 All right. Good morning. It is January 7th. This is the Senate Health and Welfare Committee meeting. And today, we are looking at the childcare financing. We've started a great deal of work around childcare workforce financing and trying to keep our centers open for folks, especially during this time of the surge and previously during the emergency. So thank you all for being here to testify. We have members of the administration. I'm sorry, my phone rang and I just turned it off. I apologize for that. So why don't we just dive in? I think what I asked Katie to do initially is briefly go through a little bit about some of the reports we have in committee and then where we are with 171 Katie, you just had a couple of things you wanted to add. Good morning, Katie Mclin office of legislative council. So Senator Lines asked me to put together a quick overview of the reports that came out of or that are required pursuant to act 45. I have a quick handout. If you don't mind me sharing my screen, I can probably get through it in about three or four minutes. Oops, I don't have a screen sharing ability Aaron. Oh, now I do. Okay. Thank you. There we go. Can you see the document I have up. Yes. Okay. So I think you're mostly interested in financing this morning so I'll go over the first few reports quickly. But just to remind you spend an awful lot of time on act 45 last year childcare systems and financing and there were a number of report backs that you asked as part of this legislation. Specifically section seven of the bill asked for an evaluation of three early childhood workforce programs so there was a program on scholarships for current providers scholarships for prospective providers and also a program on student loan repayment assistance so those reports don't come in until October 1 of 2050. And then the next report section 10. This was a plan on the proposed child development development block grant and child stabilization grants. So this has already come in it wasn't due to this committee it was due to joint fiscal on September 1 of last year. And then there is the section 12 report on attendance based model versus the enrollment based model and the CC fat program childcare financial assistance program. And that report is coming in on July 1 of this coming year. We have another report coming in July 1 of this coming year. That was a report in section 13 of the bill, and this is the childcare and early education systems analysis study. And if you remember you as part of the legislation you asked building bright futures to hire an independent consultant to do this work. And that work looks at emerging needs of the system stakeholder involvement, leveraging system strengths existing needs and challenges in the system, anti racism in the system and data driven accountability. So that report you'll see this summer, but the two items I think you're most interested this morning are the financing reports that are coming in. So you have a preliminary report that comes in December 1 of 2022 and then next year at this time you'll have the final report coming in. The piece of legislation required JFO to contract with a consultant to evaluate the economic impacts and potential funding mechanisms to adjust for months, regulated childcare system for children 0 to 5 years of age. Also with consideration given to the intersection of in the impacts on childcare for children, 6 to 12 years of age. And then I have some language about specifically what is going to be included in the final report. So the final report is to contain multiple financing options and public and private funding sources, including a projection of the costs of expanding the state's childcare benefit to more families, requiring commensurate pay for providers and utilizing the cost of care and CC FAP, and the feasibility of implementing each policy in Vermont both separately and jointly. And identifying and determining the feasibility of implementing stable long term funding sources to finance an affordable high quality early childcare system for children who are birthed through five years of age. And all of this work has to be done with certain goals in mind. So those goals are that a family does not spend more than 10% of its gross annual income on childcare. Childcare providers receive compensation that is commensurate with peers and other fields. And also that the utilization of a cost of care model versus the market rate model and CC FAP. So those are the reports that are due that you should expect to see in the coming few years. If there are no questions I can take down this document. Questions about and we can get that posted on our webpage. I think it's already there. It probably yeah it is. I should have said yes it is. Thank you Katie that's very helpful. Did you have a question of clarification Ruth go ahead. I'm just looking at the final that the childcare financing report and this might be a question for Nolan to to but who I thought was here. Yeah he's here. The just thinking with my waiting study hat on people waiting there. We put in our that report that to make sure that this study looks at the people wait that's in our education finance system for pre K. I think that's a point four six weight, which is undoubtedly inadequate. And I don't see that specifically listed as something that study would look at and I'm just wondering, does it mean they can't look at that. And should we add that to that or I hear what you're saying I think this is a this is a longer conversation about whether that should be added and I know that both education and finance are looking at the at the waiting study. And we, we might take a minute to go through that a minute probably take more than a minute to go through that. But it's a good point to be raised. So, yeah I just want to make sure that before the study is started if we do need to amend it to make sure that they look at that that they do. First, it has to be something that we ask for legislatively, and that the point four six would be something that's in the funding process for schools so we want to make sure that we're not putting the cart before the horse that's all. So, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm a little confused for the record. The joint. And maybe this conversation Ruth and I can have a lot sorry Senator Hardy and I can have offline but are you suggesting that the child care study should take the waiting study into consideration. No, just that specific issue about the, there's a wait for preschool students in our formula. It was not part of the waiting study it was intentionally left out of the whole waiting study. I think because there wasn't a desire to have it looked at within the full system of early childhood education and care. So nobody's looked at it. Our pupil waiting task force talked about it and Cheryl center hooker probably remembers this as well. And our conclusion was, it's undoubtedly inadequate, but we didn't take all the time to to go through it because this financing study was going to happen. So, Nolan, if you and I want to talk offline about what more of the implications of what it might mean and if we need just like to insert a little bit of language to make sure that sort of gets in there. That would be helpful and that's a discussion that the committee will have to have, and also the education committee. So yeah, it's a it's a I think it's laudable actually that it that your committee and task force went through that discussion but we're going to have to take it through the committee process so I think a conversation with Nolan offline would be helpful. And then we'll see where it goes from there. If I may it's actually a good segue into what I was going to want to sort of add on to Katie's report that initially the the bill had jfo contracting by July. So there was no money in the bill because the idea was that it would be a 23 expense and not a fiscal year 22 expense. We, after conversations with folks, we actually realized that it needs to be done sooner. And so we have jfo has a proposal in budget adjustment to get the money sooner. So we can put the RFP out within the next few weeks, and then try to have a contractor up and running made by April. So I'm a few extra months do the work could be figured that the amount of work that needs to be done should need more time so I just want to let folks know that there is a proposal to be a to move to try to do it sooner to have more time. Yes, good thank you and I know that's in human services they're talking about that in the house and we'll look at that when it gets to us so there's a lot there are a lot of moving parts here but I think our goal today is to see where the commission is with their contractor and how things are going with the initial financing discussion and then perhaps weighing in on some, it may be that you have suggestions going forward for legislative language but I'll leave that. I leave that to the administration. So thank you for being here. Commissioner Brown, we have Deputy Commissioner Gray. Michael Blanchard and cat arena is here and I always say your name incorrectly, it is the say us. The science. The science. Thank you for asking. Thank you. All right. So, I'm, I think that you folks probably have a team process here so why don't you, Commissioner. Take it over. Good morning to the committee and happy New Year's actually glad to have our partners back and collaborating and we're happy to be here this morning. So today to talk about the status of the first phase of our it project on to replace the bf is system in the child development division. Our goal and work with the vendor was to have that roll out for October 1, which would have allowed us to put in a new rate structure what we've referred to as the flip, which would have changed the co pays and reduce the out of pocket expense for family for many families in terms of affordability for childcare. There were many complexities, enrolling this out in general but it also complexities by working remotely and through the pandemic and our vendor was not able to hit the October 1 deadline. And so we worked with the vendor to try to evaluate the functionality that would be essential for a go live of that first phase of the project. And so that we could what in it land and Michael could refer to this is what we call a minimal minimum viable product to go live with. And so as a result of that some decisions were made to try to reach a goal of having a system available in mid to late December. With the work of our vendor who actually really through additional resources and worked long hours into the evening and weekends was able to deliver a system that we could go live with in mid December. It was missing some functionality that we had hoped to be able to deliver in October. And so at that time, a decision was made just given the last minute flurry of fixing what we would refer to as bugs or or little issues as as we were doing our final testing. We wanted to make sure that I think one of the most important phases of an IT project are making sure you have trained and skilled users on the new system. So in that last minute flurry of fixing defects and bugs, we weren't able to analyze our training materials. And so I made a decision to slow it down a little bit to make sure we could do training materials and do a thorough training of our partners would be doing that system with a roll out in early January. So what we found in training and bringing partners into train on the system, they quickly identified an area of one of those pieces of functionality that was not delivered, which gave them concern. And I think we've heard from others which is the ability to back date an application, which allows us then during that backdated period to pay for that childcare, which could some families mean up to a hit of $500 or so, pocket expenses if we don't have that functionality. We evaluated whether we had the ability to do a manual work around with that piece of functionality. It was determined it wouldn't be feasible for us to do something. And so in talking with some key partners, other, you know, some of our key chair chairs and legislators. You know, we pause the roll out and are evaluating a couple other approaches while we work with our vendor. And Michael's here that can fill you in on that piece of like what would be the timeframe for them to add in that one piece or a couple pieces of functionality so that we could go live with that back dating. The other piece we're evaluating right now is we have those funds available that we're going to be implemented with that rate flip. We're also evaluating how we could in our current system do a temporary rate increase, while the new system is finalized and roll that out. We initially thought that could be very complex where now as we work through that believe it's not as complex. It is not without risk, given the age of the system and the platform BFI is on. Anytime you touch that system, you're concerned about what ghost you're going to raise from the machine. You know, the doctrine of unintended consequences. We believe that that is feasible so that that's the conversation we were hoping to have with the committee just to update you let you know. We certainly want to make sure we don't financially harm families and also support families with that increased financial relief. You know it's unfortunate where you know we are where we are with the system but we are very close. And I think you know we have some decisions to make and obviously we want to have that conversation with the committee this morning. But we do have a couple of things and Michael I'll turn it over to you to talk about the work you're doing with our vendor called bright. Regarding that that backdating and what that level of effort and timeframe would be to bring that functionality to delivery. Thank you. Happy New Year's everybody for the record Michael Blanchard DCF IT director. Yeah, I would say that currently as Sean indicated where engaged with the vendor. And there's really, I would say maybe three use cases that were really focused in on in terms of trying to determine the timeline implications of re scoping them if you will in that as Sean indicated in October, we sort of regrouped and de scoped various features to try to create a viable plan to hit a go live date in the December timeframe. But as Sean indicated some of these descoped items I think we've gotten feedback that maybe we really shouldn't have descoped them. And at this point, the one that Sean referred to the one issue of the backdating of the applications we've shared that information with the vendor. We answered all their questions and now their preliminary indication was that it, it wasn't a huge feature or functionality to add back in. And so I'm optimistic that within the next week or so we're going to get that level of estimate and you know timeline implication we don't have that right now but our vendor is working on that one specifically on a couple of other items that were also indicated, namely attendance adjustments for families that are already enrolled. So we're in an area where it could be a positive attendance adjustment it could be a negative attendance adjustment it could be a $0 attendance adjustment and we're looking at those three different flows. The negative attendance adjustment flow has a lot of complexities. So we're really trying to understand of those you know what the complexity is. And that one we're not quite as far with the vendor we're still answering their questions around the functionality and we still have some outstanding, you know discovery sessions with them to make sure that we really are fully communicating what is needed, so that they can give us a good level of estimate. You know, our plans are to finish that does those discovery sections up next week, and, and then the vendor will be in a position to also give us a level of estimate and timeline implication of doing and adding in those three different flows. And that's basically where we're at. As Sean indicated, initially I was a little skeptical about making changes to the existing system for changing the provider rates but upon investigation it looks like it should be fairly straightforward so right now we're running some improvements in a test environment to try to give us more confidence that we're not going to, you know, adversely affect that system. But that is looking very optimistic at this point. Okay. Thank you. Was there other what did you want to have other comments, Commissioner or Michael at this point. I think we've covered kind of the points we want to touch on of the status of that project and some of the decision points. Yeah, right now and avenues were exploring and certainly interested in answering your questions and hearing any concerns. We have questions. I'll just start out with a couple of that may not be too difficult to answer but because this is going on and you're building functionality into the system. You're using the system. And so what is the effect currently is this having a negative effect on folks to access the support that they need. As you're going through this as the vendor and assuming the vendors going through the process with you so as this is going on. What are the pros and cons what's the negative effects out there and then is there anything good happening with with people seeking access to daycare services. In terms of the impact we are still using our existing bf is system that that has been in existence for quite a while and the new system is not in production. So in terms of the impact on the system, other than the rate flip. So just to inform the committee. During the Christmas holiday, we had some outside influences try to penetrate our bf is system on multiple occasions one day. We're not successful or our ADS staff for monitoring it and we brought the system offline. I believe it was right before New Year's and they work over the New Year's holiday to increase some secure increased security functionality and I would defer to Michael on on that work and then we will be able to bring it online so during that period providers were not able to access the system over the New Year's holiday. There was a big impact, and there was no intrusion into our system or access to and so we didn't have a breach of any data, but there were several attempts during a one day rate during that period and Michael I would defer you to talk to speak to that. I think that's accurate Sean that you know we are, you know, adding in additional security measures based on activities we've noticed. And this isn't the first activity that we've that we're, you know, trying to remediate from a security perspective and I guess to Senator Lyons point one of the things that we've added into the scope that previously wasn't in that minimum viable product MVP definition is that we are basically replicating the help desk functionality of BFIS in the new system in a secure and sustainable manner so we're going to make it easy for those external users to be able to request help when they need it and doing it in a secure way. So, that was actually a totally separate issue relative to what Commissioner Brown was referring to. It is definitely something that, you know, we are very focused on there's going to be in this new system. It's going to be a different sort of global mechanism of signing on using octa our single sign on application platform. And we just want to make sure there's a lot of benefits with that system but also we want to make sure that for those providers and family members that are struggling to even get into the system that they have the support they need so that they're not frustrated. Thank you. I did not realize that you'd had attempts at breaching so that nothing like a little extra work at a time when everyone doesn't want to be doing that. So thank you for the work that you did there and I do have two more a couple more going on forward but just in terms of the is there an increase in the in the money needed to accomplish the goals of the vendor able to do the work within the contract that currently exists. Michael I would defer to you. Overmanaging that contract with the vendor. Okay. First of all, I would I would have, you know, I believe that our contract vendor has been doing an exceptional job and has been working very diligently has shown indicated late nights weekends. And it's one of these things that when requirements are initially defined for a contract they tend to be fairly high level, and then when you really get into the details of what you need to know to actually start programming the complexities come out and a lot of those have come out through those subsequent discovery sessions and this is a fairly complex, you know, application. And the vendor has, you know, taken our direction in terms of what needs to be in there and and not be in there for MVP and has just gone on and built it, regardless of whether or not, you know, it was totally clear whether or the work was in or out of scope of the contract so I think we're at a point here where potentially there will be change requests, you know forthcoming, as we start, you know, getting really close to that, you know, go live date. So I think it's really the best answer I could say is to be determined that change request process is that vehicle for adjustments, you know, in terms of scope and costs and at this point there is no outstanding change request but they may be forthcoming. So at this point they, there's not been a conversation about additional resources needed to complete the project, but it wouldn't be unexpected to see those in the future perhaps. This walk tread lightly. And then another question I know that, you know, we've had a timeline for implementing this program and we're looking at, you know, we still have 2022 and then into 2023. But what, what is, what is the timeline that you're looking at now for completing completing the work. Probably a difficult question to answer at this point but have you restructured the timeline for the work and are we looking at successful completion within the time specified in statute. Well, we're still reevaluating I mean this is certainly pushed us back a little bit senator, and I think our focus has been on the task at hand but we are cognizant that we need to shift very soon to start planning the next phases of this. The understanding that we want to be well positioned, you know, depending on the outcome of 171 and the other work that's happening in this space that we're fully prepared with a new system to meet those needs which is actually will be much more nimble than the current system that to whatever outcomes, you know program changes happen as a result of 171 or any work at the federal level as well. So I was going to ask about the federal level and what you're hearing. I don't think we're we're hearing anything any of us are hearing anything at this point regarding it. I was just going to say, you know, you know, and kind of the little bit that we've been hearing senator is that while there are certainly you know that the overall bill that they were hoping to get out that include a lot of increases for childcare. And I think it's very well-installed that there's probably that there's work and conversations happening about portions of that bill where there was more agreement than not between the two parties. And I think childcare was one of those areas and Katarina can jump in here as well she may have a little bit more to add, but that childcare was one of those areas where I think there was more agreement than not and that we might see movement on there in the in the coming months, but I would go for Katarina didn't get anything else to add there. I think that's accurate. What we have heard. You know, with the stalling of build back better is that there's still consensus around childcare and the universal pre K but they're just trying to determine the funding amount, which does look like it will be much less than what it what was originally proposed. Okay. Thank you. And please, you know, as you learn more. Katarina, if you don't mind keeping us posted or, you know, at some point we may, if you think it's valuable to come in and talk with us and particularly as we go forward with budget considerations, because we do make recommendations from this committee that would be very helpful. Absolutely, thank you for the offer. Okay. Any questions and Senator Hardy. Thank you. Madam chair, I just had a clarifying question. Commissioner Brown you mentioned that you're trying to do a rate increase in the old system, and you think it will work. I appreciate the complexities of trying to make an old system work. And then at the same time you're trying to update the new system to include this functionality to be able to back date eligibility. And so they're sort of this overlapping kind of thing going on. So, updating the rates and the old system as a temporary fix. I can you under, can you explain a little bit more about that sort of overlap and what the rate increase and the back dating functionality and how they interact or do they not interact. But the two, the two rates that that we were moving to would look much different. So, the system allowed us to do things the old system, not in terms of co pays and out of pocket, and you know, the families with different numbers of kids in this in childcare. So we have a lot more flexibility in the new system of how we can design and implement rate structures. The old system is as much more linear. And so we would use the same dollar value and try to use those dollars and try to set a rate in the new system that provides similar financial relief to families per family. As the, as the new rate would, but it would just do it in a different way. Okay, and then, and then hopefully once we're able to go live with the new system, we could then implement that new rate system, whatever those are at that time. Okay, so once the new system is live you would do it. Well, correctly, it's just you're trying to do this sort of bandaid solution in the old system, I get it. Okay. And you mentioned training frontline training for people who are going to be using the system, because, as you may know, the this conversation in large part was, I heard from a constituent who was trying to use the system. So, could you tell me a little bit more about your training efforts and how you're going to bring people along at the frontline level. I think this is a perfect opportunity for Deputy Commissioner Gray to jump in to respond to your questions. Thank you for the record Miranda Gray interim deputy commissioner for the child development division. And thank you for the question, Senator Hardy, we are currently we're looking at mapping out so once we have that timeline from our vendor of when they think we're able to add back in this functionality that will also help us make sure that we provide a robust time for training, because it is a new system that functionality is very different from our current system. And so we want to make sure that they do have the opportunity to get in there to ask questions and so we are looking at the team that we are pulling together. And finally, we are doing a little bit of rebuilding within our, our division of who can hold that piece to make sure that they are giving that robust training. Okay, and do at the local level on the front lines. Does it require any outlay on their part do they have to upgrade their computer. Do they have to have a different kind of do they have to buy any software, is there an expense at the frontline level of using this new system. Okay, and so I will ask Michael to jump in here a little bit. I know when we have just did testing before the holiday one of I'll call it a pain point that we found was that you have to have a designated phone number. But I think we've already found a solution to that problem, because what we found is that not all of our providers do have a landline that is for their sole purpose you can't use one phone number for multiple people. So if we had to eligibility specialist and one entity that wouldn't work. But I do believe this is where I will turn to Michael that there is a special key that we have the ability to purchase that will allow people to be able to access our system. Okay, sure. I would say high level response to your question Senator Hardy is that it is a cloud based solution. So really, for the most part, if they have a computer that is connected to the internet, you know, modern browser really shouldn't be any out of pocket expenses to speak of that I'm aware of. Okay. I mean, actually that's really the scenario that was referring to it's really around. Michael you're, you're, you've, you're going in and out. It's always at these moments the irony. Are you an IT person. I am. Yes. Go ahead you seem to be freed up. Nope. Yeah, but I still live in Vermont. Our internet service in Vermont is not something that my skills can address. But I'm sorry. So can you hear me. Okay now. Let's go ahead. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so it is a cloud based service so basically most users families and providers just need a browser PC connected to the internet. So in the case that Miranda was speaking of, it was really around an authentication scenario where we had some agencies, eligibility specialist agencies that didn't have their own phone number right they share a phone number at the office and the Salesforce platform requires two factor authentication. And part of the process of setting up that two factor authentication application is you need a phone number to activate. So, so long story short, there are solutions where their little security tokens that you can provide those eligibility specialists or that agency. They're fairly inexpensive like $25 a piece. And I think for the scenarios where those are needed that I think the plan would be to just provide those agencies with, you know, enough of those tokens so that they can get into the system. If I misdirect Michael the state would provide those tokens to the providers. Is there a way that the federal ARPA dollars can be used for some of this. I mean I'm not thinking just to the tokens but if there are some hardware or software needs out there. We can certainly look into whether the American rescue plan ARPA stabilization dollars that we just started rolling out in November are an eligible expense and we can work with the providers on that if they are but I don't know the answer directly and we don't have a finance person with us this morning so I apologize. It's okay. All right now, but you know, we we ask questions that are never answered, but that's fine. I just have to keep going. Yes, what sort of follow up this is helpful. And I guess, related to the training question about how you're training frontline people who are using the system. This has been really helpful to me and I will certainly relay all this information to my constituent. How are you communicating what's going on so that the front end users know what's what to expect. I think once we have a few more answers from the vendor I think we will send out a communication to our providers with an update of where we are in our path forward and a time and a timeline of what to expect, whether it's in the old system with a rate increase and or it would all be in the new system and I think we're waiting for the final analysis from our vendor so that we can make those final judgments and decisions on the path forward, and then we would communicate that out to to everyone. Okay, I guess I would just encourage you more communication is better because people are wondering what's going on and worrying. There's just, as you know, a whole ton of anxiety out there in the field. So anything you can do to ease that anxiety with just a hey we got this we've heard we've heard you kind of message. I think that might be helpful, even if it's not complete information. And perhaps we can do a couple of town meetings with folks to any answer some questions as well that might be a more appropriate forum to share. I mean we do other communication but I think sometimes allowing our partners to ask questions and is a good, a good way to ease fears as well. Yeah. Thank you that those are all good suggestions and good question good suggestions because I think if if the communication doesn't happen then this is what happens we end up here looking at the process that you're going through and we'd rather look at the end product. After all the glitches are taken out. But we really appreciate the time that you're taking to explain it to us and I think, as Senator Hardy has said, folks out in the field will be will welcome similar information. Other questions committee. Wow. Anything else that we should know about right now in terms of the, the financing piece that Well, Miranda Deputy Commissioner Greg and perhaps just the roll out of the stabilization dollars that were approved at JFO earlier this last late last year I guess in the fall. We have made several months worth of payments on that and rain I didn't know if you want to give an update of kind of high level of that program and where we're at. Yeah, sure. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. So we were able to implement our post stabilization program the first payments went out in November. So, and we have had the December payment I believe the third payment will be going out here with the next couple of weeks and we stagger those payments out to providers, we're up to I believe it is 78% of the providers that are accessing this funding source which is really exciting we're continuing efforts to make sure that every provider that is eligible for this money is able to access it. And just so that they have these resources to meet whatever needs that they might have. And I think I haven't heard anything of late, you know, from providers but I think that we tried to be very thoughtful about what it was that providers were saying that they needed. And this was a very, I guess I would say directed program in terms of like the money needed to go to the providers to be able to meet their needs and use the funds in the way that they needed. So that's really what we tried to do and have a very simplified reporting process in order to be able to have this, this money flowing because we've also each time we've run a program try to have our lessons learned about what worked well, and then what can we do better. And oftentimes it's just a lot of the reporting aspects. You know, we have things that we need to report to the federal government, but how can we gather that information thoughtfully, so that it isn't taking a lot of time for the childcare providers who are often in classrooms at this point, because I've heard that a fair amount as well so, and having a robust support network. So making sure that if people do have questions needed help accessing that we were able to provide that support as well. Thank you. Questions for Deputy Commissioner Gray. Go ahead. Um, this funding. Can you just remind me this is directly to providers themselves for stabilization of their programs. This is not necessarily going. This is not the subsidy money for families. This is specific to providers. Okay, that's what I thought. And I do have one more question about something else but I'll wait till we finish this topic. Any other questions here. I guess the next question that I would have is, do we see a continuation of any of the stabilization funds coming to us. Any federal dollars. In the next, I guess Katarina would be our expert here. I do have to follow up with you for a response to that. Okay, that'd be good. It's certainly needed with the change in workforce and the loss of caregivers at our childcare centers. People are having a tough time. But I think that stabilization and stabilization funds can become important simply because we were talking earlier before we went online just informally about how childcare centers with a loss of one or two workers then need to close a room or two rooms. That maybe they have to send kids home. And so it's, or, or limit their hours. So having the stabilization grants can help these centers stay alive until we finish our work on workforce development. So that that question isn't isn't a light question. It's a really important one and I hope Katarina you'll be able to sort out some of that. You can you can go to Washington and bring home some dollars for us but just knowing what's there would be very helpful. Okay. So in this area, Ruth, you had a question. I if it let's see how related it is and and then we'll, we'll see what comes of it. Well, since we have the commissioner and deputy commissioner here this is deputy commissioner gray and I had a conversation about this earlier this week and it's just, I know we're all hearing from families of young children and childcare about the inability to access rapid tests for their kids. I read, unfortunately, this week that the state only distributed half of the tests that they had for K 12 parents. So I'm wondering, do you have tests that can be distributed to through early childcare programs to parents. You know, for the, the, you know, the age group that has not yet been vaccinated and, and while there's not necessarily a concern for very severe reactions and young children they still can spread it and they can get very sick and wondering if you're going to be able to provide tests for young kids. And I'll have more Anna jump in here. I mean deputy commissioner gray. And she's been spending a lot of time in this area and I think she has some information she can share with us. Commissioner Brown. Yes, and thank you Senator Hardy. There are a lot of logistics that go into getting test kits into the hands of families for their children. And I think we are extremely close. I'm hoping within a matter of a couple of days of being able to formally announce, you know, the logistics of where providers will be able to pick up test kits if they decide to opt in. We know that people need choice. So, if they decide to opt in, we will have test kits available for the two to five year olds. I think it's important for me to highlight that currently the test kits that we have available are not for children under the age of two so there is still going to be an age group that we provide services to that aren't going to be eligible for this. We are looking to launch tests for talks and we sent out a communication. I believe it was Wednesday I'll have to forgive me it might have been Tuesday the days are blurring a bit together for me this week. Just letting providers. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I just wanted to make sure that you guys know that this was on top of our minds we have been closely working with the agency of education and the Department of Health, since they rolled out test to stay in schools, and really have just been waiting for the supply chain to be able to have test kits for this other population, but we are getting very close. And the Senate Education Committee spent a great deal of time yesterday hearing from the Department of Health and the AOE about distribution of tests and how that's happening so having hearing that you are linked in with that process is very important. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions. Thank you. This is great. So it is we're a little bit ahead today which is terrific. That as as you said that we don't know where we are in this first week of the session and for you. It's been folks in a chess probably been a never ending stream. Not just the first week. So I'm going to suggest that we take a short break. Katie, you are here. And I know that Jen Carby is coming in at 1015 to go through some reports. I'm looking for your opinion on taking a break until 1015 that work. Yeah, I think we need both of us to be here because we kind of trade back and forth as we go. Okay, so we'll do that I think everyone. Yes, I want to say thank you to each of you from the Department of Children and Families. This has been extremely helpful to us. And our goal is that folks out in the, in the real world and out in the childcare world are able to see this or understand what you're doing and to get some reassurance I think it is critical that people are reassured at this time. That things are happening to help them going forward. Oh, thank you all for being here and greatly appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity in your time. All right. I'm sure we'll see you again. Oh yes. Okay.