 Welcome back folks. This is quarter four House Institutions Committee. We're finishing up our day and scheduling. It is Wednesday, February 16th. We are going to be taking up the investment dollars for Justice Ring Investment 2. It's allocating our out-of-state debts. We have a total of about $700,000. That's why I thought $777,000. It's out-of-state bed savings over two fiscal years and Appropriations Committee has been asking us a little bit to weigh in on this. We have looked at four areas. We have made any decisions, but we have taken testimony and looked at domestic violence intervention programming, transitional housing, mental health support services, and the Appender Management System for Data Collection. We've had some conversations with the individual folks within those sectors, as well as with the Department of Corrections. And last week, the Department indicated that they themselves would be looking at these dollars and where maybe they should be invested. And they have a proposal that they've been working on, and this is what they're going to present to us this afternoon. So there is a document on our webpage, many web page, for folks at home or are you tubing in, streaming in, you can access that on our committee webpage. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Demo, Demo, and we also have Matt DiAgostino here, Deputy Commissioner. Welcome. Welcome back, Commissioner. Thank you. Nice to be back for the afternoon part two. Always a pleasure to be here. Again, it's Nick Demo for the Vermont Department of Corrections, and I have our interim deputy commissioner and financial expert, Matt DiAgostino, with me. So really appreciate the opportunity to come back and discuss some proposals with you on justice reinvestment. As you mentioned at the beginning, the committee has been considering kind of four large buckets of justice reinvestment options. Those are transitional housing, domestic violence intervention, mental health services, and our offender management system, and I think extrapolate a little broader just data system improvements. We think that those areas are extremely important, and we've made some, I think, pretty meaningful investments in those areas, and some of that is captured in the budget already. What we'd like for this committee to consider, and certainly we're glad that Representative Squirrel is here for the Appropriations Committee to consider, and then for our friends in the Senate as well, is that there are a couple other key areas that we think should be included in that list, and we'd like to talk about that with you today, and we can discuss the financials, and certainly Matt is the expert on that, and then we have a proposal for how we could go about making some investments in those areas, but first I wanted to talk about there's three additional areas that the department identified as key justice reinvestment areas or opportunities for us to invest, and those are our community justice centers, which I think everybody in this committee is very familiar with, women's programs and reentry services, and then vocational training programs and preparedness, and so the way that we settled on these three additional investment areas is we looked across the board at where there are key justice reinvestment work being done, and then searched and consulted with our experts within the department to determine could we make meaningful investments in those areas in this fiscal year to have a real impact on the justice reinvestment space, and I think in those three categories we felt that both they were kind of core justice reinvestment work being done there, and also they were ripe for kind of near-term immediate investments that could have a meaningful difference, and so we wanted to put those out there for your consideration to add to the four that we already had under review, and I'll let Matt walk through some of the financials here about where investments are being made right now and why we think in some areas additional investments wouldn't have the same impact as they would in some of these new categories, and so if you'll permit I'll hand it over to Matt. Matt, that's all yours. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Matt D'Agostino, Interim Deputy Commissioner for Corrections. So I've sent over a document earlier, and there's kind of two shaded areas. One is the FY22 funding, and the other is known FY23. This is all base funding for FY23 at this point, but quickly walking through, we have the $360,140 which is in the DOC base, and that's from the out-of-state reduction related to the FY21 budget bill, and additionally we have $417,030 which is one-time funding, and that was also related to out-of-state, but that was the surplus from FY21 carried forward to this budget year. So that's the $777,000 that we kind of started the conversation off with, and where we're looking to invest the dollars over the across the categories that the commissioner just outlined. In addition to that, we have, DOC has two separate base budgets, and DMH has one. So there's $200,000 in DOC's base for domestic violence intervention. We currently have a grant for that $200,000 with the Vermont network. Not much has been spent so far. I think it's about $30,000 so far this year. Certainly the hope is, as the program grows, there will be more expenses there. $300,000 also in DOC base related to transitional housing for which investments and grants, release funding, some training opportunities that are being looked at, that's where the funds for that are currently earmarked for. And then there's also $400,000 of base justice reinvestment funding that sits in the Department of Mental Health's budget. That's being looked at for pilot fact program, which we talked about last week. And there could be potentially some supplemental funding from mental health block grants if the $400,000 turns out to, at least in the earliest stages, not be sufficient funding for that program. So broken out across the categories, we have an FY22, $417,030 of one-time funding. Additionally, there's base funding in the DOC budget of $860,140, and total base funds of about a million and a quarter. It's the $1,260,140, and that's inclusive of the DOC base as well as the DMH base. And all total with one-time and base funding, both departments, DOC and DMH, there's $1,677,170. So the view for, I should stop there, make sure there's not questions. I can go on to 23 if that's helpful. I love following it. There'll probably be some questions as we proceed. So on the sheet, FY23 effectively mirrors FY22 in every way. So the bottom line number is, $1,260,140. The only difference is there's some highlighted sections in yellow that would be any one-time funding from potential surplus from FY22 out-of-state appropriation for savings, the thing I carried forward to FY23. While our appropriation, while our caseload is currently below what the appropriation is, which there would be savings, it's still early to say what that savings will actually be. So it left that blank for the moment, but it's acknowledged that there will be one-time monies for FY23 as well that are carried forward from any savings from out-of-state. So I just wanted to kind of see the comparison. And the intent with this document is ultimately kind of in the top section for each budget year to have the view that you're looking at. And below that would be tracking by type of investment and by vendor or whoever the expenses are being paid to, the amounts of money going out for this. So year over year we'll have a way of track and closely tracking. And I know we've had some conversation about how we would do this. So that's kind of just wanted to point out that might be a way kind of on a one-page view that we may be able to do this for FY22, FY23, and then ongoing after that. I'm just trying to see where the funding options play into this, particularly with your new proposals. How that would play in. What we have already is our base of domestic violence intervention. We have the transitional housing. And then we have the mental health piece. We have those three. And you've just carried that over into the FY23 budget. But you haven't expanded anything for data collection. And then your new proposals for the CJC's women's programs and vocational training. So we have an on this sheet, we have not enumerated any values to those because we wanted to come here and make sure that those were categories of spending that you all would be supported above. I think certainly we've talked about all of these categories at different times and different testimony. But the way we would then look at this is we've got the $777,000 to spend this year. And we would look to spend it on the data system improvements or the other three categories that we propose today. And possibly on some of the original, the other three original ones that I didn't speak of. But we think largely the three, if you exclude the data systems improvement, the original three are appropriately resourced right now by and large. I think there are some areas that we could fund some additional work in those spaces. But we also think we could have a good kind of bang for our buck, good impact by spending in the the community justice centers on the women's programs and reentry services around the vocational training. Questions, thoughts, processing, Kurt? Yeah, did you? Okay. I'm, I need to back up a little spreadsheet. I always wish I could see the formulas because then I would know what is being added to what is being added. But I understand that you can show the formulas on a piece of paper. So on the left hand side of this one, can you go through slowly again the difference between, we have 417 in there twice is what I'm asking about. So can you go through that again and explain the numbers going down, especially the ones in the lower seven or so lines of the top part, I understand. Yeah. So absolutely. So the top part is basically the money we're talking about the $777,000. The other is also being talked about, but the $900,000 that's already being invested in very specific areas. The next three lines are just, it's broken out between one time in base for DOC, DMH and total basically. So those are just more informational. I'd say if you ignore those three lines, the 417, the $860,000, the $1,260,000 and look at the final three numbers, that's basically the total of those top two sections, just broken out between what's a DOC's budget, what's the DMH's budget. Too fast. I followed you. I don't see the $1,260,000. What is the added to get $1,260,140,000? So that's the total of the DOC base funds. So this is going down from the very top of the sheet, the $360,140,000 that's identified as base, the $200,000 base and the $300,000 base. So the out-of-state reduction from 21 and then the domestic violence intervention and transitional housing base money. So again, the $360,000, $200,000, $300,000 is that DOC base funds for this year, which is $860,140. The line below that, the $1,260,140, is everything that's in the top line for DOC plus the $400,000 from DMH's budget. So this just shows the total base funding for justice reinvestment across both DOC and DMH. So your $860,140 DOC base funds, which includes the $360,140, and then $500,000 of what was appropriated in the FY22. Okay, that brings you to $860,140. And then from that, you add the $400,000 that goes to DMH in FY22 for a total $1.2 million, $1.260,140. That's right, yes. And then to that $1,260,140, which is all of the base funding for DOC and DMH, if you include then the DOC one time, the $417,030, that's where you get that very bottom line number, the $1,677,170. I think what's throwing you is the $1,277,170 plus the $400,000 for DMH. What is that? That's kind of throwing us. Understood. There's a lot of different ways that I could have done this or could be looked at. It's part of it is there's money from DOC's budget and DMH's budget. So the $1,277,000 represents the DOC base fund. It doesn't add up because what you've got is your $860,140,000, which is your DOC base fund. And you add the $400,000 from DMH at the one time. Yes. Right. That $1,277,000 is all of the DOC justice reimbursement. So both the one time and the base, but excluding DMH. So I guess simply, if we look at the very top, the $777,170, that plus the two next lines, the $200,000 base DOC and $300,000 base DOC to $777,000 plus the $500,000 gets that $1,277,000. So I guess the simple way of looking at this is there's six different funding sources or buckets, if you will. Five of them belong to DOC in the budget and one of them is DMH. The first, I'm sorry, I said six. There's four DOC and one DMH. The four DOC is $1,277,170, and then you add the one DMH and $400,000. So you've got a total of $1,670,170 that is going to adjust this for investment two and FY 22. Correct. In the version two of this document, I'll move that top row just below the 900,000. So it goes in order of, so the other the splitting the one time and base won't be as, it won't look like it's part of the equation that there's multiple more lines in there than should be. But you're right that the $1,677,000 is inclusive of all funding DOCs and the $400,000 DMH. I think. Clear as mud. But for the purposes of this conversation, only the $777,000 is not already allocated somewhere. And so for the purposes of our conversation, we're talking about how to divide that $777,000. I appreciate having these additional topics or areas to look at with this. And I get one of the questions that I have as we consider these, and I also went ahead and saw your options of looking at the flexibility pieces of it is I know that for some of these programs, they want reliable sources of funding, knowing that it's going to come year to year and that we're building on that base. So I guess I would like to hear you speak to that like wanting to give flexibility, but at the same time the programs want to know that they're getting a consistent amount of funding from year to year. So they're not ramping up programs only to find out the next year. We actually shifted those funds to something else. So I don't know if you can speak to that. Matt, you want to take that one? Sure, certainly. Yeah, it's a great question. It's certainly a concern. Any time there's one time funding, that's something similar to the CARES Act funding that was received and some of these same areas were explored and it's difficult to build capacity long term when there's kind of only the promise of funding that's not year over year. That certainly is considered in these proposals that there will be a need for base funding to do some of these things. That one time funding would programmatically be able to implement some new items, but in the long term you're absolutely right that one time funding wouldn't be sufficient to carry that forward year over year. There are certain pieces that, such as the OMS and data system improvements, while certain things, like if we were to look at new systems as an example, typically by and large, there's annual costs for those items. But for something like the offender management system, any cost going to that for the most part would be one time. So there may be an ability with some of the funding to use just the one time and not have the concern of we don't have this in future years potentially, but you're absolutely right in terms of some programs. There is a need for funding that lives beyond when those one time funds are exhausted. I'll just add to that. When we sat down to really consider the full suite of options that we could be investing in, the fact that it was one time money did limit our ability, it immediately kind of eliminated some of the proposals because it wouldn't work without a stable funding source. I think that the three areas we highlighted here, while you're right to say that they want reliable, longer term funding streams, we believe that there is flexibility in these areas that we could make good efficient use of one time money and look to build on that investment in the future and test things or have a short term, short term spend that would have a real impact, whereas some of the longer term investments we just can't make with this type of money. That is helpful to hear and I guess for us as we are allocating the 770, 7000 when we're allocating or making it clear what is base and what is one time, so I think it's clear expectations for the programs and services that we are giving the money to that they know this is one time versus this is base funding for them. Sarah, then Michelle. So thanks Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the new proposals. What specific, if there is some specificity about what, because what this might, what you're thinking is and what this might do for the women's programs and reentry services because we, is this the work that the service providers do at CRCF? Is that what that is geared towards and is there anything like likewise like revocational training? It's been a while since we've in this committee have had a conversation about understanding what currently is happening and what this could do, but I think there's certainly interest in that. So I'd like to know more if you're thinking. Certainly, yeah. So starting us with the women's programs reentry services. So there are these proposals would would increase funding needs to provide continued transition community support services for women who are re-entering the communities. There is currently with the, and you're absolutely right. It's the program services that are delivered at Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility. The current contracts provide for a number of things including reentry services. What there's not funding for currently with those is once women are re-entering the community and they're back in the community, this would bolster that support system. So there is community support versus just the support they're receiving when they're in incarcerated status. And largely the same providers that are being used now for services within the facility. And okay, and do you have anything to add about the vocational training? I wanted to pause just in case there was any. So yeah, on the vocational side, there's been many conversations with the DOC's had with other partners around the state, Department of Labor, voc rehab folks, career technical education centers, in terms of how we can help continue vocational training, again, once folks are leaving facilities. Because there is a little bit of a drop off where someone who's supervised in the community by DOC versus somebody who is receiving vocational training in an incarcerated setting are two very different things. DOC handles the incarcerated setting programs, but not on the community side. So the hope is to invest with some of these partners and develop programs that would enable, as an example, someone who is incarcerated for a number of weeks, months, or longer could take part in certification programs, such as ServeSafe. And upon re-entering the community, have the ability to perhaps work at a restaurant with that ServeSafe certification as a limited example. In the community, while that's offered, it's not something that's offered through DOC. And if a person either doesn't know where to go or doesn't have the ability to participate in a program in their area, this is something we're looking to do with these funds in terms of partnering with these career tech education centers and others to provide that as a service to folks. So they're able to get basically vocational training in the community that would mirror to a degree what's happened, replicate, not replicate, but mirror what's happening within facilities in terms of that same certification. Okay. I guess what I'm grappling with here is when we did the work with the council and state governments, you know, it was two years of research and working with stakeholders through the working group that really got at, like, what are the ways, the investments that we can make to prevent people from being re-incarcerated. And I just, I guess, while I don't appreciate the work of these other programs, they were not necessarily, there's not a direct linkage. I mean, I think what we're trying to do is use these dollars to continue to address the front end, you know, the upstream and all, I guess actually I should be, I stand corrected, they're also when people are released, you know, to support them in the community. So I appreciate, you know, the thinking about that, that some of these are, you know, really reentry oriented, like in their investments in the community. I guess I just feel like I need a little bit more understanding about what that would look like. One thing where the council said governments for justice for investment to definitely for folks who are re-entering from an incarcerated setting is our community partners needed to step up to the plate to start providing programming and services to our folks. So it's not all on DOC's shoulders and budgets and how that gets translated out into this proposal is what you're grappling with. Yeah. Okay. So, Marsha. So, did you say you already have contracts with CCRC for women's programs? I'm sorry, but do we have, it cut out for just a second on my end. You said you already have contracts with CCRC for women's programs? We do, yes. CCRC, you mean the regional facility? Yeah. Okay, just making sure. Yes, there are service contracts currently for the facility. Why would it be a new proposal if you already have programs? Or is this just, where would these programs go to, the community centers? This is just an expansion of the existing programs to offer services geared toward community support systems versus just the services they're being provided within the facilities currently. Okay. And the other thing is, there's always a golden rule if you stop something new, it's going to cost you, it's going to keep costing you down the road. Well, that's the question of base funding versus one time. And that leads to my question a little bit, where the one time in the green shade, the first line, $360,140 is from out-of-state savings in the FY21 budget. So that is being classified as a base, not a one time. And it then becomes part of your base funding along with the $200 and $500 that was appropriate. So when you carry this out to FY23, you're still saying that that $360 plus is the base, but you're not accounting for the $417 that now becomes your base, correct? The $417 is one time, but doesn't that feed into your base similar to the $360? Because the $360 came from savings of out-of-state bets. What happens if you don't have that savings? Well, that's not confused. What you have said in previous testimony, what happens is those savings that a result from out-of-state beds then become the base, but you're not doing that for the $417 that was out-of-state bed savings in FY21. So what's the difference here? So the first, the $360,140 that is base funding and will be in our budget until or unless there's a change proposed or made to it. So that was a reduction of beds within the budget bill a couple of years back that rather than going, rather than being taken as saving statewide, not just DOC budget and put toward other general fund use, that was moved back to from out-of-state to correctional services. So those funds don't rely on the total expenses for out-of-state each year. Conversed, the $417,000 that we have that's carried forward from last fiscal year was the difference between the appropriation for FY21 and what was expended by DOC on out-of-state beds in FY21. So we had approximately $5.6 million in the FY21 budget of which we spent approximately $5.2 million yielding this surplus at the end of the year. That surplus was carried forward, but that's a one-time event. So there wouldn't, we can't save with certainty that there would be a surplus of that much year over year. So it's a one-time savings. There would be savings from FY22 as well, but it would be a different amount than that $417,000. The only way to get base from the out-of-state is to effectively reduce the beds, the appropriated level of beds, and then shift those funds to the correctional services budget, which is what was done with the $360,000. And then it's basically a permanent budget item versus relying on appropriated level versus expenses each year. So the $417,000 is involved. We have it this year. So the question is, do you spread out that $417,000 to a new proposal, or do you do a one-time enhancement to what is currently being funded? Yeah, I feel like that's where I'm landing with it. And so I might be more open to expanding into these other areas, especially if I knew if there were one-time funding sources, because I think what we've heard so far is that there are limited one-time infusion opportunities in that, the four that we originally looked at. And so we have two decisions to make. We have that $360,000 that we need to find a dedicated stream for, like, because that's going to be base funding for some project or projects. But this $417,000, we need to put, I'm guessing we will agree, in one-time projects. So I would love to know what are the one-time projects that are available? Within the original four categories you're talking about? Or even the new three, like that would be nice. So in terms of one-time? There's just limited opportunities for this infusion, and I would like to know where could it be used? To get the most bang. So the question is, if you're going to do the data system improvements, can you do it for $400,000? Yeah, you know, this is where we in our own analysis really got into a rub, because I think there are things that we would do to improve the data system except that there are real constraints on our ability to do that that are beyond just financial. Even if we threw a million dollars at the data system to improve it, we don't have the capacity to be able to do that right now. That's human hours, it's technical expertise, it's working with the vendor, the owner of the software, all of that combined would curtail our ability to actually spend a million dollars effectively. I think small dollar amounts, you know, small, tens of thousands, there are probably improvements that we could make to that system that are within our capacity to do that in the short term, but I don't think that there's something like a $400,000 investment, I don't think would be prudently invested there. I don't think we could spend it effectively. That's good to know. That's what we need to target. You know, we can extrapolate some of that analysis to these other areas. It's not the exact same inputs, but I think it would be challenging to effectively spend that level of money on some of these other areas too, which is why we came up with other areas that we think that level of investment could actually make a meaningful difference right now. We don't have granular project level investments to be able to propose to you, but what we can say is we think that there is enough flexibility in these other three categories that we could spend that type of money or a portion of that type of money in these areas and have a meaningful improvement in the community system. Yeah, so just something that came to mind as we're talking about one-time funds with some of these areas we've already talked about is something that was mentioned last week by the woman who testified from the Vermont network. She talked about, I can't remember if you guys were on the call or not, but she spoke to the need for development of curriculum for people who are in domestic violence situations, who are same sex, you know, some sex relationship situations or LGBTQIA situations. Apparently, there's all the curriculum is geared towards opposite sex partners and there is no curriculum for that. And she had said, we said, well, if you had more money, what could you do? And she mentioned we could develop curriculum that would be appropriate to these situations and that would be developing the curriculum would be a one-time fund. Now, I don't know what that number would be. We didn't actually get that number separately. But I guess I just wanted to sort of circle back to that issue because that does feel like something that could be really useful and also would be a one-time fund. We think. We think. It's healthy curriculum usually would be a one-time. Yeah. That's what we have. Yeah. Check. Yeah. That's a good point. Bert? So what I understand that you're saying here with this proposal is here's the money. Here's some additional things that you think of kind of fit into justice reinvestment too. And you'd like us to choose one of the three options at the bottom to either let you spend it the way you want or give some minimum budgets or be really prescriptive and tell where it should go. Is that? I think that's a very good summary of where we're at. Yes. Okay. Thanks. And I think, you know, the goal, we didn't, we haven't talked too much about the options that we outlined on the bottom. I think the goal there is, and for everybody involved, how do we really make use of this money this year in an efficient way that, that remains kind of the, where the best stewards of the tax dollar so that we get the most justice reinvestment bang for our buck. And so I think from our perspective, certainly the more flexibility we have with the money, the more we can pursue, you know, a one-time curriculum development program, we could, we could do that. And if, so for example, let's say that that program cost $15,000, no idea how much that would cost, but let's say it cost $15,000. And you all had appropriated or told us you need to spend $100,000. We may not be able to spend that. And so we're left with kind of $85,000 of unused funds. But if we said, if you said you have $100,000 to spend on any of these categories. And we said, well, 15,000 would be a great investment in the curriculum. But in the CJCs, they could get a program off the ground for $50,000. And there's still some residual that we could spend on a third thing. We think that that level of flexibility will give us the best opportunity to spend this money efficiently on areas that we already have kind of pre-approved by you, that we all agree on our good justice reinvestment areas. That's kind of the logic underpinning our proposal today. I think that makes sense to me. And I guess the one piece I keep getting stuck on is wanting to have it be very clear, like, okay, you could spend the money in these areas, but to make sure, like, these are one-time expenses. Like, you're not going to be coming back asking for this money year after year, because we can't guarantee it's there. So I feel like I would want to put language in it. Like, you have $400,000 to do with this. Then you have $300,000 to do with one-time things, to break it down and be very clear about that. Because if we come back next session and you've created all these new programs, they'll be great, but that would be acute, that we don't have the funds for them. So that's how I would, that's what we would recommend to our probes. We'd indicate that this is one-time, and then they would turn within the structure of their budget. Oh, Scott and then Sarah. Yeah, I'm not sure if I missed it, but that's $360,140 base. Is that, is that, is that earmarked for something? That's what we have to sort of decide. That's what we're talking about now. That's part of what we're talking about. And then what they have indicated is that would go into the base. And the base would then be divided up between what we are already funding. Is that accurate, Matt? Yes, correct. The base is going, well, if it's specific to the 360, I think that's still remains, it depends on what the ultimate decision is in terms of areas of funding. But yes, overall, the base would be going toward the broader categories that we've talked about. That's how you have it divvied up here. When you look at the line for $860,000, that includes a $360,140. That includes the $500 from what we did. And you're incorporating that 360 with the $500 to be your base, that then goes out to those three programs or two programs. Well, that's my question. Here are two programs because you haven't included the DMH. The 360, yep, for the purpose of this sheet, just showing where the funds are, the $360,000 hasn't been, it's been included with the other $500,000 as they're all base funds. But the $200,000 that's domestic violence and the $300,000 that's transitional housing, those are dedicated funds to those particular areas. The $360,000 is not dedicated toward just those two things at this time. That was only for the purpose of showing what's in DOC base versus state-wide versus DOC and DMH's base and then the one-time funding as well. I think you're using that 360 interchangeably between the terms base and one time. Yeah, that's where it's getting confusing and it's getting a little late and some folks have to and if we did, if we ended up and as many people want no more out of state beds, we wouldn't have this money anyway. Well, that's where you build your base with those savings and then it becomes part of their ongoing budgets and then they don't have the money that they're expending on out of state beds or spending it on the programs instead. I've got to go at 4.30, you've got to go at 4.30, it's really got some questions, Sarah. My last suggestion is, suppose you fellows come up with a suggestion about how to divvy up this money. Well, they can come up with a suggestion, this is their suggestion. Well, we haven't decided where the 4.17 is going or even where the 360 is going. That's correct, but this is what they've put out. I know, so I'm asking for them to go a little more detail. I'll stop. Go ahead. I think it helped, I don't know. When I think about one time funding, what it can go towards, like we've done this before, it can go towards a capital, like a piece of equipment, it could go towards supplies for people who are re-entering communities. It can also go towards, we've done it for bonuses or like we've done with DOC and the BAA. I'm curious if you'd be comfortable saying, the community justice centers haven't asked into, hadn't asked into DOC and I think it's, I know it's being considered by appropriations. Is it a one-time ask? I mean, is it or is that, it's a million dollars, I think. And was that a one-time ask for like, for their workers to be retention bonuses and things like that, similar to what we've done with other agencies and workers? Or is it, are they asking for something to be like an increase moving forward? Is that, are you comfortable? It would just help me understand what we could do with community justice centers with one-time funding. That's where I'm coming from. I think you guys got to go back to the drawing board a little bit on your three new proposals. Number one, be a little clearer. If it's one time, you don't want to be building the expectation that the money is going to be there. Oh, correct. So I think you folks need to noodle this. I'd like to have Sarah connect with Sarah Robinson and see about the curriculum expansion and see what the cost is. And if it is one time for that. And I think we need to come together as a committee to have a further discussion. Do we want to put any of these dollars, the $777, any of it into a base? Or do we want to put it all into one time? Because if we put it into a base, keep funding it. 360 is already. That's the confusion. It's already in the base. Yeah, but hold on. If it's already in the base, then does that mean it's going to go to domestic violence and transitional housing? Is that your base funding? This is in addition to those already dedicated base funds. So these are additional base funds that aren't yet dedicated to any specific program or direction. So that 360, we can put it towards those two that are already part of your base or we bring in another project that will continue to be part of your base. I think that's right, Matt. That's right. The one caveat that I would include here is that the transitional housing is one of those two items. And while future funding may be needed, I think with all of the grants that were just redone for FY22 and the efforts through the process that was undertaken last year, having more funding there with the limited availability of housing in the community and capacity needs not exceeding what we actually have right now, I'm not sure how we would be able to use an additional sum of money on top of the 300,000 that was injected into the FY22 budget for housing. So just as an example, and at least one of those four categories, it could be very difficult. Similarly with the mental health side, there's already funding that's dedicated and it's a program that may over time cost could be more than what's in the base in DMH's budget. But right now it's too soon to say that any additional funding would be needed. And certainly these funds wouldn't go toward that at this point because the initial funding that the base hasn't been spent yet on that program. So I think that's the challenge with, we do have the 360,000 in base, but there's already funds dedicated to those areas, to the other areas that are taking care of a lot of the initial needs for starting for implementation purposes. So the question before us now is what entity do we then start creating as a base? If we're not going to put it towards transitional housing, we're not going to put it towards domestic violence intervention or the DMH, because we don't know even how the 400,000 is going to play out. What do we pick up to then become part of our base funding that will be ongoing? That's what's before us for the 360. For the 417, it's a one-time chart. Yeah. That's the differentiation. And the question is, what do we do knowing that if you infuse 360 into one of the new proposals, it's going to be ongoing? And do we want to do that? So we got a break because we're listening to the members do someplace else five minutes ago. We've got to think. Sarah's going to check with Sarah Robinson of the network to see about the curriculum. We set up a curriculum for LGBTQ, that can never remember that. That's what you mean. The LGBTQ population. What that curriculum is, is it a one-time shot? But if they start up the curriculum, are they going to need people to implement it? Because it may not be a one-time shot. So they may need more help to implement it. I don't know. So let's circle back. I know approach is the one that's going to be handling this based on our recommendations. So let's circle back as a committee and we'll reach out to you, both Nick and Matt. Might not be till next week at the right or bone. Friday afternoon. Don't we have something else Friday afternoon? We have a bond premium at one, but I would imagine that would go about 45 years. We're meeting with Commissioner Devlin. He could come in person. Or through a no. We're at one. He couldn't do anything. We'll figure it out as we start playing through this. Because we've got to bring up members that we're missing. So thank you for adjusting your schedule. Happy to do it. Thank you for having us. We've had it short, but folks have got to leave the building for different commitments. I can stay. So thank you, folks. We're going to sign off. Mary, did you have a question? I was going to say, so does DOC have homework to do to be ready for a meeting with them? Keep thinking of that. I see in terms where do you want to spend money to build the base? That's that to me is more the issue. The three six. So we can move down for the day.