 Welcome folks. This is the House Corrections and Institutions Committee and this is Thursday morning at 9 o'clock. We are going to be working this morning on the report of the racial disparities report that was part of Act 148, which was our Justice for Investment legislation that we passed last year back in June. I'm just thinking, when did we do it? It was back in June. And so we have A-Town. I have trouble with your name. I'm sorry, A-Town. That's quite all right, not that in long though. And we're going to quickly go through the report and I know we'll be sharing our screen at some point, but I'm going to turn it over to A-Town. If you could just introduce yourself for the record and then start walking us through the report. That would be great and welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning everyone. I am A-Town Nass read in long go. I am chair of the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel. And I am a co-director of fair and impartial policing and community affairs for the Vermont State Police. And I would, what I had planned, and if you'd like me to do something different, I certainly can think on my feet. I was going to sort of take you through how this came about. And then go through very specific parts and then close with sort of a, sort of some thoughts about the justification for funding these sorts of initiatives. That would be fine. And I will do that. This all went back to before the pandemic, of course, that this was originally, I believe, S-338. Yes. I was told and the panel, and it's difficult when I say we were told because a lot of people on the panel have more connection to Montpelier than I had at the time. I sort of depend upon informants in various moles to give me information about what's going on in the state house. We had been told this was a shoe in until the pandemic came. We were told that nothing non-pandemic related would go through. By accident, literally, I found out at the very end of June that this had passed, was signed and had become Act 148 and was asked, Baldly, what was the R-DAP doing about this? And I had to say, nothing. We suddenly had responsibilities under the new Act and specifically, as you know, Section 19, which directed the panel to consider data that could be used for the reduction and perhaps elimination of racial disparities in both of the justice systems. And we were before this point looking to amplify many of the points that we had made in our report of December 2019. There had been a feeling that a deeper dive might be useful in regard to the recommendations that we had made in that document, and we were turning our attention there. This required us to reconsider data, and it really was a reconsideration because we had very much spoken about data in the 2019 document, and so this wasn't really a stretch beyond what we were sort of feeling directed to do at that point. The timeframe was somewhat daunting that we found out in July that we had to do this by the 1st of December, and that seemed quite a reach. We weren't sure that it was possible, and we spent a good deal of time, frankly, discussing what could and could not be done. What you might need to know is the panel meets for two hours on the second Tuesday of every month, and that's it. That's all the panel meets. So we were looking at doing this in roughly 10 hours of time, which just wasn't possible. So, um, we were a little bit frustrated. There was some feeling on the panel, certainly among the people of color that we were being asked to repeat ourselves. And there was some irritation, endless reports or something that tend to annoy as you can imagine people of color who would like to see some more emotion and perhaps a bit less verbiage. But we turned our attention to producing whatever we could in those 10 hours. The lack of time meant we can we convened a subcommittee to do a great deal of the heavy lifting and we did so with the support and the assistance of the Council of State Governments, and also quite notably with the tremendous assistance of the crime research group, which was statutorily required to help with the data collection that this new report would necessitate. And that subcommittee met at least weekly. There were a couple times where we were doing more than that indeed. And then we'd go back to the panel and the full panel and at least keep them up to date on what was going on get feedback from them. It was the only way to do it you should have the panel has 13 members, five of whom are community members who donate their time. The others are all, you know, proxies for corrections, you know, for Mr Baker for Mr. Such. Initially, an even smaller group of the subcommittee met with Kristen McClure from the agency of digital services to help with this document. And without that help this wouldn't exist. We met with a collection of it officials from various state agencies to speak about three matters. The first was what data do exist. The second was what form they exist in and then the last was the possibilities of communication between the various data systems that exist within the criminal and juvenile justice systems. As a result of those meetings and I believe that there were two of them are contained within the fourth appendix and we could put that up. That would be a great moment to put that up the fourth appendix is on page 24. And it's called the current state of data and data flows regarding racially relevant data among various state agencies in Vermont. There it is at the bottom what I'm going to talk to. There's that flow chart. It Kristen McClure created it during in the course of one of the meetings, in fact, and you'll note that it is really rather suitable for framing or indeed a provocation for taking Advil. It's a most importantly it shows the tangled web that are the data flows regarding racially relevant data among various agencies. As the report notes and when you read it you will see this that paragraph above it. This is a snapshot of the state of affairs from September, and cannot be said to depict matters as they presently stand. They may be changing. They may be getting better. We're hoping so certainly. But they're changing not because of the need necessarily for cross agency communication, but rather because of internal needs. So, I caution you it won't help to assume that for the purposes of this act that the data flows are more comprehensible, or indeed even usable. The subcommittee continued of course from this point, and we got lost to the weeds we got out of the weeds it was a moment. What do we do. It seemed to the subcommittee and then also to the full panel that without some sort of standardization. At the point which the R DAP addressed very notably in the report in 2019 that this would be yet another failed effort concerning the effacement of racial disparity. Please take that. Quite seriously, that was a very strongly felt sentiment by the panel that without some sort of standardization this would just be another failed effort. Again, as I say and continue to be a dominant theme for the panel, and the current report makes that quite clear, without some serious and focus standardization regarding data. The aims of Act 148 the panel feels with reference to data cannot be achieved. This was a guiding notion that shaped the panel's efforts throughout the summer and fall as it prepared the present document. Another important moment that concerned the panel had to do with identifying high impact, high discretion moments in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, at which either conscious or unconscious bias can make an entry. This was a task that had occupied our collective imagination and last year's report, but we certainly did not take it then as far as we did here. The lawyers on the panel, put their heads together to make an extremely comprehensive list of these moments and this took no small amount of time, as you can imagine. The community members were able to add other moments that might seem to be outside of the legal framework but which really are not. Notably in this, there would be a moment such as the interaction interaction between students in schools and guidance counselors which is you likely know are widely felt to be the beginning of the school to prison pipe pipeline. I see now of course to give you a resume of these acts, but I again I have to note the amount of time it took to compile the lists that are in the report and you see those they are in. Let's see. They're on page four and six and in between there as well, their tables. They're they're fairly easy to to look at. What happened at the time that we were creating the tables was at the same moment a compilation of the data that do presently exist. And with the help of the crime research group we created a sense of where those data might reside. And they also crime research group work to give us a sense of what data just don't exist. Once the panel had determined that that data would nevertheless, even if it didn't exist be of great importance. Again, we focused upon the high impact, high discretion moments. And you're looking at it here the panel came up with a compilation of not merely those data, but their locations as a result of working on the creation of this report. We actually compiled an enormous number of documents everybody did crime research group. Council of State governments, people on the panel, somehow everyone came together, pulling these documents together from God even knows how many different sources. We were joking at one point about printing them out and burying them in a secure time capsule on camel's hum, so that they would always be there and no one would ever have to do this again. What subsequently became clear with the relatively high number of high impact, high discretion moments in both of the justice systems. We were also mindful of what might be perceived as the relative impossibility of getting to all of these moments and one fell swoop. We then set our minds to prioritizing these moments to the best of our abilities. And I need to note there that's an imperfect process. What you have here are both a prioritize list of high impact high discretion moments and racially relevant data that concern them, and then also a broader list of these moments. I need to note that we deeply believe that all of the moments are of great concern and need focus and attention, but we show the moments that we believe to have the greatest priority and let data do and do not exist concerning these moments. I've been asked by people which is the most important moment. I'm going to beg you not to do that. So first we came up with our prioritized, not in any particular order number one is not necessarily number one, the, the prioritized moments are the prioritized moments. Any further disaggregation felt kind of dicey to put a technical term there. As safe to us is what we came up with. There was a lot of conversation argumentation about what we did come up with. And this was the result of a lot of conversation that led to this consensus. So at this point, we had a spread of high impact, high discretion moments and the racially relevant data or lack there of, and the question became what to do with this mess. It seemed clear to many of us that there was no one presently in state government who could on their own do the really huge lift that would be required here, not only to create the data, but even more radically to define it. To gather it, and certainly of course to analyze it from the early meetings with Kristen McClure and it officials it became clear that no one actually has the time to do all of this and again, if you like refer to that lovely chart on page 24, which I had dreams that weren't good. That just shows you how tangled this is. There are people who specialize in this right and how to make sense of different data systems how to reconcile them. None of us on the panel have that expertise certainly there aren't even a lot of people who are it officials in the state presently working who have that expertise that became clear as well. Knowing we need experts here, we need people who really do this kind of work. Crime research group at this moment came to our rescue. It turns out that this work is already underway nearby in Connecticut, and also in Colorado. Three people know one of the people in Connecticut who's involved in this, and they facilitated a meeting between three officials from what is the state of Connecticut's criminal justice policy and planning division in the office of policy and management. People are involved in the implementation of that state's own efforts regarding the collection and analysis of data concerning the effacement of racial disparities in both juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. The panel had a very productive meeting with three officials from that division who offered useful insight and it felt that their input gathered from actual experience would be invaluable. It's in the report. It is section three, which is on I believe page nine data collection and analysis implementation strategies and recommendations. And actually if we could go. I think even well now that'll work and I'm going to talk about what's below this I believe at the beginning of the next page. That will give you the name of the three people we met with Mark Pelka, who is the undersecretary of the state of Connecticut's criminal justice policy and planning division in the office of policy and management. And then two associates of his Kyle Bowdoin and Kevin neary. That meeting as I have written as we wrote here, led to several additional recommendations from the our debt for the legislature. As I say here. We felt building on their experience would be useful and that there was really no need to reinvent the wheel, given the pressing nature of the matter and you can see then the recommendations that were made as a result of that meeting. And I'll just go through those with you that a body charged with the definition collection and analysis of data pertaining to racial disparities across the criminal and adult criminal juvenile excuse me and adult criminal justice systems, both be created and staff experience has shown that Connecticut has needed three staff members charged with data collection and analysis. This body is housed in an entity that is not subject to the vagaries of the political process, nor any entity that is politically constituted in short, the matter of reducing racial disparities must not under any circumstances be seen as a partisan issue. The funding be provided for positions with each within each Vermont state agency that needs to extract data concerning racial disparities within its purview that is to be provided to this new body. This extraction is both the time consuming and possibly lengthy process again, look at that data flow chart. That was one of the more graphic moments we had. That this body produces monthly reports distinctly and deliberately aimed at both the legislature and it broader communities, including historically impacted communities pertaining to racial disparities in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems that are concerned with basic demographic information. Transparency must be prime in these reports. I think really fond of the next recommendation that this body's work should be guided by an advisory organ, consisting of stakeholders from historically impacted communities, such as communities of color neurodivergent communities and communities of gender and sexual minorities that concerns themselves with the definition collection and analysis of data pertaining to the amelioration of racial disparities in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems stakeholder input on these matters is crucial. Part of what I would say about that is, we did discover when we went through the meetings that created that flow chart. There are a couple systems within the state, and I say this with a certain amount of horror, given my training in in what is essentially anthropology, where there's a conflation of race and ethnicity. I mean we're still using systems like that. That's terrifying. I mean race and ethnicity have not been thought of as the same thing for many decades now, but we still have systems that work here in Vermont. And I can't remember exactly where they were but I could perhaps figure it out by looking at that chart. That's still do that make that conflation. Okay, the final point was recommendation that the legislature both expect to create this body and further be prepared to consider legislation that supports the work of this body, as this body's needs change over time. That's all I had to dress on the report itself but I'd like to conclude by addressing the politics behind the funding of these sorts of initiatives because we're not mindless here that there's money involved, but I really want to address that. And many people have been I heard executive director of racial equity Susanna Davis address this yesterday with Senate gov ops that there are there's some important issues here that need to be born in mind. And this was for those of you who know me I I'm by training a college professor so research is like my idea of fun. And I put some research together to make these these final points here. This is historical back in the middle of the 19th century. The very end capitalism was at its height in the southern United States a very common job description was laborer and the average salary for a laborer at that time was $6 a week. In today's money. $6 a week and that was roughly $312 per year. Now slaves themselves were actually quite expensive. Not because they were people, obviously, but because they were some kind of species of animate wrench, who kept the system of grand capital going. And depending upon the source that you consult they cost between $23,000 and $40,000 of keys. Many plantations in the south had 50 or fewer slaves, but even at 10 and that's a low number obviously even at 10, the at the low figure here means $230,000 or the annual income of just under 767 free laborers 50 slaves at that figure of the 23,000 figure would mean $1,150,000. Another essential cost here expense here would be the slave ships themselves. Many of them being made in Bristol in the UK. They cost in today's money 62,000 pounds. Which is roughly $83,000. Again, the annual salary of about 277 free laborers in the US around 1850. None of these expenses, none of these costs addresses the cost of feeding the slaves, who of course were only nominally people certainly didn't expect, don't talk about the cost of feeding slavers of their families or indeed of maintaining slaves, which had to be cleaned and refitted after the transport of slaves to transport goods such as cotton and sugar back to Europe. As you all know that would be the part of the triangle trade. The point I'm trying to make here is the outlay of capital and an enormous outlay of capital, a huge outlay of capital. It's really easy when you do this sort of research to look and understand exactly why it was everyone went to war. I'm not one of those people who romanticizes the North wanted slavery gone, it did. But there's also an argument here about how much money was at stake. And it was between agrarian capitalism and what was in the North industrial capital. The location of capital here to an economic system of which white supremacy supremacy plays a role is enormous, and the resonances of the system are sadly not anachronistic today. There are huge sums of money that have gone into the perpetuation of racial discrimination. And one can profitably ask what it costs to support the repressive efforts. After the war that went into reconstruction and then even later into Jim Crow again, none of this was free to undo this is also not free and it's not simply a matter as you know of not buying slaves and not buying slave ships. If it were, everything would have looked wonderful after 1862. And there would certainly be no need for this report nor this hearing nor any of this. What there does need to be as this body recognized when it authored act 148 is a move towards understanding through data, the personal impacts of white supremacy and racial disparity upon people in our own systems of justice. But this is going to involve an outlay of capital, just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did and continues to do. There are myriad legal articles concerning the extent to which employers can legally justify discriminatory practices on the basis of cost containment and profit maximization. Put another way, the question would be what financial costs can courts properly impose upon business in the effort to enforce the equal opportunity principle. This is a common argument that's gone over time and time again and has been since 1964 since July of 1964. In the end then, I would like to point out that if we're saying that there's no money. Two things may be said at the same time with that statement and both may at once be true that there's no money, but it may also be a statement that unwittingly supports the very system that this body seeks both to interrogate and to dismantle. And let me try that again, both of those things are true to say that there's no money may at once be true and it may at the same time support the very system that this body seeks to interrogate and dismantle. Actualizing the recommendations that this report makes then becomes a question of making extremely hard, likely intensely creative. I don't envy you. And possibly very, very much unprecedented decisions. But I do want to make it very clear that saying there's no money is in fact an ideological statement when it comes to discussing the dismantling of systems of oppression. Money means that money is being used elsewhere and the choices are made about the dispersal of capital, just as they always have been. What I'd like to exhort us all to do is to if we say there's no money and we all do it, all of us do it. If we say that and if that seems reasonable, I would ask all of us desperately to consider why it seems reasonable. Why is that so. The reason for reasonableness itself, I would hazard of saying there's no money is exactly the thinking that exemplifies racial and systemic disparity. This is systemic racism. It's located in reasonableness. If it weren't reasonable, we wouldn't do it. And that's not about blame. It's just explaining how we think. We're also asserting here, none of this is going to come for free. We tried. We really did try in the panel we weren't deciding, let's just be profligate. We really were thinking as hard as we could about the task we were given, and what would work. None of this is going to come for free, but neither did slave ships. Neither did slaves. And all of this costs the ruling establishment a great deal of money in the first place. Thank you. Thank you a ton. I don't know quite where to begin. I think I appreciate your history lesson. It really puts it into context and perspective. So, and I also really appreciate when we say there is no money. We're really saying where our values are placed. When we say there's no money, and then we may value one entity over another. And we may not always know we're doing it. Right. So I appreciate that. So I'm going to open it up to questions for committee members folks. Thoughts questions. Sarah. Thank you so much a ton. I really good morning. It's great to have you here. And it's great to have you amplify certain parts of this report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And your work. And I tuned into one of the meetings in the. That diagram on page 24 kind of summed up what. What the, what the conundrum is. And, uh, and I really. I know that like, Commissioner Scherling is really committed to trying to figure this out. I mean, it was powerful at that meeting to hear him talk about how they're looking at data. And, um, I think it's really, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's so graphic. I think we call that these days, like really communicates the, the naughtiness of the, of the, of the, of the issue. And so I wanted to ask you a little bit if you don't mind talking about like, what did you learn? You're making a recommendation. Um, and before putting the money question aside, because I think that's a really important question when we talk as well. I mean, I think it communicates our priorities. So, um, and I think the fact that we. That we passed this legislation last year shows that we, this is a priority for the legislature. So, um, and I think it was really interesting that you in this, in your process, you were able to connect with people from other states who are grappling with similar problems. I mean, I think. Um, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, we're talking about 80 different law enforcement entities alone. And that's just the law enforcement and we're talking about law enforcement, our court system and corrections as a whole system. Um, so what did, you know, is there, is there, can you point us towards some of the highlights of what, um, you learn from these folks in Connecticut and what is it? And maybe you can help unpack that for me a little bit. Like where the, what they can and cannot do. And is there. You know, is there, you know, can we dig into the record of your recommendations a little bit? Um, sure. This is really helpful to me. And I'm imagining other committee members too, to just really understand. Um, it would likely be very helpful to talk to crime, the crime research group with this and say, what of this can you shoulder? Um, but there are a lot of other organizations in the state as well, that the panel felt should be consulted there in the appendix. Well, one of, in several of the appendices, uh, there is, uh, give me a moment here. I'm looking, um, they're right there. If you look at appendix five, I'm page 25. Um, there's information regarding the national center on restorative justice. They are a group that is working between the Vermont law school and the University of San Diego. I don't have that wrong. Um, they are doing similar work. Um, and we sort of were putting here a bunch of things together to present to the legislature as possibilities. Um, to give you all as much to look at as possible to allow you to make as good a decision as we could help you to make. Um, there may be more we can do. Um, that was one body crime research group was already in existence. Um, there was a broad feeling in general that this was really too big for one group. Um, that it needed to be a collaborative effort. In fact, um, as somebody said, there's enough here for a lot of folks, uh, to make that tangle more comprehensible and consequently more useful for the goal of dismantling these systems. Um, or the effects in fact, the racially negative effects of these systems. Um, we put in here and I would just direct your attention there as well. If that helps, um, it's one of the reports where the appendices are more plentiful than the actual report. Um, the second appendix on page 18 contains statutes used in the state of Connecticut concerning the collection of relevant data. Um, and the third appendix had, has to do with, um, more statutes used to create that particular, um, office. So both the data collection and the office, those are covered in there and you can look at those and, um, if there are further questions, it may be something and it's come to my attention. I need to be in touch with, uh, the council of state governments to get some more information from Connecticut, for instance, around funding. How did they do that? Um, that did not make it in here. I don't know why. I guess we just, you know, we did as much as we could. You were overloaded. And all by December one. So. Is that help representative? It does. And it, um, and it gives, it helps point us in some directions. I think about where we could dig and where there might be opportunity and some other additional folks to hear from. To ask, um, it's, it's, it's, it's big. It's important. Yeah. So I know we have a few more questions, but one thing I do want to say about the data collection is this has been an ongoing issue for many, many factors. Um, And sometimes the data needs to be collected on the local level. And particularly when you're dealing with the criminal justice system because the feeder system is back out in the communities. Where the initial, uh, charges where the initial arrests occur. And you need to gather the data and then assimilate that as it goes through the system. And we have been struggling with this, um, in many areas. And part of it is the data just isn't collected. Number one, particularly down at those lower levels, they're not connected. They're not collected. And if they are collected, sometimes the IT systems. Are not compatible so that you can't share the data. Um, and then we try to assimilate that with the crime research group, which is Karen Gannett, uh, they're doing a phenomenal job with resources they have. But if the data isn't collected to begin with, and then it can't be shared with the respective parties that need to know that data, that's where your cycle. That's where you're spending your wheels. And that's what you folks also found out in, in the committee that was looking at this. Does the data even exist? Right. That's the fundamental question. And Dr. Joy, Robin Joy was, she just, she kept looking. We came up with those lists of the high impact, high discretion moments. And then she took those lists and went off to look. To find where the data were. If they were, and sometimes they were. And sometimes they weren't. And. I'm actually really pleased that we have this report now, because it makes it very clear where at the end of 2020. Data work. How to find them where they were and whether they exist. So we have some questions. We have Scott, Karen and Kurt. So Scott. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you very time for this. Your, your, your history lesson and, and, and description of the report blew me away. I'm new to this. Committee and, and, and new to thinking about this topic. Systematically. But I will say that this gets at one of the core. Concerns that I have about. Our justice system. So thank you. Just wanted to. I think we also add. It's not just the adult justice system is the juvenile. Because we're entering into a new realm with our juvenile justice system. Be it the Woodside is closed. We're going to be contracting out for some of those services. As well as we've expanded the youthful offender statutes. So that as you. You know, It used to be youthful offenders were folks under the age of 1617. And now we're gradually extending. Extending that to the age of 21. And then there'd be different court procedures. They'd be in different courts and then they'd be housed differently. So there's, there's a lot of fluidity here. Karen and then Kurt. Thank you so much for sharing this this morning. I am a brand new legislator. And so I can say this has been especially eye opening and a great reminder of. Just what are the repercussions or the ripple effect of legislation and how, you know, you can have very good intentions. Like, okay, we want to figure out this data. And then what does that look like on the other side of far as the folks that need to do the work, and how do we do that. And how do we do that. And how do we do the timing of it, the pressures. And so I just really appreciate that piece of it. And thank you for all that you and the panel did to make this happen. Thank you. It just, it just helps me to understand those unintended impacts that we have with it. And I think it also reminds me too that. It's easy to make things a priority, writing it down in legislation of saying, yes, yes, yes, yes. So I think that's what it is. It's a great, a great opportunity for us as far as the work. And so. I just hope I can hold on to these lessons. You know, each minute going forward. Because as you said, like, it's not like we're trying to do this, but that's what's ingrained in us. And so hearing from you, and I hope we hear from others that constantly push back and be like, Hey, remember these things. Because that I think is what our. State our systems are things need. And so I think it's a great opportunity for us as far as, you know, you're bringing that voice here. And I think the other piece too, what you said of, you know, we are spending our money on some data collection now. So we are basically saying that that is more of a priority than. Spending money on data collection for racial disparity pieces. And so for us to reflect on that. And. I think Sarah shared too, like this gives us some opportunity of who we are to talk to folks from Connecticut now and understand their systems and. And that may well be possible, ma'am, that to, to speak with them. I'm going to send an email to my contacts of council of state governments. Probably in a few moments and say to them, this has come up a couple of times in the last 48 hours. And let's just start talking about it that those folks from Connecticut, it would be lovely if we could perhaps get them up here at certain moments. Okay. Just thank you. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Yeah, just a couple of questions. I noticed looking at that diagram of the high level data flow. It's interesting how isolated. It's a little bit different. I don't know what DOC is in that. Because they don't seem to be many arrows connecting. Do C to the other. Data sources. Which obviously is a problem. Is there also. Is there somebody who would be able to actually go over this diagram and explain. The anachronisms and what the things mean. Good luck. Yeah. I think we'll be able to explain that. Without throwing her under the bus. My guests would be Kristen McClure. Yes. Because. Digital services. She's agency of digital service. She's the head. She began the meeting. She's an extraordinarily brilliant and organized person. She start what we started the meeting with this same chart. It looked very neat. And as people talk, she draw a line. And she drew a line and people kept talking. And after about half an hour, I felt my anxiety level grease. And at the end of the meeting, it looked like this. And. I think she. And if you're going to ask what's going on with corrections, of course. You would need to speak with them. I'm trying to remember exactly what went on at that. It's very hard for me to remember the details. If you look at this, I think you could understand why. There was something. If I'm remembering correctly, they were switching to jail tracker. I'm trying to remember how that went. I know they switched their offender management system. They've been switching that for the last year. And they were switching. And so they just became their own. Entity out there because there was no connecting them to anything yet. And again, this is a snapshot of September. Okay. So we can, I can pursue that. Do you know or have an idea of the. Cost of the three people in Connecticut. Is this a. Not yet. No. And that would be why I was just sort of talking about, we need to get them. And I'm going to get in touch with. The council of state governments later today and say, we need to do a deeper dive on that one. Yeah, it would be good to have some sort of even a rough estimate. Are these. A hundred thousand dollars a year per. People that things like that. So good. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Other questions. So a ton. You're going to be going to lots of other committees. Yes. I am. I just want to give the committee a little. Concept or perspective here. This language was in act 48. And act 48 wasn't just worked on for corrections. And it wasn't. It also kind of broadened out to other issues that were percolating out there. So the bulk of the work on putting the language in for this study by the racial disparity group. Was worked on by the house and Senate judiciary. So they're the ones that are really going to be working. On the recommendations of this report. Not. Our committee. So I just want to make that. Clear. And it, in terms of really looking at the data collection and how our IT systems. On the state level. Communicate with each other or do not communicate with each other. Is within the agency of digital services. And that is a committee on energy and technology. That will look at those systems. That's another piece. So eight on that's how it's kind of divided up in the legislature. We kind of work in silos, but we sort of don't. Right. So, you know, the question that Kurt asked about DOC seems to be, hanging out there. That may be where we would have some. Focus or some input. But for the bigger issue of data collection and where it's coming from. It's not in our committees. Per view to, to do that. It's more in the judiciary committees. And maybe energy and technology. Right. Not to say that. We shouldn't be aware of it and participate in some form. So I don't want to have the expectations of committee members. That we're going to be doing as a committee, a deep dive into this because it's really not our jurisdiction. But the information. That pertains to corrections. Is really in our jurisdiction. For that. So I just wanted to lay that out. For folks. And I know with DOC. With data, even connecting with. The department of public safety. In terms of sex offender registration. Because the department of public safety lists. It is the one that houses the sex offender list. That's public. So the information they get is from the department of corrections. And a few years back, there were some real issues in terms of transmitting that information. So, you know, those, those are the areas that we can focus in on. For us. Questions. Thoughts. Sarah. It was another question I had relating to that, Madam chair is, I noticed in this report a ton that there was a bit about community justice. And how it seems to me that, you know, I had assumed that because they were, their funding comes through the department of corrections that their data systems would be integrated. But it, from reading this, it's like, it really is. Another example of a separate system. That's. And is that, I just want to make sure that I'm reading that correctly. Thank you. Yeah. And that's where you have those breakdowns. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I, with our local community justice center. I anecdotally, you know, I asked them, I said, well, oh, you must track. Some of, you know, the outcomes of the folks that you're working with. And they said. No. Not, we don't, we're not asked to share that information up. And it's, it's because, you know, as we've moved into this digital world, it's how we design software. Is complex. And we've heard about that with, you know, we funded this committee through the capital bill funded. The judiciary in their, their system. And we heard how complex that is. And, and to learn that that system is not speaking to the other systems. It's just like, you know, and we had a moment. I mean, there was, and we all did it. I did it too. I did it. I mean, I, you know, we all got lost in the weeds on the panel. I mean, we were like, well, if this did this, and then, you know, you made this do. And finally somebody said to me, and I had been thinking, why are we doing this in any classroom I've ever had. When a conversation like that breaks out, I throw up my hands and I go, this is an example of pooling. I mean, this room knows what they're talking about. Could we please stop talking? Thank you. That's a legislative committee never gets to that point. You know, and I, and we just, and I remember writing an email to the whole panel going, we got to stop. If we keep, we don't know anything about data. We, we, none of us know that. We don't know anything about data. We don't know anything about data. We, we, none of us know that much. And we're all like, oh, well, if we just do, we don't know. Stop talking. And that actually was a real breakthrough moment. And I said, I'm doing it too because I was like, you know, I'm smart. I can figure it out. No. No. And that's the thing. We all use these systems all the time. It gives you a sense of control. It gives you a sense of facility, a sense of ability, but actually fundamentally there's something else going on here. And that's when we went, now there need to be experts here because there are people who actually do this. That's what they do. They make data systems talk to each other. And it was so clear to us back, as I said in 2019, when we're talking about racial disparity, it's just critical. It's just critical. Good advice. I tend to know that what, whenever we get into the weeds, we don't know what we're talking about. Sometimes. Yeah. And it's tempting, but sometimes you have to go, okay, stop. Just stop. This is more of a statement going way back. 2014. In that era, when I worked for corrections, the department of corrections could not talk. To probation and parole. Now how silly is that? And I'm really sure. Yes. We had two separate systems. Probation had a totally different system. We had two different systems. We had two different systems. We had two different systems. And the department of corrections. I worked at the prison. And we could not talk to probation and parole that we were letting this person out or how this person was doing. Unless we just toss to case workers. But there is far as electronic. There's nothing. There was nothing. So, I mean, that was basic. And it was scary. Thank you. And thank you for all your work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Is really mind blowing. If you stop and think about it. So, but thank you so much. On behalf of the panel. Thank you. So this is why we have the agency of digital services. Thank you. Yes. To kind of coordinate because everyone was doing it on their own and replacing their IT systems. In the individual departments. So, So, Kind of put a lead person into, into. Saying what IT system or software they needed to have. They assigned that. Mostly to folks who had more time on there. In their workload. And said, okay, you're now in charge. And it could be someone that had no background. And IT or software. So that's what has been happening over the last. 20 years. And so, And so, And so that's what has been happening over the last 14 years. And so actually we've said this is going to be more coordinated on a state level. Therefore the agency of digital services. Was established. And then folks. Were more. Juditious in terms of who would be the managers for the software systems that you really need people with background and knew what they were doing. And this is why within the legislature in the last. on energy and technology because there was no standing committee that really looked at our IT systems as a whole in state government. It was broken up between where the money was being appropriated, which was Appropriations Committee and this committee because everybody looked to capital dollars to fund those because there wasn't enough general fund dollars. Sometimes government operations got involved, but usually it was the Appropriations Committees and a little bit on this committee. So that's some of the shift that has been occurring over the last four years or so to try to get a handle on this. But again, I go back. I mean, if you talk to Karen Gannett in the crime research group to even get the data sometimes is very difficult because the data doesn't exist. Oh, and they get frustrated beyond. I mean, I don't know how Karen and Robin Joy do what they do. I mean, I would just start screaming and running somewhere. I mean, it's just it's insane the amount of the number of roadblocks that get put in the way of doing their job that they need to negotiate. It's crazy. It's tough. So and you know, hey, Ton, it might also be good to reach out to our Energy and Technology Committee when you can catch a breath because I know you're going to a lot of different committees, but it might be good to reach out to the chair representative Tim Brighlin because this is really a lot in their wheelhouse in terms of data collection and IT systems and communicating back and forth because a lot of it also is your IT systems are incapable of communicating. And you may update a system like we did in judiciary that Sarah mentioned with the case management, thinking that that would communicate with public safety, communicate with state's attorneys, with the defense council, with DOC, with everybody. Well, their system may have that capacity, but the systems of the other folks may not have that capacity. So then they then it's a domino effect for that. So you may want to reach out to Energy and Technology Committee on the house side when you can catch a breath. Thank you very much. Anything else before we finish up with this? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Aetan. Good luck. Be safe, everyone. Yes, together someday. Really? Bye-bye. Take care. Bye-bye. Okay. So we've got some time. I don't know if people want to continue working or take a break and come back. I just want to spend some time as a committee just sort of talking where people, just kind of what you're thinking about. And also thoughts on it's going to be a little difficult because you haven't seen the capital budget in terms of testimony, but Sarah and Mary and Phil and I are going to sit down when we finish our work, committee work this morning and set up a schedule for next week. So I don't know if folks want to take a break and come back in 10 minutes or continue working and finish up. What are people thinking? I'll take a quick minute 10 break. Want to do a 10 minute break? Let's do a 10 minute break so we can feed our cats and our dogs. This is what they gave DOC detainees. It's broken down by facilities in the bail amount as of yesterday. So there's a total of, and these are just in Vermont. When you look at the out-of-state beds, you're not going to, in Mississippi, you're not going to have detainees in those beds. Those are all sentence folks. So this does not include also your federal folks. So of the 290 detainees, 194 of them are held without bail. So that leaves you not quite 100 folks. So 20 of them do not have any bail at all, but they're being held for maybe appropriate housing or the responsible adult. That's the stipulation from the court, not DOC. And then for folks of $100,000 bail or probably more, you've got that broken down, 10,000 and less than 1,000. So I don't know if people want to do a deeper dive than this or you have questions about this. If that answers the question, I'm open to any thoughts or interpretations here. Cameron and then Scott. Yeah, so for me, looking at this, I think this speaks to what's come up before is like, what is the data not sharing? Like, I think we've got to that of, you know, why are certain bails set for some reason? Like maybe there's a good reason some are set for certain amounts. Why are people not paying? Is it because of funds? Is it because of choosing not to? I think it raises a lot of questions for me. So I see this and I see it as a piece of data. And for me, it's not a full story that it's sharing. So just raises questions and curious. It's a part of our system, the bail system. And I think we should be curious about it. But I'm not certain what story this tells in particular. Okay. Scott? Yes, I would say the same thing as Karen. And one of my concerns about bail is where's the line between ensuring an accused person showing up at court and it being used as in effect debtor's prison because people don't have money. So I need to know more about it. That's just the question in my head. So the courts set the bail? Right, I understand. But implicit bias, we all including judges look at a set of facts and consciously or unconsciously impose our own biases on those facts. And so I guess as Karen says, what is this data telling us? Or what is it not telling us? Other folks? That's Michelle? Yeah, one thing that I wonder that feels like would be useful to go along with this chart would be what kind of offenses are we looking at here? Because it's very different to have, you know, in terms of somebody who's, well, I mean, it says that held without bail is 194 individuals and bail is only supposed to be used in Vermont as a source of making sure that somebody comes who's a flight risk. So I wonder how is it they determined that those 194 individuals were a flight risk? Is it because they had such was their crime of a nature? How do they determine that? Yeah, and I guess I'm also curious in terms of the those that have the zero bail that they where they have the example released to a responsible adult. So what does that mean? Is that somebody with a developmental disability or mental health disability and they don't have a safe place to release those people to I mean, if that's true, then that would be a useful thing to know too, because prison isn't an appropriate place to be keeping 20 people if they have a chronic condition and need some other kind of supports. Those are both things I would I would wonder about. Anything else? Yeah. So I'm curious if this is a house corrections issue or really house judiciary, I don't mean to be dismissive of the the issue. I'm where I would come in from the perspective of the our committee's work is, is there a program or a policy, like, you know, lack of reentry housing that we could be addressing through our policy work? That's where my focus would want to be. I think there's something to look at here. But I if if the I think when we the council and state governments in their work, they do unpack this a little bit and I'm anticipating that we might get to some of that. But that's the the judges in the courts decide about the bail and that's that is the work of house and senate judiciary. And but I am interested in knowing, you know, are there programs within our facilities that are lacking that we could bolster to address some of the needs here? So some other folks? Linda, did you have something I see your hand going? Yes, thank you. I'm trying to stay muted as much as I possibly can. Regarding the issue coming to our committee, I think it's important for us to understand that on free trial cases, you know, the Department of Corrections does have a say on this. So on whether or not there's going to be home detention or not. So and also throughout the statute, the way it's written, it's a bit confusing. So it doesn't just belong in judiciary, it does overlap. So I think the key is what is the question we want to answer to that would determine whether or not it belongs in our committee or not. Okay. Other folks? So this is what I'm thinking. And I think Sarah brings out a good point in that we need to understand some of the mechanics behind how bail is set. And then, of course, DOC is the one that's responsible for housing the person. And then that's taking up beds. And then what can be done from the DOC perspective in understanding folks who are being held due to lack of bail or can't make bail. And before I continue, I see another hand. Marsha. Some of this bail is pretty high, so it must be for something extreme. I mean, when you get up to a hundred K or even on over 10, that's a lot of money. So it has to be for something that's pretty good reason why to keep in there. That's just my opinion, but that's pretty high money in my book. So this that feeds in a little bit to my thinking, it might be good to get Bryn or Eric Fitzpatrick, someone from Ledge Council to come in and walk us through briefly on the bail statute because it's not as simple as it's portrayed. There's a lot of layers to it. And bail sometimes is also negotiated between the defense and the prosecution for that. So it would be good to see if we could get Bryn or Eric Fitzpatrick or Michelle Childs, someone to just give us a brief briefs overview of the bail statutes. And then it might be good to have Judge Greerson come in as well and speak to us how bail is set and how the judges approach it. And that might help a little bit in understanding. And I don't know if it would be worth at the same time to reach out to DOC just to have somebody in the wings in case there's questions there on DOC. So let's see if we can do that just to give a 30,000 foot view. And we're not the ones that are going to get into changing bail, but we are the entity DOC that houses folks. Now, I also want to put out there too that we also have a system that there's credit for time served where people who are detainees for every day they are a detainee gets counted towards day served when they are eventually sentenced. So that may play in as well in terms of people not moving through the system because if they know they're going to be convicted down the road, they're putting in their time now. So that plays into. So it's not always as it seems on the surface, which you'll find is true in many arenas in the legislature. So let's see if we can schedule that for some time next week because that may help. And then that may help us figure out why some of the folks are not moving through the system and particularly those that need to be released to a responsible adult. And I know through sometimes with constituent work throughout the years that there are times that there may seem to be a responsible adult there willing, but they have burnt out and unfortunately the services everywhere else has fallen apart and their family member ends up in corrections because they can't deal with the issues anymore. And then there's no place for the person the detainee to go. So that plays into. Sarah? Just part of this, could we hear, I think it's the B1 status, right? Because I really wanted to understand how a lack of housing is impacting the detainees. Well, it's not just detainees. Your B1s are also your sentence folks. Yes, thank you. How people are not moving through the system are being held for lack of housing. I'm anticipating that we'll be getting to that. So we can have just a brief overview of what the B1 status and how that all plays out. Okay. Karen? Yes, just appreciating the complexity of the system and how continuing, Alex, are continuing to navigate us to like where is our lane in it because it's very easy to go over into the judiciary or I'm assuming you can go bops. And so things that I'm curious about with this data too, I feel like it's relevant because detainees, we have this unified system. So everybody's mixed together. And I think there's pros and cons, probably mostly cons of having everybody mixed together. So really understanding the detainee population because they are mixed with folks who are sentenced. And so what are the implications of that? So some of the things I'm thinking, and this is just thinking back to Atom's testimony, what is the race data on the folks that are being held without bail or with bail or gender? Some of those other things? Because is that inform us of how we should be thinking about serving the detainees or their huge disparities? So again it's that getting to that bigger story of what's happening here. But I think yes, judiciary area is setting the bail, but then we have the population in our systems that are now also with sentenced. And for us to just understand how are we best serving the folks that are there? Okay, so that would be a DOC issue on that one. So I'm just thinking what there was that. And then there was further data in terms of wanting to know what the type of offenses there were for these bail amounts. And then the race and gender data of the detainees, that would be corrections. Michelle? Yeah, so I guess I have a question kind of related to Sarah mentioned about housing. And I would think that this would come under our umbrella in terms of looking at both you know, institutions funding the buildings that are available and also the programs that are available. So if people, because of bail status are stuck in the system for a certain time and aren't able to move out, that feels to me like it's part of what we would look at. And another thing that might be related and I mean the reason I'm fleshing this out a little bit is just that on the other end of the spectrum there also are individuals who have done their time and are ready to be released. And it's still hard or close to being released in terms of parole, but it's really hard to find housing because there just aren't appropriate housing placements. So I think at some point for us to have a conversation with somebody who works on and looks at housing for people when they come out, that would be really useful. Because one of the things we might need to look at at some point is do we need to create more step down housing, you know, for people that aren't going to be able to leave and enter a market-based apartment and don't have all their ducks in a row. Because having somebody stuck in prison for a longer time because they have some challenges that might be making it hard to rehouse them, that does kind of, it feels like that is our problem and it's also a problem for the system to have somebody stuck who is eligible to move on. That ties in a little bit with what Sarah was saying. Other thoughts? So we'll work on some scheduling just to have a brief overview of what the bail statutes are and then we can talk with Judge Greerson in terms of how bail is set and the factors that go into that and then look into a deeper dive into the detainee population in terms of what type of those offenses are that then leads to those high bail amounts and explaining more about folks being released to a responsible adult, what that's all about, and race and gender data of the detainees. And also for detainees, what's the issue with housing not being available? So that's what we can work with with DOC. Kurt? I'm just wondering whether, I mean this issue has been around a little bit. I'm wondering whether something has already been done on this and whether Representative Lalonde or somebody would be able to tell us whether judiciary or the sentencing commission or somebody who's already requested a bunch of reports and could provide some information. I think it's better just to look at the statute and figure out what the statute is. I don't want to do a deep, deep dive into it because as Sarah says, it's not our jurisdiction. It's more house judiciary, but we need to understand some of the moving pieces and then how it plays into DOC. That's our linkage, just the DOC piece. I think we need to understand the mechanics of how people get on bail and what that's entailed. True, but I mean if we're talking about looking at various bail levels and why people aren't moving through the system and race and gender issues, somebody might have already looked into that fairly recently. And DOC may have all that data. Yeah, as well judiciary might. I don't know, judiciary would or not, but DOC would probably have that more because they're housing them in their facilities. Okay. They have the numbers here. They have the numbers here for facilities, so that would give them, I think, more access to the data than judiciary. Yeah, okay. I can ask Martin. Yeah. Scott? I'm off mute already. I'm just thinking more about what Michelle said and wondering what is our current universe of step-down housing, of halfway housing for people coming out of incarceration and what is the state's role in facilitating that? And I don't know the answers to these questions. When I was working in energy efficiency and apartment housing, we did do some projects with halfway houses, but I'm curious to know what else exists out there and how well we're trying to make that available. Okay. That's a deeper dive. Okay. That may be the following week. Other thoughts? So that gives Sarah and Mary and myself some direction in terms of scheduling with Phil for next week. And so our bulk of our work is going to really be shifting to the capital budget more so than corrections. So this will be, we're not going to be spending quite as much time on corrections issues. I just want to warn the committee about that for the next few weeks until probably March. And today we're going to be discussing Senator Sears, Representative Grat, myself and the vice-chair. So going to be meeting to discuss Justice Reinvestment 2, the report that has come out on really doing a deeper dive on credit for time served on probation, which was an issue that this committee dealt with a lot last year. So there's some recommendations there and some proposed legislation and we'll probably start in the Senate, which means we wouldn't get it until after March. And then there's the issue of behavioral health in our communities about our other systems really coming up to the plate to provide services for offenders who are re-entering. And that ties into what Scott was saying about available housing and programming and also with Michelle about available housing and programming that's available and that people tend to always look to DOC to provide that when it's a real systems approach and what some recommendations may be in that arena. Again, we need to discuss where some of this is going to, where the work is going to start. So it's going to be in the House or the Senate and where they're overlaps, particularly with our committee, with Judiciary Committee. And the way sometimes we've approached this is there's a big piece of legislation like what you saw on Act 148. The items that really pertain to DOC policy, we worked on those sections and the other sections were worked on by the other respective committees. So that's what we're trying to figure out what the land is going to be. So we'll know more later on today on that. So Phil, you can probably post this to the testimony that we received yesterday and then people can figure out how to file it. Okay. We do have a couple of bills, three bills that have come in and I know that, Kurt, you mentioned your bill about increasing the salary of the chair of the parole board. Can you give us just a brief little summary of that? This is kind of off the hip or do you want to wait a little bit? Oh, no, I can do that one. It's pretty quick. If you look at the bill, you notice that it crosses out a couple of dates and puts in all it does is cross out a date and put in a salary amount and replaces those two by looking at the changes that the bill requires. It appears that the salary for the chief or the chair of the parole board has not been changed since 2006. We are putting more and more responsibility and duties to the parole board through Justice Reinvestment 2. So what this is is I just picked a number out of the air for a new salary, but basically it's a hope that what we could do is look into this bill and use that as a way to look into probation and parole, into the parole board, the amount, the kind of work that they do, and what the proper reimbursement is for them. I would gather that the chair puts in about 20 hours a week, just from my quick question about it. I don't know whether that's going to continue or not, whether that will increase. When I contacted the chairs, the administrative assistant, Gername slips me right now. Ames? Mary Beth Amesworth. I contacted her just to find out if she had some very general information about how much time was spent, and she said that basically they would also like to know about getting more reimbursement for the people, the other members of the parole board, and maybe some of the staff, but I don't know how the financing of that is carried out. So basically I'd like to look into the financing of the people on the parole board. So I'm trying to find your bill, and I saw that we had our bills posted, and now I'm going to H59? Yeah, I'm going to our website or legislative page, and I've hit date, and then I hit bill, and nothing shows up, and I know in the past it did. Isn't there a bills in and out of committee? There is. Where? It's where on our website because I don't see it on my web page. I mean, I've seen it before. It's right on the very top. Okay. Yep. Okay. So it's age 59. Yep. So if you look at it, if you click on it, it's really about one paragraph. Changes 20,500 to 30,000 and changes the date from 2006 to 2021. Okay. Okay. And whether I mean this opens up a whole issue is whether the chair should be whether his salary, her salary should be tied to something else, any inflation or CPI or the pay of constitutional officers or something like that, or whether it should continue to be set by statute when somebody gets around looking at it. So I think this leads into a real discussion on the parole board and their responsibility, how the parole board is structured. Exactly. Their salary, their pay comes through their budget, comes through the Department of Corrections budget. So that $160 million per year, part of that goes to the parole board, though the parole board is an independent entity, though they're funded through the Department of Corrections operating budget. So it's general fund dollars. So I think what we should do is try to get in Dean George, who's the chair of the board and Marianne Ainsworth. Marianne or Mary Beth, I think it's Marianne. Yeah, Marianne. Ainsworth and that's going to be down the road because they're so busy that it may be a few weeks before they're available. And then that will help us determine if we want to work on this bill or not because it will have to be dealt with in appropriations because you're dealing with increasing, it's a budget amount that you're increasing, general fund budget for that. So we'll schedule Dean George and Marianne Ainsworth. I think it's Mary Jane. Mary Jane. Well, it's Mary Jane's, Mary Beth or Marianne. Mary something. I know who she is. I can picture her. And then that if we can get an overview of the parole board. And once we understand that, that will help us understand presumptive parole and how that plays in. Yep. Okay. And then then we can keep this piece of legislation in mind. Does that make sense to the committee? Sounds good to me. Sounds good. Okay. Doki. Can I ask a quick question related to it, Alice? Sure. Oh, sorry. So I'm actually, maybe you know, or maybe Kurt does, has there been a problem filling this role to be the head of the parole board? I mean, or is this more just like it feels like we should honor the role with more compensation? Because I know they were talking about certain areas is really hard to keep staffing. Is it about that? Or is it more just about raising it because maybe it's due? Kurt? For me, it's just raising it because it needs to be done. I'm not sure how difficult it is and how it's a how the position is filled or how long Dean George has been in it. It's a governor's appointee. All the board members are appointees of the governor. And we've set out and statute the makeup of the board and the responsibilities and their training. And they serve for X number of years. And then the board board is a five member board, I believe, with two or three alternates that can fill in for those folks that sometimes can't make the hearings. And they used to travel a lot around the state, they would go physically to all the facilities as well as the one in Mississippi. And that's where you really need the alternate positions there to help. And now they do everything remote. So we have three folks with questions or comments. Lynn, Marcia, and Sarah. I just wanted to say you couldn't ask for harder working people than the Pro Board. Being there and seeing them come to the facility with all their piles of paper and they definitely need a raise. Definitely. And they are so thorough and so good. And they go into every detail you could possibly think of. They also interview or talk with some of the, if it's a sexual thing, they will talk to the person who was sexually assaulted. They will have them in a separate area and speak to them. So they get everybody's idea of what's going on and whether this individual has served enough time for whatever it was that he or she did. So they definitely need a raise. Thank you. Sorry about that. Marcia and then Sarah. I would echo everything Lynn said. They come into our committee, they're so prepared and so thorough and informative. And for what I see what they get and stuff, I definitely agree with Kurt that this should be taken care of. And Sarah and Kurt. Just, I just want to say, you know, I think with Justice Reinvestment too, we heard last session, I mean, the bill will be, there'll be more people moving through the parole board is I think the hope and that there, I'd like to hear, you know, just how that workflow is going to increase separate from the pay. But I think we value their work and we've been really fortunate to have good people doing it, but it's almost like folks on it are almost like volunteering their time. So it's kind of a big question, I think throughout throughout our state, we heard from Eitan this morning, you know, he's volunteering as the chair of RDAF. I think I'm not at all opposed to people being compensated for their time. But I think one of the things that we deal with as legislators also is looking like around equity across across all of these things. So that's where it gets challenging. Because I think of Eitan, for example, he's already been into how many committees he's, and he's doing this, you know, where he's doing this as a volunteer, essentially. So not to not to diminish what Kurt's doing, I think it's real, this bill is very interesting and important. But those are kind of the complexity of the issues around a very appears on the surface to be a very simple bill. Nothing is simple. There's no simple bill in the legislature. Kurt? My other concern about this also was that with presumptive parole, if something goes wrong, a person is released, and crime occurs, or horrendous crime occurs, where in the past it might have come down to people blaming DOC saying, why did you release this person? With presumptive parole, it'll come down on the parole board and say, why did you release this person? And so that shift of responsibility to me was significant and should be taken into account in the work that they do. So these are all valid concerns. So we'll we'll reach out to Dean. And as I said, we'll just get an overview of the board, the board makeup, their function, their processes, and then get into the presumptive parole anticipated workload. Does that make sense? Okay. It's 11 o'clock. I'd like to have some time for you folks to at least have time off of Zoom, maybe get caught up on some constituent work or some other work. This afternoon, we are going to just work 15 minutes after we get off the floor. We will be working on the budget adjustment for upstairs appropriations. And I sent out last night an email to all of you with a connection on what we're looking at. So that would be good, Phil, to post to our webpage. Are you talking about the language of the BAA? That's our Okay. So the one of the language we're looking at is the use of 133 State Street, which is on page two. And we're going to have page two. Yeah, page two. We'll have representative Jim Harrison joining us, who is the person on Appropriations Committee that will be working on DOC. I mean, on BGS. And I think we also have representative Mark Higley, who's on Government Operations Committee coming in as well, because they are interested in this and have some concerns about the Governor's proposed language. So we'll be dealing with that and hopefully make a recommendation to appropriations this afternoon. And then there's also the 5 million plus shift in DOC money that will be going down to the bottom line from DOC because some of this got backfilled with the coronavirus money. So we're going to have representative Squirrel come in on that piece and hear back from Mary and Kurt on that because we'll need to make a recommendation. And I believe, and I haven't, this is not in our jurisdiction, but I believe that there may be some DCF money going, I want to say this without looking at the spreadsheet and language. But I know there were conversations occurring. I'm looking, scrolling through the language here. Yeah, I don't see it in the language. I thought there was discussions occurring in October, November, September, October, November and December about the replacement of services that's offered at Woodside that was offered at Woodside and for the state to contract out with that. And the Department of Children's and Family Services has been working on this with a company called Beckett that provides programming and housing for folks in the juvenile justice arena. So there is a contract that they're negotiating with Beckett for Beckett to provide state services to some of our juveniles who are in the justice system. Beckett owns a facility, a building in Wells River. And the building needs renovation to become facility secure. And the cost that's being discussed is about 3.5 million to do that. So the negotiations that have been going on, I don't know what the status is at this point, is that the state would pay for those renovations to the building. And the thinking would be that it comes out a DCF budget, not the capital budget. And this is important to us for a couple of reasons to keep an eye on this, because number one, if the program, if we do enter into the contract with the program and it's successful, we've made the decision to tear down the Woodside building to put in the middle sex secure residential. And that was really contingent on these contract negotiations with Beckett. And once folks felt comfortable with that gave the okay to go ahead. So that gave the okay to BGS to really start digging into putting in more, get beyond the schematic design documents for the secure residential at the Woodside site. They were on hold until that decision was made. So when that decision was made, BGS then kicked into gear on what to do with the building, tear it down, what they can salvage, and start going into final design documents. So I bring this up about the other renovations at Beckett's facility. Because my concern, and I shared this with the commissioner of DCF, is any of this eventually going to come on to the capital bill for renovations at a privately run facility with state dollars from the capital budget. He has assured me it would not that it would come out of their own budget. And the under the thinking was there might be some money in budget adjustment upstairs, just to the first half of the 3.5. And I pretty sure I saw that on the spreadsheet for budget adjustment up there that there was like 1.5 million to go to Beckett for that. And the remainder would come out of their FY22 general fund budget. So I'm just putting that out there, because this also deals with what is the role of BGS in working with DCF, in working with a private entity to renovate a building with our state dollars. And what are the insurances there, if the program doesn't work, how do we recoup our 3.5 million dollars, if at all. So I'm just putting that out there, because just to be prepared in case those discussions in February and March take a turn to involve our committee. I just don't know at this point, but I'm just putting it out there. And that shows to you folks how a decision made one place impacts how you move forward in another decision for that. So questions? Scott? So if I understand correctly, Alice, the decision to move forward with these negotiations with Beckett has enabled a decision to be made about tearing down the facility at Woodside or is that still pending? Nope, the decision was made. We're going forward with Beckett and we're going forward with tearing down Woodside. So even though we haven't figured out where the money's coming from or agreed to pay. Well, Department of Children and Family Services and their negotiations. And the way it was presented to the Justice Oversight Committee as well as Joint Fiscal Committee was that the intent is in the negotiations with Beckett and Department of Children and Family Services that the state would pay for those renovations. Okay, so we're committed to that. Well, I mean the state is committed to that. Well, they haven't finished negotiating or signed off the contract yet. I don't believe. I'm not sure on that. Okay. Sounds like we're sounds like if we're going ahead with the other parts of the dominoes that you just mentioned that that were in effect committed. Thank you. They're negotiating the contract still. I believe DCF and Beckett. And also Beckett has to work with the community because they're changing the use of that building. And if you're going to make a building, building secure, you're going to have to put up a fence. And anytime you put up a fence around a building, neighbors get concerned. Michelle? Yeah, I'm just wondering in terms of Woodside, you mentioned that it's going to be torn down and then the new facility will be rebuilt. I don't actually know that much about the physical building of Woodside. Is it that it's an extraordinarily bad condition or it's just totally not appropriate? Like is there a reason not to just renovate to make it to the other purposes? Because I don't know about the building and I could use a little bit of background to understand why we want to tear it down and start over. We have a whole different population that's going to be housed there. There's some real issues with the layout of the building in terms of programs that are needed. And part of that building wasn't appropriate for the youth. And it's certainly not appropriate for folks who are in a situation of mental health issues. And we were, even if the youth were staying there, we were going to do some major renovations and additions. So you get to a point in construction where you look at your building and the proposed new use of the building. Is it adaptable? Can you renovate for that? What are the costs? And sometimes it's much more efficient and cheaper to build new, tear down and build new than try to renovate. And that's where we were with the building. Okay. I hadn't heard that before, so thanks. That's helpful for me to understand. And the other piece that played into this, we did not have to purchase land and go through local permitting because that can take a year to two years to get through that process. So we're already on the land. It was zoned for agency of human services for use for that. So the state felt that it would not be a huge hurdle with the community for permitting issues. So the 4.5 million that you saw on the spreadsheet for Woodside, part of that money initially was there to purchase land. And so you figure if you're purchasing land, you're going to be close to almost a million dollars by the time you're done just for the purchasing and some of the design documents for the land. So by using land that we already own saves money on that project cost. Sarah. Yeah, just for Michelle's benefit, I mean, just Alice is doing a really good job trying to like summarizing this. This was, this, this issue is, it was, is super complicated. And we heard a lot of testimony about it. And I think we'll, I'm sure we're going to hear more from DCF when we work through the capital bill. So just know that it's, it's not the, it's a, as Alice will often say, like we, in this case, we look at the buildings, but what happens at the building is with the policy committees inform that work. And, and, and also during the off session, it really was joint justice oversight that had a lot in the, in the joint fiscal. But it's also important to note that like we really have a small number of youth justice involved youth. And the facility that Woodside was was for many more kids and it would just became really outdated and outmoded. And the building did not reflect our current philosophies around justice involved youth. So that was a big important part of the discussion. And at the same time, the other piece of the puzzle is that we're looking for a replacement of the secure residential facility that has been, that was washed away during the Irene and has been temporarily located in not so temporary trailers that are really inadequate. A number of the committee members went to visit and saw it. So it's a real, a real need as well. And that program and that building is going to be relocated to the Woodside site. Just I'm sharing this, it's really fat. They're, they're, it's all layers, layers just to give you a sense of the, these are interrelated pieces of need in the state and, and how we're working with it. So I'm happy to also share this. There's some, there's some really good, there was some really interesting testimony during the off session. And I'm sure we're going to hear some more from if Alice says anything to do with it, we'll be hearing some more on this. The other issue too, why we have to get out of mental sex, it only houses about six or seven folks. So then you get a backup on the state hospital where the state hospital was to house level one acuity. And once a person is stabilized, then they can move to at least a lesser restrictive facility or program. And we don't have those, we don't have enough beds in those programs. And one of the issues with our middle sex to a residential is the way the trailers are structured and the spacing. There are some emergency involuntary, I think it's EIPs, emergency involuntary procedures or involuntary emergency procedures that are still a part of the delivery of services and not at the state hospital, but in another facility that is not quite as secure as the state hospital. And some of the folks that do become stabilized at the state hospital still need a level of supervision that would entail these emergency involuntary procedures. And the middle sex trailers do not provide the space or the opportunity for that. So we worked with the committee on healthcare to really work with those emergency procedures so that when the new secure residential facility is built, DMH will be able to put those procedures in place so that then also helps moving folks from to our secure facility. And we're input, we're putting in 16 beds instead of the six or seven beds. So that will help our flow of folks through the mental health system. The other, the reason we're staying at 16 beds is part of the thinking, though it's not totally, is if you go over 16 beds, the federal government, the CMS, which looks at Medicare and Medicaid, indicate that if you're over 16 beds, they term that facility an IMD, which is an Institute of Mental Disease, which means you don't qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. So there's a lot of layers to this. And, you know, the buildings, people think, oh, it's easy, you just put up a building. Well, you got to know what the policy is going to be before you even start thinking about the building. And my mantra is if you don't have a policy and you put something in a building, the building is going to determine the policy. And that's where we are with our correctional facilities because our facilities are limited. So it's determining the policy of what DOC can do or not do. So, Marcia. Yeah, Sarah said we went over to see that in middle sex. And believe me, you walk in there and the whole building rocks. It's a sad situation that anyone has to live in that place. So if they get a chance to move to Woodside, they're going to think they move to the Taj Mahal. Scott? I'm wondering about the mental health of other folks in the correctional, incarcerated integrations facilities. Do we have some category of people with mental health issues in the rest of the corrections? And how does that play into this? And what are the mental health categories and all of that background that I don't know? So how does it play in with the skewer residential? Yes. To what extent are we using mental health? Right. I agree with that. We need to also look. They could be the same clientele or they may not be. People who are in our mental health system, state hospitals, secure residential or under the custody of the commissioner of mental health. The folks who are incarcerated are there through the court system in a criminal, usually a criminal situation. I say that carefully. And so they're under the custody of the commissioner corrections. There are folks with severe mental health issues who are incarcerated and they are sentenced, some of them. They're sentenced. So they're not going to serve their sentence in a secure mental health facility. There are other folks that are not raised to the level of SFIs, severely functionally impaired, which is a DOC definition. It's in statute. A few years ago, we did some work in this committee with the Department of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health to enter into an MOU for how DMH would help DOC with folks who are incarcerated that have mental health issues. So we can get into that. It's a really deep issue. It's not simple. And there are real concerns about housing folks with mental health issues, severe mental health issues in an incarcerated setting. It is not an appropriate setting. The question is what systems need to be put in place at the front end so someone doesn't escalate to the point of having criminal behavior that then kicks you into the other system? That's the issue. And once you're in the criminal avenue, it's really hard to get out of it. So what can you do at the front end to prevent people from escalating to the point that the only alternative is to arrest them? And then you start that vicious cycle of the criminal system. When the time comes, I look forward to learning more about all of this. Yeah, it's complicated. Yes, members who have been on the committee know it's really complicated. So we've done a lot of work on that. It doesn't mean that it's a panacea by any means, but I think we have to be clear that folks who are sentenced to incarceration are not going to be serving their term at the mental health secure residential facility. That would be pretty clear. They do go to the state hospital at times, a person who's incarcerated sentenced or even a detainee. If they're in such a severe mental health crisis, they will go to the state hospital for stabilization. And then they returned back to that correctional facility. And we can take testimony at some point from our medical mental health contractor and DOC to see how they are working within the system. And then that's the place where we could ask some of these deeper questions for that. But that's going to be down the road. Yeah, I'll wait. My head's already spinning. Thank you. It's going to spin some more. I was going to just say you might want to hold on to your head because it is going to spin more. Wait till you get into wastewater projects. That explanation about her. That's too funny because I was saying that to my husband this morning. I says we've been doing DOC, but wait till they get into wastewater. When do they get into wastewater? Eric Blatt lives in our committee. You'll see we'll seem easy. So anything else before we wrap it up so that Sarah, Mary, and I can stay with Phil and start doing our scheduling for next week? Anything else before we're done? And then we'll kick in 15 minutes after we get off the floor and then quickly have a quick afternoon, I hope. And then tomorrow's Friday. Okay. Thank you folks who are streaming in. We appreciate you listening in to our committee discussion and we will be back this afternoon, 15 minutes after we get off the floor.