the pretty limited carve out to the existing prison population, not to folks who commit offenses after after S 18 enactment. So not for folks moving forward. And overall, specifically over a five year period, we expect the carve out will really just they'll be kind of three to four less beds saved. And your averted costs. So these are these are not not exactly cost savings, but costs. So when you say when you when you reduce the number of people in your beds, you know, how how many costs will be averted by that, that will be, you know, around a million dollars between 900,000 dollars to $1.2 million reduced. So over five years, a pretty small number, a pretty small reduction by general standards, based on these, these particular carve outs as written in the draft of the legislation that was passed out of the Senate. So I have I asked in Angela Gunter, our senior research associate to join me because I know that oftentimes folks have more in the weeds kind of quantitative data questions and she's my go to person for that. So so I just wanted to note that she's on here too, in case you guys have any, you know, any of those, any of those more quantitative related questions, she's able to kind of do those off the top of her head more readily than than I am. But happy to explain more or go into more detail or to field any questions on that. Okay, so I just want to be clear that on this chart that and these are the numbers based on the corrections population pre COVID, correct? Yeah, so actually that that's a really good point and something that I did really want to bring to your attention, which you'll see is written in in the memo. It's to be really clear that we're only able to do projections based on historic data. And so these projections specifically used historic data from 2017 to 2019, DOC admissions data, and then a population snapshot from June 30, 2019. That's how projections work. That's like kind of the input of projections. But right now, COVID has hit these projections were initially made before COVID. We don't really work. We're kind of we're in uncharted territory right now, right? Like the criminal justice trends of 2017 to 2019, we're not predictors of what happened in 2020. And we really don't know how kind of how the remaining, the remaining pandemic is going to impact the prison population, what might happen as we come out of the pandemic. So there are now really significant limitations to the projections. Since they're based on historic data, and we can't we're kind of in a historic moment. It's very difficult to predict to use all data to predict what might happen in the future. So I mean, go ahead. Sorry, the starting place has already changed. So you know, we expected, for example, I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but you know, in March of 2021, your prison population would be at a certain level. And because of COVID and things that were totally unpredictable, it's already much lower than that. So, so, you know, I would say that the projections now do have limited utilities, since we just can't predict the future or trends of the past no longer are kind of a reliable indicator of what might happen as we come out of the pandemic. So I just want to be clear about the cost that averted in this chart. When you're looking at the bed savings or the cost averted, you're looking at what it would cost to house someone in an out of state bed. Is that correct? Okay, correct. So when it says between 9.9 thousand and 12.4, the K to us is thousands. So is it really 900,000 to 1.2 million? Because in the summary says the car amounts reduce averted car averted cost over the five year period by 900,000 to 1.2 million. Is that what that means when you say particularly the 8.7 and the 11.5? Oh my goodness. You know what? That is a mistake. Those should be millions. And I am quite embarrassed and shocked that this was read and edited by so many people and no one caught that. I'm right, Angie, those are all millions. So those days should not. But you're not talking 9.9 million though. You're talking 900,000, not 9.9 million. Right. The difference between the original projection, which was I think put forward at the end of 2019 beginning of 2020 and the updated projections with the car amounts is the difference is between 900,000 to 1.2 million in terms of what Vermont could save. You've had all of those assumptions then accurate. As Sarah was pointing out, the sentenced population today is 368 fewer people than it was at fiscal year 2019, June 30th, 2019. So we're already starting from such a different point than we had expected that it is very hard to know without getting another case level data file who's left in the population, what kind of offense they have, whether those people would be eligible for the good time policy. We are also using admission trends from 2017, 2018, 2019, which I believe were somewhat interrupted in 2020, but will likely get back to normal by the start of FY 2022, the judicial processing we would expect. So this is a particular policy that affects both the standing population and the admissions flow. So that's how it was modeled. So there is still a good opportunity for this policy to have an impact on the prison population. It's just we aren't able to say with a great deal of accuracy right now how many people will be affected by the policy in the standing population without seeing case level data. And it's also difficult to know what the admissions flow is going to look like over the next few years as we kind of come out of this pandemic slowdown with all of the slowdown in the judicial processing. So I want to get back to the numbers. Okay. So without the carve-outs, the original projection was that we would be saving almost a million to 1.2 million in bed savings with the earned time without the carve-out. Is that how to read that? I think the best way to read that is over a five-year period with all three policies enacted, including the earned good time and the presumptive parole policy and the revocation reduction policy, the estimate was between 9.9 million and 12.4 million. And the reason why there's that big range is because revocation reductions were modeled at 5% revocation reduction, 10% reduction, 15% reduction, and 20%, which would be the upper end of what we could expect in terms of revocation reduction. So there's a range of possible savings. With the carve-outs to the earned good time, the savings is no longer 9.9 million to 12.4 million. It would be 8.7 million to 11.5 million. Okay. So the difference is 900,000 to 1.2 million. That's correct. Will we cost that we would not be saving with this carve-out? That's correct. Yeah. I just want to get that clear for the committee. Well, I would just to be really clear that you would not be averting, right? So it's not, it's, savings are a little different than costs averted. It's not like, yeah, you know, but with those three to four less beds, or essentially three to four more beds would be occupied, then they would have been without the carve-outs. And that is equated to 900,000 to 1.2 million dollars. Over a five-year period. That's right. Okay. So we have some questions here. Scott, Sarah, and Karen. Scott? Oh, sorry. I meant to take down my hand. You asked my question, Madam Chair. Okay. Sarah and then Karen. Madam Chair, you asked part of my question as well. But so I'm struggling a little bit with the numbers because last week, I think we heard that 297 people would be impacted by S18, which just seems really quite different from the three or four people that you're talking about here. So help me understand because I think you're doing it from a statistical point of view. And I just want to make sure that I really understand how you got these numbers. That's great. I can address that. I think what you heard last week were the number of people in the standing population who would not be affected by this because they had a carve-out offense, is that correct? They had been convicted of murder for a rape or a lewd conduct with a child. Is that correct? Right. So the way I wrote it down was 297 people would be impacted by S18 and no longer be able to earn good time. Right, by the carve-out. Okay. So that is correct. When we modeled this policy, I'll just try to explain it kind of at a high level. We looked at people who were going to be up for release within a five-year period. And so we take the people who would be potentially leaving custody within five years because this is a policy where for every 30 days of good behavior, you could earn seven days early release. And we then estimated that if you're leaving within five years because that's the timeframe for our projections, then we would be assigning good time to people for that period of your sentence. And it would take at least five months for someone to earn one month off of their sentence, if that makes sense. So you're earning seven days per month. So it would take a few years for someone to earn even six months off their sentence. So by the time you actually get to how many fewer beds are occupied at the end of a fiscal year, it takes quite a lot of time to reduce that number. And while it is true that there are almost 300 people who would not be eligible for this, many of those people would have had very long sentences anyway and were not in our model. And that's for the standing population. What I have found in the analysis, in the data that we were provided, after the initial standing population is earning their good time and being eligible for parole a little bit earlier than they would have been otherwise, you then have people who are coming in on an admissions and only about 15% of the admissions flow is actually excluded from the earned good time policy. And that would be 15% of people with a felony conviction of a rape or a murder or a lewd conduct with a child. And so over the course of the five year period, the bulk of the people are coming in on an assault or a robbery or in some cases, manufacturing delivery of a drug, they would be earning good time. And their sentence links are such that they would be the ones more impacted by the policy anyway, because their sentence link would be shorter. So I think that over the course of five years, when we're looking at where would the Vermont population have been in five years, and how many fewer beds would be occupied, taking out people who might have been convicted of these more serious offenses, it's not impacting that five year window very dramatically. Am I explaining that? Yes, no, I now that's very helpful. And then, you know, so you might also say, like, what would the 10 year window look like, it might be different if these are longer, right, the assumption is that these are longer sentences. So a five year impact, we might not see that much of a difference, but further out we might. That is possible for the convictions of rape and then conduct with a child you'd see potentially if there weren't carve outs, you might see more of those folks having earned good time and having their sentence link, you know, essentially becoming eligible for parole a bit earlier. And that is also assuming for all of this that the individuals are largely in compliance with, you know, they're actually earning that good time for good behavior. There are a lot of factors, right? Thank you. That's very helpful. It helped me figure that out. I'm sorry, can I just jump in quickly? So I think another way to explain this that helped me when Angie and I were talking about this is basically the three to four are annual beds. So those are beds that are occupied or unoccupied for a year versus the 297 are people who are just right now as a snapshot in the population. And as Angie said, with only seven days of 30, it takes a long time to get an entire annual bed earned off a sentence. But I also do want to note that the current version of S18 does not, I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, does not have carve outs moving forward. It's only for the standing population. And so our projection does take that into account just to just to clarify that that we are assuming that that moving forward everyone does earn good time in the current in the current projection that's in the memo. Karen? Yes, so I think Sarah helped to clarify that because as I was listening to the explanation, I was like, wait, I thought folks weren't going to be getting it for any new offenses. So I think I'm okay there because I was getting confused with that. And to my question, I think really then falls along to representative coffee is that long term impact. It seems like we need to like it's minimal over five years. But as each year goes by, like we are continuing to see a gap of where we would have had savings or recouping costs or whatever. Is that correct? Because of these sentences are longer. So each year somebody could be coming up for it that was in this population. And now they wouldn't be. I think you're right, Karen. Okay. That is correct. Representative Dolan, I just, I think when you look at the standing population and you see about 297 people having been convicted of this kind of offense, I think that that's about 30%, maybe a little bit more than 30% of the population as it is right now. Going forward, I wonder if there might be a little bit larger percentage of people in custody with that sentence breakdown. But I also think that's largely a factor of how much the pandemic has impacted who is still in custody in Vermont. Prior to this, the proportion of people in the standing population with one of these carve-out offenses was closer to 27%. And now it's almost fully a third. It's very hard to know what's going to happen in the next few years with the composition of the standing population. So if it continues to be a third of the standing population, it could be that fewer are eligible after that five-year window. That six-year window is people kind of stack up who have the more serious offenses. Other questions? Confusion? So is it fair to say that with this particular carve-out for the folks who are currently sentenced, what the Justice Center is seeing is some loss in averted costs in savings, but it's not substantial. Is that fair to say? It doesn't really throw a monkey wrench into your projections as much as if we did this going forward. I think that after running the numbers, we did feel like the carve-outs were pretty limited. And there were many conversations of different types of carve-outs that would be on the table. And we actually very early on read before kind of the legislative language was finalized, ran several different scenarios. And the one that ended up in the bill is kind of the most limited version of the carve-outs that folks were talking about. And so if you look at it, just as a proportion of overall, you may have saved 131 beds and now you'll save 127 at that upper level. We're just looking at the upper level, the range. That seems like a small proportion of the range. With all the COVID caveats that we're starting kind of at a different place than we thought we would be. So it's really, really hard to feel like we can predict kind of how this might look moving forward. So we're continuing with questions. So Karen, I'm going to continue with you. And then there's Kurt, Michelle, and Sarah. Great. Thanks. And I'm not certain if this is kind of relevant to your content area or not. So I'm curious, because you work with other states and see things. Have you seen any other states kind of navigate this type of approach where they put out good time, but then they do a carve-out and what some of the impacts or implications of it? Do you have any? Because I feel like that's a big piece of it. One is, do we do it? But then for me, I have concerns of we do a carve-out. And then next year, there's more crimes that want to be added to it. So I'm just would be curious if you've ever seen any states do this and what the implications have been. I can't say in my knowledge, which doesn't feel particularly deep, that I've seen a change in the good time policy like this. But what I can say is it's very, very common in earned time policies to have offenses that are not included. So from the start, there are carve-outs in many, many states. So the concept is not uncommon. Even either very serious offenses are excluded from the beginning or there's often more complicated kind of step earning systems where if you're in for a lower level offense, you can earn more time than if you're in for a serious offense. There's kind of gradations, but that is not, that is extremely common. I think most states actually have some sort of exclusions or carve-outs or something from the get-go. But I think that probably is the difference that it's from the get-go versus doing retroactive for a certain population and keeping, but then not for the same crime going forward. Yeah, I think you all are in an interesting spot with that quite honestly. And that's also to say that most states have had these earned time policies on the books for a really long time. So I can't speak to exactly when they were enacted what happened, but something like 30 states in the country have earned good time on the books and that's, it's not a particularly new policy in most of those states, which is why I don't really have insights into the modification process which Vermont is going into. Kurt and then Michelle. I just want to make sure, I believe you're, so we're looking at about a little less than 200,000 a year. Is that the way to look at it as averted or saved by this? It's over a five-year period. Is that what you're saying, Kurt? Yeah, yeah. So it's about 200,000 a year that we're not being able to avert. I see different answers. Hello? Did I get an answer? What was the answer? I was just going to say you could look at it that way. You could divide it up by the five years. I'm just popping open the projections document to see if the majority of the savings occurs in years four and five or if it happens up front. I think it happens later for this policy, but let me just double check for you. Yeah, my memories of these things do compound over time. So it's not like a perfect, where you earn 200,000 in the first year, the second year, the third year, and four year. Actually, the savings kind of build as the model gets older, if that makes sense. So you're not earning, the averted costs are less than year one, and you know, we're wishing. So savings really start to begin in year two, year three. So if you wanted to look at it, I would argue that you could essentially say about 300,000 per year for four years. There's not very much in the first year because they're busy accruing the good time. Now, being applied retroactively, obviously there would be some savings upon effective date of the amended bill. Okay. My concern and my perspective on this is I'm trying to figure out what money is averted and therefore can be reinvested each year. So what should we be putting out into the community that we are saving from the out of state bids? And what you're kind of, because we are immediately, since January, we've been releasing more, or we've been, I can't say we've been releasing more people because I don't know the numbers, but we've been implementing these policies which should be returning more people to the community. That's my understanding. Which is another question, does, when do those, I wish we had a projection of the number of people that would be additional people that would be released each year as we're going along if these policies are implemented. Because I can see the first year there might not be that many, but there are still some. And we want to be able to take the savings and use those in the community services to take care that people were releasing. So is there, can you give me a feel for that as to, because 200,000 is, I mean, that's the total amount of domestic violence intervention programming we increased this year. So if you look at it, or a proposed increase, we don't know how that's going to work itself out, but which tells me we're losing $200,000, we're losing all of our domestic violence intervention programming some year, because we're reducing this. But I don't know if that's the correct way to look at this. It depends on what the governor recommends, it depends on what the appropriations decides and things like that. But this, do you see where I'm going with this to make any sense? No. Is there a way to figure out how many additional people we would be releasing each year so that we know how many more we need to support in the community? I'm not sure if it's as linear as that. I don't know. Angie? Well, statistically, it's, I mean, you can do that statistically, it may not work out that way. But we're dealing with humans in corrections that may. We're also trying to figure out how to spend money and make predictions by statistics, and so we can't just say, well, we'll see what happens. We need to come up with some idea of how many people will be returned, what their needs will be, and whether we'll have the money to support them. So I don't know if Angie or Sarah want to weigh in here. I know one thing that we've done is prime the pump with the 900,000 that the governor proposed because we haven't made those savings yet. So in order to achieve some of those savings, we have to beef up the domestic violence programming. We have to beef up the mental health substance abuse within the community programming, and we have to beef up the transitional housing. So the 900,000 didn't come from the savings because they haven't been accrued yet. So we had to prime the pump in order to achieve some of these savings over the next five years. Yeah, that's right. I mean, we strongly recommend with justice reinvestment doing upfront investments as well as thinking through what can you reinvest later because if you want people to succeed in the community, you need to invest in it now. But it's true that separate from that 900,000, there was money put towards domestic violence intervention programming because of out-of-state bed savings that were not expected and not part of our projections, I should say, they were really related to COVID and the drop in prison population due to COVID and DOC being able to significantly reduce the number of people in out-of-state beds. But in the spirit of justice reinvestment, even though you all appropriated and did put that into domestic violence intervention programming, which is really appreciated and in that way a head start and I think kind of does point to part of the limitations of these projections because that's not calculated in these projections. We didn't know that you were going to save $200,000 on out-of-state beds this year pre-COVID before the policies actually pre-effective dates of the new policies. We can't take credit for that, but we're really happy that it was invested in a way that aligned with justice reinvestment, putting it back into the program set. We pointed out really needed to be strengthened in the state. But I do hear what you're saying, Rep Taylor, with $200,000 is the amount being invested in domestic violence programming. So if you lose that per year, how does that impact the community? And I have to say, I don't have a fantastic answer for that. I think that it's not, it isn't so linear. We don't have commitments that all of these costs averted will go straight into the community. That's something that I think will be debated later as they're actually realized. And it's not, and many other changes also happen simultaneously with JR policy changes. So things could happen. Earn time could earn you one annual bed from your prison population. And that doesn't mean that DOC is able to really pull one person back from out of state because of a myriad of other things going on in the state at the same time. Because of the way data works and the way we talk about things, sometimes we make it seem like a one-for-one thing, but there are a lot of other pressures and a lot of other considerations that go on simultaneously to this. And so I don't think we can guarantee that pulling up the number. But as these costs are averted that, exactly 99 to 127 people are not in out of state beds anymore, just because of other pressures on the system that we can't predict using historical trend data. Yeah, I understand. And who knows what'll pop up in the future anyway to impact this sort of thing. So, okay, I'm always concerned when I see less money going into the going able to be returned to the community. So we'll just have to keep an eye on it. So I have a couple more questions, Michelle and Sarah. Okay. So my question was actually going to be quite similar to Representative Dolan. So I guess I'm just going to kind of clarify your answer you gave to her question. From what I understand with your answer, there are some states who have a policy similar to ours that don't have a lot of carve outs or don't have any carve outs. And then there are some that do. That's accurate. So there's some that don't have carve outs, which is more or less what we have right now. Or does everybody else have carve outs and we're the only ones that don't? You know, I would have to look a little more into it. I think there are definitely more states who have carve outs than states that do not. But I would have to look for states that didn't have carve outs. In fact, we've been looking, because you all are considering carve outs, I've been looking into what those carve outs look like in other states. I haven't done the in depth research the other way around on states that wouldn't have any carve outs at all. Okay. Because like my understanding, like for our situation right now, I believe we actually have, if you have a life sentence without parole, you aren't eligible. So we sort of do have a carve out ourselves as well. But so I guess my follow up question would be, would it be possible for you either to tell us now or to later get us some information about those other models that you talked about? Like you said, there are some states that have like a gradated system where different types of crimes have different types of earned time available, because that's something we haven't heard anything about. And it seems like something of a middle ground between the policy we have right now, and what has been proposed in the Senate. And I would be very interested in learning more about those kind of options. Sure. We pulled together a couple examples on this. And actually we also, from our phase one team, so looking, this is dated February 2020. So a full year ago, did put together a quick scan of all of the different earn time policies, but they didn't kind of document carve outs in that scan. But I have a couple of state examples of different models of doing this. I will say what we've heard from Vermonters when talking about those models is that they're very complicated to implement. And the concern and the concern with those kind of step models and things like that is that it would just be, it would be a really difficult implementation if different folks were earning different amounts of time. And there's and perhaps some lessons learned from your past when you had an earned time policy many years ago that was rescinded because one of the reasons being because it was very complicated to implement. But so I actually have three state examples at my fingertips that I can send you all. So that's not a problem. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Sarah? My question is totally within the same family of ideas. When we were preparing for today, opened up my files from 2019 and 2020 when we did some of this work and NCSL, the National Conference on State Legislators, I found this document when we were doing this two years ago that has a pretty comprehensive state by state comparison, but it's only updated as of 2016. So one of my questions was, is there a more updated version of this? You don't know the this that I'm referring to, but you might know. I do know it exactly. And I have not found one, but I can look into that. In 2020, that is the list that we used. And I think you might have gotten that from us or maybe found it simultaneously, but we referenced that list in a few points, that 2016 list from NSEL. So and I haven't seen anything more updated than that. But I can reach out to my colleagues and see if it's been updated in the last year, if anyone has seen anything. Okay, that's helpful, because I mean, on this, if I'm referring to that is the most recent, you know, recent up-to-date document. You know, when I look at this within the notes, there are not that many states that have car votes. I mean, they're all different, but it's actually interesting to see there are a lot of differences, though. It's not as easy to compare in one to one. There are all sorts of things. Anyway, and I know we did, I hesitate to bring this up because we kind of traversed this terrain over the last two years. So I don't want to be digging it up. But I think it is important because I guess I feel with this bill, it does, it's hard not to reopen this whole door and look at it because it's, because it's adding a car boat. And we, so anyway, I wish if there is more up-to-date data about state-to-state comparisons, I'd be really curious. I'm not, sounds like other committee members would be too. So Sarah, thank you. So we have another question, Karen. Thanks. They're just coming to me as I'm like processing this and kind of figuring this out. So I apologize that you need to kind of walk along with me. But I'm realizing so it's not a huge loss that we're having with this. Like there's not a big difference and I'm trying to figure out why. And I'm guessing it's because it's folks have these very long sentences and all the earned time is doing is shortening the time before that consideration comes up. It's not guaranteeing anybody will come out. And I think this must be what you have to put in your projections that it's unlikely like the majority of them are coming out. So that the savings is, that's why I'm guessing that's how am I trying to say this? Like the amount of money isn't huge because odds are folks are going to continue to be incarcerated because not everybody as soon as their time comes up to be considered by parole or are they going to be able to go out the door? Am I making any sense? You are in a roundabout way. It's going to take time to accumulate that earned time and to get to their minimum. It doesn't happen within a year. It takes a process of four, five, six years. And once they receive, once they reach that minimum, they are eligible for furlough or at that point presumptive parole. It doesn't mean that they're going to re-enter the community. It only means they become eligible. And that's what gets lost in the bigger picture and in the conversation. I'm guessing that has to be part of the projections, assuming how many people, when they get to that eligibility point, actually get parole or they don't and they stay in the beds that are there in the cost accrue. So it just was an aha moment for me of thinking, well, that's why somebody meets their eligibility point doesn't mean that it's automatically going to be out of that bed and we're going to get those savings. It could go on forever until the end of their sentence. Yeah. I can ask Angie to elaborate on this, but the projections don't assume that everyone earns their full good time or that everyone gets out of immediately on their minimum sentence. There are people who may not have good behavior in prison and they won't be earning those seven days. And we know that there could be many reasons for people not to be released right on their minimum. And so the projections 100% taking that into account. If I'm going to pick up a little bit on what Sarah just said, that not everyone may be receiving the earned time from the testimony we received last week from DOC. For the month of January, 174 folks did not receive earned time due to a DR and those are folks who are incarcerated. So they didn't get the seven days. Now, what happened in February and what happened in March for those folks, they may have participated in what they needed to participate in and did not have a DR. They may earn those seven days or they may not. It's up to the individual and it really puts the onus back on the inmate to have responsibility on their participation in the facility for programming and also for doing what they're asked to do. So it puts the onus right on the inmate and it gives them an incentive to work within the system and it gives them an incentive to, I hate to say it this way, but maybe to behave better. And then it helps the tension in the facility to be lower. It's a management tool. So Sarah and then Scott. This is kind of just a comment. I remember when we were working with the Council on State Governance and the Justice Center, like the more we learned and with our own Department of Corrections, the more we learned about it, we learned that we could really make this really complicated. But I think our goal was to really keep it simple. And an important part of this was to keep the subjectivity out of it, that it was something, subjectivity within a correctional system is power. There's power and unequal power there. And DOC was asking us for that too, that they wanted something that was easy to manage, that took subjectivity out of it. And as we kind of continue to revisit this and looking at all these car roads, I just feel like we're adding much more complexity. We're running the risk of adding more subjectivity into this where it almost looks like we're looking to find a problem that doesn't exist. We haven't even, that's just, that's my opinion about what's being proposed in S18. But I just think we wanted, wherever we land with this, I think we have to remember that reason for keeping it simple. And I don't want to torture the committee with the Julian calendar stuff that we've learned about, or we spent a lot of time over the last years. But I remember from CSG's point of view, you'd seen it and the, the council and advice that you were, that I've heard was that keep it simple, you know, and there were reasons for making this applicable to everyone. So, and maybe you have new, as you're doing this with other states, I'm sure you're learning along the way how this might be rolling out in other areas and in other parts of the country. But anyway, that's more of a comment than a question. So we have another question, Scott. Thank you. So I have a question. I'm wondering, so I think the chair started this by saying that reinstating earned time was a recommendation of justice reinvestment, the rest of justice, justice reinvestment to process. So does CSG recommend good time as a, as a, as a policy? Would you, would you say that Sarah and or Angie? So actually, I will clarify, clarify that a little bit. You all actually put an earned time policy back on the books, the session before justice reinvestment. It was five days per 30 rather than seven days. And it hadn't actually been implemented when the justice reinvestment to working groups started. So it actually kind of originated a little bit prior to justice reinvestment to, but CSG Justice Center staff did look at that policy and recommend tweaks. So one of those tweaks was upping it from five to seven days. Another one was kind changing how people qualified for the earned time. It had been kind of based on risk of recidivism and, and, you know, removing that. Yeah. And, and that is to say, so just to clarify, it's actually, I think this has been confusing for a lot of people, but it actually was on the books before we came in. It just hadn't actually been the rulemaking process had not been completed. And so it hadn't actually been implemented. And then justice reinvestment changed it before the rulemaking process happened. So it didn't get implemented prior. But yes, it is something we recommend for, for the reasons that Representative Emmons was discussing. It's, it's a, it's a really good way to promote behavior change and kind of promote behavior change in your facility. And it's, it's a facility management strategy that folks know that, you know, if they do what they need to do, they can earn time off their sentence. That's kind of the ultimate incentive structure within a facility. And then also, and also it also makes sense as you all are, we're looking for ways to reduce your prison population. This is a way that has the potential to reduce prison population while also aligning with evidence-based practices, which show that incentives, incentives really do, can promote good behavior and risk reduction for people in the criminal justice system. So do you have data that shows that it works, that it promotes good behavior, that it reduces recidivism? That I don't have that data at my fingertips, but there are definitely research studies on that that I can dig up. Angie, I wonder if you see anything off the top of your head. I don't have anything like you at the ready, but I do know there has been research for a few decades now looking at this because these policies have been around for a while. And I think they are showing that it does improve institutional conduct in compliance with rules and incentivizing individuals to follow the rules to be able to earn that. But I'll look into our database and see what we can find for you. Okay. Well, thank you. Because one of the things that is in the back of my mind sort of a burr under my saddle about this is, is in addition to the complexity of calculating this and the greatly increased complexity if we do this carve out is the issue of power that Sarah was talking about. And it's not, I don't think it's necessarily subjective power. It's more systemic power or something. It's more impersonal power of the policy that pits people against this monolith. You mentioned that there's studies, Angie mentioned that there's studies going back several decades, but the attitude and the excuse me the, the, the theory that we're working under in corrections has changed. And we're now looking at really a rehabilitative model rather than a punishment model. Of course, my voice is going right at the wrong time. It could ring. It could spill water. So here I do have a sip of water. But I feel like this is, this is a really important issue that I'm, I'm, I'm trying to get comfort with. I'm, I'm wondering whether it would be much more productive if we could figure out ways to, to not just incentivize following the rules, but incentivize positive behavior, not just not just avoidance of negative behavior, but positive behavior. And, you know, by, by finding ways to finding opportunities for, for incarcerated people, even pertaining people to, to engage in their reciprocity that is part of society, this part of getting along with people. This is all kind of in, in co-it in my head here. I mean, I'm trying to, you know, articulate as we go along here. And I don't know if there's ways of doing that, but, but that's, it seems like there'll be a much more productive, a much more productive outcome. We would get more productive, more productive outcome if we could figure that out. The good time thing is, or earn time is, is just, is just an avoidance of bad behavior, not necessarily an incentive for good behavior. But the incentive there is for good behavior because they would earn seven days. So it's, it's not a stick, it's a carrot. Well, it's, it is, but, but good behavior is, is avoidance of bad behavior, right? What bad behavior is defined as is getting a disciplinary report. If I'm understanding this, this concept correctly. That's correct. But when you're in an institutional setting, there are different tools sometimes that need to be in play that within our setting of the world may not work, but within an institutional setting of the world may be more effective. Yep. Okay. Well, I know that this, I'm new to this, this whole policy area. So I'm just trying to articulate, you know, my first look at it. Representative Campbell, I think there are some examples of states that have tried to implement kind of proactive models where, where you can earn some time off of your sentence for participation in certain risk reducing programs. I think Pennsylvania has adopted a model like that for eligible individuals. I think North Carolina had a sentencing model along those lines. That one was not as widely used as the Pennsylvania model, which depended more on the Department of Corrections. But I think those were programs that were, or those were good time policies that were designed around completion of programming that would reduce someone's recidivism or risk of recidivism by engaging in cognitive behavioral programs and certain criminal thinking classes and that line. So I'm not entirely certain what's offered in the Vermont system as far as risk reducing programs. I believe they offer programs, but that's another approach that some have taken, but that depends on qualifying for a particular program. So that is also based on your sentence and based on availability in these risk reducing programs, which are confined. So this policy for Vermont is a little bit broader in scope to encourage behavior, you know, encourage positive behavior for more people. So that, but there are models that you're talking about as well. And I think there's some research, well, I think Pennsylvania did some research on how well their program operated. I'm not sure that that's been published in any journals, but I'll look into that for you. So as a follow up on that, we did have that. We had and we had different layers to earn time. Some folks could get five days automatic. If you participated in your programming and you did well, you might get an additional 10 days. But that was all subjective in terms of who is determining if you're doing well in your programming. And then if your programming wasn't available in the facility you were in, then you wouldn't have that opportunity to earn those extra days. So then you end up in a whole grievance process. And then you also end up with DOC doing all sorts of different calculations for each individual inmate in terms of what did they earn for good time. And that's where Sarah was saying, one of our goals is to keep it as simple as possible and get the power and control out of it. And that's why we did it across the board. So we have some more questions here. Marcia and Linda and Kurt. Andrea, Sarah, I don't know if you can answer this, but do you know what the recidivism rate is of people that were on good time and got out and then ended up back in? Did you mean specifically in Vermont? No, anywhere that has this good time or this earned time. I'm not sure that that's actually been looked at as far as looking at your cohort of individuals who were returned to custody. We oftentimes look at risk level. We look at offensive conviction. Those look at criminal history. But I don't think anyone's ever looked at whether someone has earned good time or not while they were in custody. I'll have to look for you. Thank you. Linda and then Kurt. Thank you. So I've actually been looking at the issue of claimed reduction of recidivism as it relates to S18, now called earned time. And the only study that I was able to locate was a state of Oregon study, which clearly stated that there was no direct tie to recidivism regarding this earned time. Yeah, there was definitely a tie to crime severity. Race, age and education were the drivers, but nothing to recidivism. And there's definitely some indication that there's a tie to the former programs, like you were talking about education, vocational training, substance abuse programs. But that requirement was actually eliminated to the best of my knowledge in our act 148 for Vermont. So I have not been able to find anything that supports this direct tie to earned time, good time, whenever you want to call it. Have you? Do you have any study other that ties it directly to prove that in fact there are these claims of recidivism are true? I want to be clear. We're not claiming recidivism reduction earned to do to earn good time. We're printing, claiming, we recommended on the base of improved behavior while in the institution. I agree. Right, I got that part. I just want to be sure that there's nothing out there to the other side of it that I haven't been able to find anything. And so I was just curious if you were able to find anything if you even looked. So I think that if I'm understanding Angie correctly, that this is not, that's not something that, you know, we can call up right now, but we're going to do a dig and we can send you all research generally that supports earned time in prison. So we'll pull that together for you all. It might be more apropos to those folks who are on a furlough status that are earning earned time against their maximum. That's a real incentive in terms of recidivism. Yeah, so this is one place where Vermont system is a little more complicated and kind of things get a little fuzzier, but there are definitely studies that people who earn time while in the community on supervision do that does not negatively impact public safety as a baseline. And I believe there are even some studies that show reductions in recidivism. I'm not sure if I'm over, I'm over promising here, but there's a lot of studies that when people are in the community and earning time off their sentence that has their, their positive out, research shows positive outcomes associated with that. The way that's more confusing is that those are all people in other states who are on probation and parole who have, who are earning time on probation and parole because Vermont, the furlough supervision system in Vermont is very different than, than any other state. And those people, most usually people who are earning time when they're in the community would not be subject to like DOC policies because probation and parole are totally separate, but furlough being under the correct, you know, DOC within Vermont makes it kind of that unique circumstance. So, so we, the justice reinvestment to working group actually this, this past fall looked into this significantly because you all have, because there's another policy recommendation about people on probation earning time off their sentences. And, and, you know, we walked the justice reinvestment to working group through, through some of that, a big study actually just came out in December by Pew showing how effective policies for people on probation or parole people in the community earning time is in, in improving public safety. So that's where one of those things is, it's a little complicated because it's true that people on furlough are also earning time under this policy. And those, those types of studies would really, you know, that's different than people being, you know, in an institution earning time off. So we have another question, Kurt? Yeah, I was going to say that I could see that there would not be a strong or much of a correlation between behavior inside while you're incarcerated and recidivism. I can see recidivism being more dependent upon the kind of programs that you're involved with as you're moving out of the facility and things like that. But I think the chair's point on furlough is a good one. That would seem to me to be a strong incentive not to commit another crime because you would stop earning your good time and reducing your maximum sentence. So, so there might be some correlation that would, that would be interesting. I think to respond a little bit to Representative Campbell, there's, there is part of what the DOC is working on now is changing incentives and implementing positive incentives as well. And there's, there's other incentives aside from reduction of sentences. I mean, that's one motivating factor, but there's all kinds of other tools that corrections has to make incarceration more livable that they can, they can use as incentives for behavior. So another, other correctional systems have done that. The one that I visited in Alaska was, was strong on that. And there's all kinds of, of various incentives. You can use the course, the challenges to make them not subjective. And that's, that's part of developing the program. I can see this change in, that's being proposed from the Senate. I don't think it would increase any subjectivity involved. It's still the same rules as to whether you get earn time or not. So it's not changing the subjectivity in the balance of behavior, but it is making a change. And the only thing that I see as, as kind of negative on it is the complexity of the calculate that it adds to the complexity of the calculations. And DOC says that they can handle it without having to hire more or things like that. So I'm not sure, but I can, I can see how this could work out. Okay. Anything else, because we need to shift to, we have folks in the waiting room wanting to come in and testify. Anything else with Sarah or Angie? Well, this has been helpful. I know you've been asked a lot of questions and any further help you can give us would be greatly appreciated. And we may reach out for you for some thoughts as we continue working on this legislation. I'm just not sure at this point. Any other questions from folks? Anything from Sarah or Angie? I was just going to say thank you for having us. And we will send a corrected memo as well as answer these questions we've been getting on on the both the two main questions that I have for myself, which I know have a few sub questions are looking at, you know, other states and which states have carve outs and which don't and examples of other states with carve outs and then also the research on earned time and what that says and in the showing, you know, quantitatively the positive impact of these types of policies. Thank you all. Thank you. So you can zoom out and we have some folks in the waiting room that want to testify. It's the family that experienced the situation that they want to share with us. It's from the victim's perspective. So we'll take a little breather here while they zoom in. Folks. Thank you. Thank you for having us. Yes. Well, we have with us Pamela and Taylor Fontaine. The way that they're listed on our agenda are concerned citizens and they would like to weigh in on the proposal of S 18 with earned time and those carve outs for those particular crimes that those folks who are currently sentenced for those particular crimes would not be receiving earned time. So I'll turn it over to the Fontaine's. I don't know how you want to proceed. So I'll leave it with both of you and welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Hello everyone. And I'm sorry, this usually makes me really emotional talking about. So thank you. Take your time. Take a deep breath. Thank you for allowing me to speak in front of you today regarding Senate Bill 18. For the record, my name is Taylor Fontaine. I am an educator. I am a friend. I am a daughter. I am a sister. I am a girlfriend. I am a coworker. I'm in a volunteer. I am a student. And among all those things that seem normal for my age, I am also a victim of a heinous crime. I was 13 years old when I was drugged and molested by Robert Kohl of us at a sleepover at his house after a middle school dance. About a year later, I testified in front of a filled courtroom on the most vulnerable time of my life. After hearing all 12 jurors say the man that turned my life upside down was guilty of the crimes he committed. My whole body shook and tears streamed down my face. I was very relieved. He could never violate me again or anyone else for a very long time. But I would still have to live with this for the rest of my life. An adult made the decision for me as a young girl to change my life forever in one of the worst ways. I struggled. And I mean, I really struggled. I was trying to live the life of a normal teenager and now young adult while functioning with trauma trauma created by Robert Kohl of us. I remember getting the call about the current good time rule being enacted. I was sitting in the school library during my planning time and I was confused at first because I had never heard of the good time rule. As I learned more about what it meant, my heart sank. I was assured by his guilty verdict of lute and lascivious conduct with a child that he would be in jail for a very long time. And that my bravery at such a young age helped put an evil man behind bars. I relied upon his sentence to be able to try and heal to the best of my ability knowing I wouldn't have to worry about him. All the wounds from the trauma I thought were starting to heal were cut open once again and again through my testimony now and before, although I am doing it because it is important to hear from the victims and survivors themselves. It is important to see we are continuing to be revictimized and how are we we are forever affected by decisions made. The big question here is why the new changes proposed to this bill should be there. I want to reiterate that the one relief that I got was he was going to be in jail. He wasn't going to do this to me again. He wasn't going to do this to anyone else. I couldn't run into him for years to come. It was the one relief I got from something so traumatic. This is not a question this is a question about justice. Justice for victims like me that are living with victim sentences forever. An argument that I keep hearing over and over again for the reason this bill shouldn't be passed is that people change. Yes, people can change but what doesn't change is the trauma endured by a victim. The trauma I endured at such a young age. The trauma I am still going through as a survivor of sexual assault. This coming May, it'll be 12 years since my assault. 12 years later and I'm still being revictimized. I am still having to rehash what happened to me over and over and over. Why should he have the ability of getting out of jail earlier because of good behavior? He committed a crime, right? He was found guilty, right? The trauma doesn't end for me and unfortunately it never will. I don't have the luxury of behaving the way I'm supposed to so that my trauma goes away earlier. I don't have the ability to reduce my survivor sentence. I stand or sit rather in front of you today to share my story to remind you that there are victims of heinous crimes that are being greatly affected and respectfully advocate for victims like me in passage of Senate Bill 18. I am hopeful that the right thing will be done to protect survivors like me. Thank you again for allowing me to speak today. Thank you so much Taylor and I know how difficult this must be for you and to come before a venue of a Zoom meeting with people you don't even know and you can't meet with us personally. I can't imagine how fearful that must feel for you. But you got a lot of guts. And I'm really glad that you came before us. Thank you. I'd like to open it up for questions from committee members. I mean the first thing that I would just like to know for information purposes only is what is the sentence that he received in terms of his minimum and maximum and what was his conviction of? Can you share that with us at all? Yes. It was lewd and lascivious conduct with a child and it was 23, well it was originally more years but there was a little blip in the conviction in the Supreme Court reverse part of it but it was 12 to 14 years I believe with no probation. 12 to 14 minimum? Is it 12 minimum, 14 maximum or is it a straight 12 minimum and 14? Not eligible for probation was our understanding. So it was 12 men and 14 max and I'm going to ask another question that you may not know and I don't want to bring up anything for you any more than what you're already feeling. But did he get any credit for time served before he was convicted? Was he held pending trial for a length of time and then that got counted towards his sentence? Yes. And do you know what that time frame was? Was it a year? The incident was in May of 2009. The trial was in April of 2010. So he'd been a detainee for a year? Yes. So that was credit for time served towards his ultimate sentence? Yeah. Without looking at the details I can't remember if he had a bail amount set because he actually had fled and he had tried to he fled Vermont and they found him in Maine and so I can't remember if when they put him in jail if he had a I can't even think of what I'm trying to say. You know what I'm trying to say. I think he was held without any bail because of that. So he had a 12 to 14 and he was sentenced in 2010? Yes. So he's due up next year? The thing that I looked up online on him just the other day was it looks like the earliest would be in 2023 and so that would and then the latest would be 2024. Okay. So we have some questions here. Karen? Thank you Taylor for coming in and sharing your story. As we'll share I have two daughters who are ages 11 and 12 so your story just hits there right at that age that you were talking about and I really appreciate hearing your your story your perspective and I have to say it's also it's hard for me to ask a question so I'm gonna I have a question at the same time if if you just don't want to answer it or whatever I completely understand like it's it's hard to ask questions when somebody shares something like that. You kind of shared this a bit like for me I see that there was a system piece that that that there was a gap in the system because you found out about this you said you got a phone call with it who is it that you rely on are like how do you get that information when something is changing in the system is it a phone call is there a certain person that is letting you know because I want to make sure we work on that piece too that we're getting this information out if there are any changes in the future too that people have the information that they need when when it's timely for them. I found out through the I think it's called VAN system. That's we yeah yeah they know what it is and we didn't find out till like like mid or late September of last year that was our first ever notification that this was even going on. And that was with the VAN system with it because I know for some folks they're connected to different victim advocates or such and so I feel like that's something how can we make sure that victims know when things like this are being discussed so you have an opportunity to weigh in. Well that was one of the things that I wondered we were registered with the VANS which we thought only told us if you if and when he was ever moved from one jail to another or whatever which always did notify us and I didn't know if there was another system we just weren't aware of that notified you if anything was to change in his sentence. So I'm I'm still not clear on that but so let me add some clarity. I love clarity. Let me add some clarity. We worked on the legislation over the past two years and one one area that trying to think how to best clarify this we worked on the legislation with our intent of how we're going to go forward but for all the nuances on some particulars we leave it up to either the respective department or respective agency to work out the nuances. That's how we do our work in state government. The legislature lays out the intent of a particular law and then the minutiae of it gets implemented through what we call rulemaking which is a whole different process. It's not involved in the legislative process at the beginning it is internal to that respective department or agency. While they go through what we call rulemaking which is making the rules to implement the program the entity that is forming those rules reaches out to communities for public comment. So what happened in this particular case we were we had passed the legislation and then the department of corrections was working on putting together the rules in terms of how earned time would be carried through. You were notified through that rulemaking process as someone in the public that might be interested in weighing in on making those rules. So that was your notification it wasn't going to come through van it wasn't going to come through necessarily through the victim advocate. So that was the avenue why you got a phone call you were in the victim's network and it was to say would you like to weigh in on these rules that are being put in place. So does that help clarify where the van kicks in or doesn't? Right but I believe when we were notified it was already decided it was kicking in we were just allowed to to inquire about it and make comments last September. Notified prior to that is what I'm saying right when the when we were working through this on the legislative arena we had the victim's network testified before us but we didn't have individual victims okay and there was some connectivity there that didn't happen between the network and letting folks know I think that was the first thing. The second thing we said we wanted Department of Corrections to put up some emergency rules to put those in place immediately so that we'd start to know how the program would start to be implemented come January 1st of this year. Once those got put in place we also said to Department of Corrections to go forward with formal rules that will take effect in March that's when you were really notified that's why you're saying things were already in place because we were saying get that those emergency rules up and running and put them in place and then at the same time start working on the permanent rules. So I hope that clarifies a little bit. So you're saying that we should have been notified in March of 2020? No it would have been more in June. Okay so we were and I don't know why. I think it's a breakdown in the system. Yeah I mean we realized something happened we were really upset at first but we also because by the time we realized what was going on there wasn't a lot we could do to change it except for this now right which I am thankful that we were able to find the avenue to be able to try to make this change. So the next layer to this involves the ban. Okay when we did this legislation last year this was done mostly in May and June the bulk of it was really more in June on our end. We were very concerned about victims being notified when an individual was earning earned time and what that notification should be what it looked like and how often and we put in the law that victims could be notified but it would really be up to the victim to indicate how often they would want to be notified. We did put in the law that it wouldn't be any less than every three months because we felt for each month if a victim is notified that the person has received the earned time it's sort of revitalizing the person. So we said no more than you know once every 90 days but we wanted to make sure that the victim had control of that because some victims may want to be notified and other victims may not. So on your end what I'd like to get some feedback in terms of that notification not the not the way you were notified in September but going forward would you want to be notified every month would you want to be notified once every three months would you want the ability to be told that you're going to be notified or do you want the ability to say wait a minute I want to control when I'm notified. I would just like some feedback on that. I think personally it would be something that I would prefer every month just because one of my biggest fears is when he is getting out so yeah so I would like to know on a monthly basis but that I know it's different for every victim so. Right and that's why we wanted to make the language as flexible as possible. Yeah I you know I mean it's unfortunate that Taylor even has to any victim has to worry about their perpetrator being let out and will they come and come after you and because you put them there and I think she worries about that and worries about just being out in public and running into him because I remember it was very traumatic for her even after the fact even when she knew she he was in jail she would go to the grocery store by herself um or with out with friends and she would call me in a panic mom I think I saw him and I think I saw him and it it was just somebody that looked very similar to him. I mean it's happened to me like geez that guy looks very you know and it was very traumatic for her and I just think she wants to make her senses aware I had a time that she could run into him and that's why she needs to know when when was this gonna you know exactly happen and where is he anybody would want to know that I guess you know if you were a victim for sure I mean I want to know even for her. That makes sense that makes sense so we have another question here Karen. Yeah so um so it sounds like we're making that difference between um if this was to go forward you know how would victims be notified of it I want to go back to the other piece of being notified when changes are coming up in the legislature because I feel like that's something that you bring up of like you would have liked to have known that this was even being discussed and so I see that as a system because in this committee we are always looking at ways that we can um adjust the um correction system to work best for the whole state of Vermont you know and as you can imagine not everybody's going to agree on it and there's gonna be some that work some that don't work for some people and so I'm looking at that system and thinking I have questions like I want to make sure as we move forward victims are feeling heard so um and not to put you on the spot now but if you have ideas or thoughts come up to you of like you know what this actually would be helpful of how we can make sure we have a voice when things come up I think that's part of what I would at least I would like to consider going forward because as you can imagine this isn't ideal how we came to play here where it's been passed now we're re-looking at it like we'd rather have everything at the beginning so I'm sorry that you you didn't have that information and I just want you to know that I think that's something that we need to do is look and fixing that system yeah I would be happy to think more about that and um getting contact with you with some ideas that'd be great because we do our best and and we may think all the word is out there and everybody knows and that's not the case any further questions from the committee so if any if anybody would entertain um I I had some things to say but I don't know if you want to just introduce yourself for the please I I feel like Pamela could you just introduce yourself for the right I'm Pam I'm Pamela Fontaine and I am Taylor's mom I just feel like I need to um reiterate some things on behalf of Taylor and behalf of our family like Taylor said this is really hard to revisit um for our family to revisit all of this um take your time take a deep breath and take your time I know I was I was the one that picked her up that night when she called not even knowing sorry let me get myself together a little bit not even knowing what I was going to walk into because her phone call was just come get me I'm scared and she wouldn't tell me why um so can I you know just to imagine that kind of phone call in the middle of the night from your daughter who is at a home that you never even been in yourself her first time there and her calling and saying you know just come get me I'm scared mommy I'm scared and um you know my initial thought was okay she's scared she just hasn't been there before you know and when I arrived and saw um that she exited the house not walking straight clinging on to her items um coming towards the car I immediately got out of the car and was like what's going on and she said I don't know I feel really dizzy and I don't feel good I have a headache um and things and so as I was putting her in the car she said that man touched me I said excuse me I said what do you mean that man touched you and she said she just kind of you know and I was like okay I would imagine that every single one of you on the screen today are a parent or a grandparent but even if not it's the kind of stuff that um you never you never think what's gonna happen to your family you know what happens you educate your children Taylor said I would have never called you that night mom if you didn't educate me that this was wrong because she wouldn't have known what to do but she knew what was wrong what was what happened to her and she's in a house she doesn't even know where the phone is because she's her first night there and she struggles to find her cell phone to call me as quietly as possible because she was afraid he was going to come back in and find her calling her home um it's just it's it happens and I hope someday Taylor and I can find a way to educate more families and more children and that children need to ask for help and they need to know it's okay to ask for help because I couldn't imagine if she didn't if she didn't know that and she didn't do that and I didn't support her and her father and her brother didn't support her through this whole process that um he would have still been out here on the streets hurting others because I don't believe they stop um this isn't even what I wrote to tell you guys actually um not even close to what I was gonna talk to you about um um I will try to refocus a little bit here and um I just want to kind of say to Taylor um she's very brave she has been from the beginning she had moments that she crashed and I would work really hard to pick her up and help her help her be strong to to do what she needed to do um even at one point even before the trial she just totally stopped talking she couldn't talk she couldn't even express herself of what she needed to do she was just scared to death about having to do what she needed to do but she did it and I'm very proud of her for doing that and I'm very proud of every step she takes to continue to try to make herself as healthy as possible even when she has days where things crash down on her and nights when she can't sleep and that never goes away for them he got such a short sentence and I believe that there are other perpetrators out there that gets too short of sentences because their victims have their crime that happened to them for the rest of their lives they don't get taken away they don't get to say oh Taylor you're really good today so we're going to take this bad memory away from you you know they don't get that they don't get that opportunity and so to hear that somebody that hurt her would get that opportunity to be good you know and and and having it called a good time rule kind of hit hard like let's name it something else because what's so good about it you know um and I you know and I know that they call it that in other states and things like that but hasn't grandma always wanted to be a little different so maybe you know renaming that whole thing um we my family and I support what has been put together with s18 and we thank everybody who has worked with us thus far to to make these considerations and these changes to the bill and it's really tough because it's really hard to make everything perfect um but I really encourage you and everybody that has to do with anything that changes sentences for um those that are incarcerated how is it going to affect the victims and put the victims first always every single time um this is just me and Taylor talking you know this is just one instance there's tons of them out there so we're fighting on behalf of not just her rights um but other victims and their families rights too we were told he was going to be there and we expect him to be there for as long as he's supposed to be there with no good time offering um because in our minds he's not even there as long as he should be um Taylor Taylor was Taylor was brave that night to call me because it wasn't his first time it was just his first time getting caught um he's not a good man and we can't have more of those people out on these streets hurting more people making them have life sentences that just gets still totally off what I was going to say but I think it sums it up and I really appreciate you all being very down to earth with us and um listening to us and um if there's anything Taylor and I can ever do to help these types of you know situations where you need information or just feedback we're always here because somehow someday and she keeps looking for the way to help others um she wants to help others and I will be there right by her side and there will be a way to help others and coming before us today is one of those ways you may not feel it but that is one of the ways to help other folks for that um and one thing we are changing the name to earn time where you got to earn it it's not automatic so that is in s18 um to change it for that but I just you know really do want to say for the committee thank you for coming in it's very very painful it's painful for you folks and it's also painful for us as well but it's all part of um it's all part of contributing to make life better for everyone and Taylor don't forget that what you're doing is really important and it takes a lot of guts so we do have um questions from committee member uh Kurt yes this is uh I really appreciate your your testimony there's another side of this that we haven't I don't think we've asked you about were were you in at all on the um having anything to do with the sentence negotiations with the prosecutor did you get involved with that at all no okay Kurt are you asking if there was a plea bargain yeah and whether they were involved with in it at all there there there was no plea bargain his original sentence like I I think I stated earlier was 22 to 24 years without parole but there was a a little um because his his original um uh what do you want to call it um not sentence his charges were Ludin was busy Ludin lascivious conduct of the child and aggravated assault because he drugged her um but there was just some issues with the directives that happened with the with the jury and it was brought to the supreme court and so we were notified I think like two years later that um some of his sentence was going to be taken away and so it went from 22 to 24 to 12 to 14 um we were asked at the time if we wanted to a tailor wanted to re prosecute for the aggravated assault um and we took some time to think about it we sat down with the state's attorney's office and took some time asked questions and you know we were assured that it would it would um wouldn't be a problem getting those those um that sentence you know back put back in place but it meant bringing everybody back into the courtroom and retestifying and that included all of the other girls that came forward and testified on on the behalf of the situation um and Taylor looked at me the day that I said I will do whatever you want to do Taylor you tell me what you want to do because I will always do whatever you want do and she said she looked back at me and she said mom if it was just you and me I would do it but she said I don't want to put all those girls and all their families back through this again and she said I just don't have to trust in God that God will take care of this okay thank you welcome did you wear whatever county you're living in do you have a special investigative unit and SIU that worked with you on this yes they were very very very helpful okay that's good that's good that's good to hear I would I I mean I Taylor actually spoke at one of their one of Kuzi's um meetings that they had one year after that with um all of the state's attorney's offices and and police force she actually spoke at one of their events very bravely once again about what Kuzi did for her you will be fine Taylor thank you it will be fine you have a lot of guts you'll find your niche you'll find your niche anything else from the committee uh Scott I just want to say I know we're going to say this but I have to say it too I have a daughter and I appreciate what you're saying what you said and you're coming in here today and talking to us Taylor the chair says you're great you're very brave and uh and Pamela thank you also for coming in you're very welcome thank you for having us anything else before we close up and take a break so I want to thank the Fontaines for having the patience I know we've scheduled you and then we had to reschedule and I I want to thank you for your patience because we had other legislation that had to meet deadlines and we had to get those out before we could and then we almost missed it because I ran out of gas on the way home to come to this meeting I had to call Taylor and like Taylor you're not going to believe this but I'm 10 minutes away and I ran out of gas but we were running late so it all worked out well yeah that's what Phil said I emailed Phil and said Phil we got a problem I ran out of gas well it all worked out and um again on behalf of the committee I want to thank you both for coming in I know how difficult this can be in the Zoom world it's not it's the most impersonal world that you can figure out if we were in the committee room it would be a very very different feel and I would just encourage you to stay involved and again just thank you for coming in thank you all thank you all great so let's for the committee let's take a quick 10 minute break why don't we zoom off here um and we can come back at four o'clock for that