 Thank you. So we are now live. So we're officially starting the continuation of our afternoon committee meeting creations and we are going to continue with testimony at this point. And we have the attorney general with us. Welcome. Well, a Farrell welcome because you are going to talk with us about the diversion program. And we have your financial person Marcy you moved you were over here on my Hollywood squares and now you've moved to the other side. So Chip, this is your budget and you have the concerns so I'm going to turn this rate over to you. Okay. So I just. So I've had a couple of emails, mostly with Marcy about this, but having dealt with it in that with the diversion program in the past, and talking to will I, it just seems to me that diversion is such an important part of our criminal justice system and our that and particularly now maybe given the situation with COVID and the and the backlog of cases in the court system. And having heard from them that there is a fairly significant revenue shortage. For reasons I'll let them explain to you. I thought it was important to bring them in to talk to the committee so that we could get an understanding of what it means. But the present situation in their, their lack of revenue means, if, if that continues what it will mean in terms of what kinds of reduction in services will have to happen in order to make their budgets work. And then for the committee to have a discussion afterwards about whether well that this should be on our radar and and as we go forward with the budget, try to figure out whether there are ways we can change the situation in terms of their revenue or their, their funding. So with that stuttering introduction, I will just turn it over to will I will probably take the lead on this I would assume unless it's TJ I see he's unmuted. Yeah, thank you. Thank you representative conquest. I mean diversion is a program that is really been in the vanguard of reforming our criminal justice system and addressing not only kind of first time offenders but then transitioning to dealing with those more serious issues whether it's mental health, whether it's addiction whether it's poverty that frankly the criminal justice system is ill equipped to deal with diversion has been a award winning program to treat from honors fairly by investing in the community. Will a feral who's on we'll hear from surely has been a leader of not only diversion but of reform our criminal justice system, really for the last couple of decades and this is as we all know and you said it best. We have a revenue shortage because diversion has a fee. And when COVID hit in March, obviously the courts shut down and that meant that people were not going into court, who then we're not being referred to diversion. And therefore, we have a revenue shortage based on that that the number we're asking for is of course annualized out. And I agree with representative conquest would fully expect as we go back online and have people in courts and open up that diversion will be needed. More so now more than ever, but with that let me turn it over to my colleague and friend will a feral. Thank you, TJ. I'll just make the same points and elaborate a little bit. As you can imagine when the pandemic arrived in Vermont and things in the courts shut down programs really closed as well. And this led to a couple of effects in terms of the revenue. And as TJ as the attorney general mentioned, people were not being referred to the program. And in addition, people who were already involved in court diversion, who had a fee to pay, typically, many of them were in dire financial stress themselves and stop paying or had other pressing priorities to deal with health and other family issues where they just lost contact with the program. I should step back for a minute and note that fees are really a key part of the revenue stream to run court diversion and pretrial services. We don't charge a fee in the pretrial services program but there is $175 fee. That's a standard fee across the state for misdemeanor referrals and underage possession of alcohol and marijuana referrals. We follow a standard fee schedule and many people have their fee reduced payment plans are just commonality. The fee is waived completely but even with those reductions statewide about a quarter of the money that supports these programs comes from client fees. So it's a really major stream that supports the operation of the services. We've projected based on the loss of revenue during the last quarter of FY 20 and compared to the fee revenue that we brought in in FY 19 which had already started to drop off compared to previous years despite a really significant increase in referrals for the reasons that the AG has mentioned. We are projecting for FY 21 shortfall of $162,000 across the state. That's our best educated estimate based on past history but as I keep saying in all my conversations around anything these days is just a lot of uncertainty with the pandemic and how that plays out in every system. So courts are coming back and we are starting to see an uptick in referrals. It varies by county as you can imagine each courthouse is different, got different judges and prosecutors. So the programs are operating staff are operating are working with people. There's a lot happening similar to this remote meetings but some in person meetings. One of the ways that programs are adapting and courts are adapting is that people are typically being referred without having to go into the courthouse. So staff are reaching out to people based on referral from prosecutor. And it frankly it's more difficult to connect with people if you haven't met them in person in the courthouse, but part of, you know, at this point we often talk about diversion diverting people out of the court system. And these days, we're even just diverting them out of the building. So there's a lot of adjusting and creative thinking about how to connect with people. And in talking with program directors around their budgets. We were able to level fund their grants this year based on carry forward funds, but they all are looking at their reduction in fees. And we started to have the conversation or what, what does that mean if, if your fee revenue doesn't come in in the coming year in the way that it hasn't past years. How will you respond and while I haven't spoken with all directors that the message I'm hearing is cutting staff hours. These are primarily nonprofit agencies who have a little more flexibility than say state government so it's, it can be creative in reducing hours and not necessarily, you know, cutting to half time and such. And then the play out from that, which really is the area of huge concern is what that means for the services, as you know, in our previous testimony we've spoken about the heavy caseloads that people carry. I'm concerned as our directors that as they cut staff and referrals increase or ratchet up back to pre the pattern we were seeing in the before of the spring that these caseloads will really just be unsustainable and I think we're and we've, we've sort of just put our toe into this conversation because people are really reluctant to talk about triaging or not doing the full array of work that is asked of them. As you can imagine, and I know you many of you know your local program director, they're really passionate about criminal justice reform and restorative justice and meeting people's needs and work hard and diligently to be creative. And there's the point where, you know, financial constraints, and I don't know I'm speaking to a group that knows this more than, you know, most people in the state I realize there does come a point where services are affected. And so, that's why we're here today. Thanks to represent a conquest that, you know, we ask that you consider an increase of about 162,000 which is our in our best educated estimate of the loss fee revenue and this coming fiscal year, or I guess it's this fiscal year. So thank you for the opportunity to, to speak and I know if Marcy wants to add anything or we of course are happy to take questions. We have a good thank you will have a question from Diane and then I need to make my math work here I've been doing some shorthand math and my numbers aren't working and I'm hoping you can help me. Thank you. My question was really is around, you've got, there's three downs in that area but the one the 162 is the one that's the most concerning to make sure that we can, if we could restore is the first one and could is that ongoing or one one time dollars work there. I have to say I don't know the documents you're looking at so only speak to the 162 that's our estimate for this fiscal year. And when I say uncertainty, I, I frankly don't know what f y 22 will bring. It could, it could be the effects of the pandemic. You know, go beyond. I don't know. I think Diane was referring to is within the fund. Were you given targets Marcy to meet were you given a 3% target or something like that. Can you speak to those as well. You are muted. Thank you. We have a 3% reduction target, which is the 81 465. We have carry forward from FY 20 so that we can fill that hole for FY 21, but that reduction to our base we would need it back again in 22. Or that would be an actual cut to the program dollars. There's an 81,000 that you are showing the reduction but you're using your carry forward is one time as a bridge into 22. Correct. The problem there. And then, and then within personal services. Was there a reduction there was a reduction is it was that I see the general fund the special fund and Diane what was the third one you saw. That was the 100,000 above it the no programmatic impact only bringing fee revenue spending authority in line with actual experience and that was a reduction of 100,000. Yeah, so that has no program impact. And that's just back into the house fixing that it reflects actual. So if we were to slice and dice this is the 162 that's really, really the most critical here. For 21 and then for 22 we would need the 81. Okay, and potentially we would need the 81. Marcy so the additional $100,000 reduction that you walk through that has no programmatic reduction when I look at my two grants lines from the governor in January to the governor's recommend in August. The grants, I see a difference of 262 not one. So is the 262 that other 100 that has no program. Grant line then if it if it's not granted out for programs, because in vantage we have to match the revenue with the expense. And so the only expense in court diversion is the grants up to the programs. Okay, thank you. So my math so my math did work. I just couldn't explain it. Thank you. Are there other questions for either the Attorney General or for Willow or Marcy. Chip, did you want to. Did you have more to say at this point. Not, not, not really, I wanted to make sure that we had a chance to ask questions if the committee has it. And for the folks at the Attorney General's office and diversion in particular to just make clear to us what the implications are of this loss of revenue. You know, I guess maybe I would ask TJ to reiterate whether, you know, as as the courts open back up and address their backlog. Does it seem likely that that there may be even a greater demand on the diversion program because you know prosecutors and the courts will want to get those those cases moved along. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you representative conquest I think as the courts open up and the cases come in. If you're that prosecutor what's going to happen is you're going to triage. You're going to go to the most serious cases first as frankly you should. And diversion is going to be a avenue that many cases are going to flow down for not only because it's the right thing and the appropriate forum. Because almost out of necessity, these cases are going to have to go somewhere with a backlog you're now going to be overwhelmed and there's going to be and there's going to be a push to get cases out of the system in order to alleviate the backlog and diversion is obviously I think in a good way that going to be the beneficiary of those of that volume of cases going somewhere and it's going to be to diversion. And we accept that we welcome it. I actually, again, I think it's a good thing, but we got to be we got to be staffed up to handle it. Yeah, and, you know, I just, I'll say, and Kimberly can back me up on this having been in the judiciary committee as well that, you know, as the policy committee. So diversion was a really important program one that had great support in that committee and still does. And I guess, really this is about my angst about, you know, understanding that diversion is underfunded now that the caseloads are already high. And if we allow the funding to be reduced that that the program won't be able to do the work that we expect it to do and and that we will almost certainly run into the problems of having excessively high caseload, you know, possibly burn out or the system that the programs themselves won't be able to keep up and and I would just hate to see anything happen to reduce the effectiveness of these programs. So just trying to help help us make the case for why we need to. I appreciate that I just add one thing, Representative conquest, you know, mentioned the judiciary work. You know, there's a real fight as so many of you know to really have a uniform and standard practice across the state in terms of different alternatives and a lot of the good work that came out of the legislature and in particular the judiciary committees, frankly, and the chief that uniformity and the standardization and so for the first time, you know, on many different alternatives out of the criminal justice system, we now have a uniform system in our 14 counties, and our numbers are up. And you also passed a law that created a presumption of the referral to diversion which increases the numbers. And so, all the work I think that you guys have done have led to that standardization that we've fought for for so many years, which has rightfully increased the numbers. And I think we're going to now have added an increased numbers because the backlog which again we welcome, we think it's the right thing. We need the infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you. We have Mary and Kimberly welcome back Kimberly. I'm not disagreeing with any of this conversation. I just wanted to note that diversion is only one element of the restorative justice system and the other portions of it, and particularly that are the responsibility of the community justice centers are also going to be deeply pressured. And one of our problems with having a system and a statewide system is that it is very county based, and there is different advocacy for the different programs and I find that frequently when folks talk about diversion. They are also thinking the CJC's and some of the other restorative justice programs who are not being funded. And I, we have not had a request from the Department of Corrections which is responsible for the CJC's to increase their funding. But I am really concerned about that portion of the system when the courts, well, technically, before the courts open up the CJC's could be doing lots of work. And I don't think we're using that well enough. Unfortunately, they don't have a good advocate who's in here saying we need some some of this money, some additional money to I'm not saying that I disagree with the request for diversion, just noting this. We're trying to get a system. But it's got a ways to go and CJC's need help that we need to pay attention to to. Thanks. Thank you, Mary. Kimberly. Thank you. I would just echoes chips assessment from just having spent the limited time that I did on judiciary. And it's often a casting about for some sort of a systemic reform for doing business differently. And in my opinion, this offers a way of doing business different I almost see it as a hinge between the court system and some of the other community. It depends if we want to keep opening that door and keep stabilizing that system. And I think finally what I would just say is that we also spend a lot of time talking about our incarceration rates, the collateral damage along the way there are just so implications to getting folks involved in that system. And in my view these sorts of more proactive investments that we can do upstream, have a really great payoff downstream. So thank you. Thank you Kimberly. Are there any other comments that anyone would like to make or questions. Diane was waving her hand. Oh, Diane. Okay, I'm sorry I was looking for a virtual. No, no, that's quite all right I had it up but you know sometimes I forget to put it down and I'd already spoken once I shouldn't should monopolize the time, but the having seen that we've got the attorney general here today and Marcy there was the other issue that that just just so you know, we have forgotten about your 7% vacancy rate, and that the need for your request for to get down to 4% is still on our, if we if we if we only could list and we're, we're aware of that I don't know if you had anything more, you wanted to add to that but we still carrying that number that you need 158,519 dollars in order to make that work is that still correct. But look at the end of the day, the AG's office is personnel, and either we, we have people to do the work or we don't. And if we got to keep spots open. There's there's a cost to that. I would just say this. You know, I am proud of the fact we created a rapid response team in terms of not only raising awareness and educating but the enforcement of the governor's executive orders during the pandemic and we're still doing that and early on. There was a lot of questions from a lot of Vermonters about what the rules were how they could keep their businesses open. And we took hundreds of calls and lawyers in my office, answered those calls worked with Vermonters, tried to find creative ways to comply with the governor's executive order and to keep people's businesses open. And we did that. And I think we're probably the only state that we only had to file two cases. There was a violation the governor's executive order. And that's because we were on the ground working with Vermonters, building that voluntary compliance with the governor's executive order to keep our numbers so low. But that that's people that is people. I think doing what I've always viewed as the best way to enforce the law, which is working with Vermonters educating them about what the law is and finding a workable creative solution. I think we need to fill those spots. That's why the vacancy savings at 7% which is higher than the statewide average is an issue for us. And I think we all know come the fall, you know, we're going to be dealing with with this stuff again and we're going to be dealing with with building compliance with the schools with the colleges. We're the office that does the enforcement, and it is cross agency, and we need we need our people. Thank you. Thank you. We have two questions. One from representative Yacoboni and then representative Hooper. Dave. I'll be brief. Yes, thank you. Before I ask will the question I just wanted to thank the attorney general and his staff. He triggered my memory back in the. April and April we had in my area in Lamora County, like an uprising of all these frustrated folks who wanted to go out and do yard work and such. And they weren't allowed to yet. There were a number of folks who were out there, they're doing that work and the attorney general's office helped facilitate and work with our chief of police to calm the water some as much as they could be. I appreciate that. My question, Willa. Two of them. How would I know if a diversion program was doing a good job. What are the metrics you look at. We, we do follow the results based accountability framework. And so we, we look at successful completion rate, which is sort of a tricky one because what's, you know, you want a certain percentage to complete the program successfully but not everybody want a certain amount of rigor. So that's one we look at we look at restitution, whether restitution that's part of agreements are paid. Excuse me right now or the last few years we've started to do satisfaction surveys of participants, as well as victims of cases referred to diversion. And so those data are newer. And we're also rolling the satisfaction of participants survey out to Tamrak participants or people who have substance abuse or mental health treatment needs. So those are metrics that we use we do also appear review process where every three years. There's a team that visits programs and meets with staff, as well as volunteers and trustees. But not all of the organizations are nonprofits with with boards of trustees and have a more. I mean there's a paperwork review process in there but there's also more of a qualitative discussion about, you know, how do you, how are you using restorative justice in your organization what's the success that you want to highlight in the past years what are you what are you struggling with. The programs work up a plan. And then I think the final thing I would note is each year agencies submit quality improvement plan on any top any area of their work that they wish to, and they set out what we call our smart goals specific measurable achievable realistic and time down, saying. So I know for example this year to agencies are really focused on how to engage participants when you haven't met them in with them in person because of the challenges are seeing so. That's another way that as a funder we ask people to look at the quality and work on the quality of their work. So quick. Thank you. Do you do you work with the adults in the household, as well as the younger folks. Yes, so within court diversion there's both juvenile and adult court diversion out of family division as well as criminal division so we've had people in diversion from age of 10 to in their 80s. At any age with younger participants under 18 parents are part of the program they have to, you know, agree that their child participates in the program and the agreement that's developed. While it's with the young person or the youth or the child. I'm sure that it's part of a family and the contract is specific to that incident but a lot of sort of broader work is often done with a family to help, especially in agencies that you know like representative Hooper mentioned that are broader centers that have multiple array of services. It can be connecting them with in house services or other services in the community. So, while their case managers are not social workers. They maybe their social workers in light or something that sounds dismissive I don't want to say that but they're doing that type of work. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'll follow up offline with you with some thoughts. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Mary. Thank you. TJ you mentioned your response in the early days and the continuing response. It strikes me that that that work is CRF eligible. Did you apply for and did you receive funds that would cover that work or the cost of that work? Yeah, is that the CARES Act? Yes. Yes. Yes. We were reimbursed for that. And I'll let Marcy answer that. There was some discussion as a really strong carry forward as a result of that. I think I have a disagreement. I'm recalling that you had a significant actually I think your funds were swept rather than allowing you to carry forward remembering that correctly. Maybe we carry forward 50% of what we had. Marcy am I correct about that? Not quite. We were allowed to carry forward 150,000 and we had 285,000 reverted. And to your point, I, you know, that that rapid response team was obviously directly related to COVID and it was reimbursable, which obviously put our carry forward number a little bit higher. But it was incredibly important work from whether it was as representative Yakimoni discussed dealing with people doing yard work. I remember that but also dealing with churches. And dealing with big businesses and product coming in that, you know, would have to lose the value of the product because nobody can unload the trucks. And we resolved a lot of these issues by, again, doing the work, having lawyers on the job. We had 247 working with commerce to who would interpret it and we'd go back and work with them every day about what a rule meant, and then talking to Vermonters about what they couldn't do and trying to find those workable solutions. So we could comply with the governor's order, but understand that the economy keep humming as best it could under under these really unique circumstances and that's that's people in these jobs, and we're going to need them come to fall. There are questions either about the the position changing the position savings rate from 7% to 4% which would come at, we would need to find 158 plus 1000 and ongoing money and I think I think we can really appreciate the need TJ I hope you can appreciate the tight position we are in right now, because it's nothing we can use one time money for. And I mean we're just balancing an incredibly tight budget in using a lot of one time to bridge into 2022 when we hope revenues, you know the economy really rebounds. So we have a challenge I mean we all have a challenge but the budget is particularly challenging and and not putting undue pressure on 22 is we're really paying attention to that. I, I understand and respect the position and certainly don't envy the position I would be remiss if I did not say this though. I am proud of the fact that we were not one of the states where we ended up in court fighting over the legality of the governor's executive order. And I credit my team, frankly the governor's office, the folks at commerce for working in a collaborative way to make these rules that were difficult to understand understandable to Vermonters who are trying to do the best they can. And, you know, I, for another time I would, I, and I think representative Cooper for bringing up I understand the carry forward issue I, I, that money shouldn't be held against us because it was reimbursable is what I would say, and I understand the difficulty of the position you're in representative toll and I certainly respect your position and grateful for the work you guys are doing so. Thank you, and I will take this box away from me now. I think that that wraps it up I don't see any other questions and we know the two pressures so the two pressures within the AG budget is the AG's budget is the position, the vacancy percentage and then the $60,000 shortfall due to the fees I do have to ask this question though, are the fees at the right amount or have the fees been looked at to be increased or should they be decreased and we look for another source, and I want like a one minute comment on that. I don't know when the last times the fees have been looked at for the diversion program. In the statute it's the cap is set at $300 that has been in in statute for many years before 2006 when I when I assume this position. We've had a standard fee reduction schedule in place for three or four years, at which point some agencies increase their space fee and others decreased. I think we argued we should have a lower fee. And I think there's, there's wisdom to that point. I think it's really hard to run a program on fees, when the majority of the people who are you're serving our low income, which increasingly with the DLS program that's the case. And frankly, even many people who go through the criminal justice system in general so it's a sexual issue. Yes, to be addressed not just a one time fix or filling the gap but of how the how the whole program is even funded. Correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you both for coming in Marcy thank you for coming in. It's always good to see all of you and chip. We're going to be working with chip and with Diane with these budgets and we need to get to closure by the end of next week so we're going to be working quickly but properly. Thank you and thank you for your guys service and thanks for doing all these hearings by zoom I know it's hard and I just wanted to say thank you guys I really really admire what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you for your work as well. Okay. We will go off live.