 Great. Thank you. Welcome back, everyone, to House Judiciary. We're taking testimony on H317, an act relating to establishing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics and the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics Advisory Panel. And next on our agenda for witnesses is Karen Gannett. Thank you, Representative Burdett. Oh, oops, I should. Hi there. There was a good morning. There was a suggestion that Susana Davis go before me and I'm happy to have that happen if that works for the committee. She actually had sent a no doubt saying that she didn't have any time constraints so I think we're all set. Thank you. Great. You're welcome. For the record, I'm Karen Gannett. I'm the executive director of crime research group, which is an independent and nonpartisan nonprofit organization and we work solely in the state of Vermont. We have contracts with nonprofit agencies and departments, state departments to work on criminal justice data collection and analysis. We do data requests. We get requests primarily from attorneys on the going rate for sentencing for crimes in Vermont. We also provide technical assistance. We've worked with your committee, House Judiciary, Senate Judiciary and the Sentencing Commission on reviewing all crimes in the state of Vermont and penalties to assist with recommendations to identify the criminal code. We have researchers on staff that have looked at the data across criminal justice systems in the Department of Corrections, criminal histories in the Vermont Crime Information Center, Judiciary and other agencies, and we have actually written the code to merge the data across those systems so we can actually do analysis using the data from all those systems. We have data sharing agreements, a master data sharing agreement with the judiciary for their data. We have a master data sharing agreement with the Vermont Crime Information Center for criminal histories. We're working on a master agreement with the Department of Corrections. And so we have a lot of experience in the criminal justice system we've been the statistic, acted as the statistical analysis center for the state of Vermont, every state has one. And they look at data collection and analysis for criminal justice data. We've been doing that for almost seven years as crime research group and we've been doing that prior to being crime research group for since 1987 actually with an iteration of the organization over time. Excuse me, my lead researcher Robin Joy has about 19 years of experience with criminal justice data in the state of Vermont. And essentially the groundwork a little bit for this. And then I want to say, we're not a competitor for the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics. But we do have a lot of information about how the system in Vermont works and we do have a lot of information about data in Vermont, and we have a lot of experience with creating and developing relationships. And it's important for us to get the data that's important to do this work so I just wanted to say it lay some groundwork for you all. We support the placement of the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics, as written in the, in the bill is written with the Office of Racial Equity. It's important, significant and significant to strengthen this office with data analysts that can actually use the criminal justice data and other data potentially to look at racial disparities across systems. It's a, it's a, it's a unique entity, the Office of Racial Justice Statistics, the Office of Racial Equity. And I think it's really important to build and strengthen that office to be able to do what they were meant to do as everyone envisioned in statute and I just want to remind folks that the Office of Racial Equity was set up as a place to identify and work to eradicate systemic racism within state government. One of the duties stated in the statute is to manage and oversee the statewide collection of race based data to determine the nature and scope of racial discrimination within all systems of state government. And I think it's important not to deemphasize that role by placing the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics somewhere else. This is an opportunity to raise up the office to do what they were meant to do. I actually thought Judge Brierson's comment about, you know, then the question becomes, do we make that office independent? Let me think about the Center for Crime Victim Services, the Human Rights Commission, and the Commission on Women, who are all tied and linked to state government, but they're their own independent entities. And I want to echo also what others have said in other venues that this is an opportunity to move towards equitable outcomes in housing, wealth, education, employment, health services, child welfare, not just criminal justice. So if there's a way to make this a broad vision and then do discrete analysis based on available data, I would suggest that we raise this up to be bigger than what's being envisioned in this bill, but include criminal justice in there as well. I want to emphasize that enough. This is a really important issue across state government. And as I listened to people of color testify and talk in other venues, looking across systems and not just in the criminal justice system is something that becomes very important. And that was what was envisioned in the Office of Racial Equity. I want to share that, you know, we've developed MOUs and data sharing agreements, we have contracts with state departments to do data analysis, to get the data and to conduct analysis on the data. And I want to say the Agency of Digital Services has been critically important for facilitating access to the data. Again, in the statute creating the agency, the first responsibility listed includes the sharing of data information within state government. They understand the data systems in the state, they understand all the data systems in the state, they have people that are actually linked to all the different departments. So they understand how the data is kept, where the data is kept, what data is kept, and they understand the rules and regulations for accessing that data. And one of the subsections in the statute defines information technology activities as the creation, collection, processing, storage, management, transmission, or conversion of electronic data, documents, or records. So it's actually built into statute that they are the organization to help with those things with the data collection. Excuse me. One of the things that I have always been way before my time with CRG, I worked for the judiciary for 10 years and before that I worked in a criminal in the AHS regional partnership. It was the precursor to the field service directors around the state. And I did that in Rutland County for 10 years. And one of the things I always looked for is what do we have already that we can build on what knowledge what expertise, who's already doing this and how do we build on the capacity of those organizations and I think in this instance, we have the ability to build on things that were already that are fairly new actually the Office of Racial Equity is fairly new and the agency of ADS is fairly new. So, my suggestion would be why don't we use them in the capacity that they've already been built up for to do some of this work. So the other thing I wanted to mention is that some of the data listed and this is a little more getting down into the weeds a bit. Some of the data listed in the bill. I did some consulting with our DAP and talked about the data list, and actually in their report. We have added a column to the data list that shows what data are available, what data are not available. What data need to be extracted extracted manually. And also, what data need to be calculated so the data, not all the data in those lists are readily available. And as judge person was mentioning some of them are governed by other rules and regulations and laws that keep them from being shared. So how did the discussion is what data are available and actually can be shared. And I think that another point I wanted to make is I think independence can be achieved in different ways. In the bill that talks about the office of the child advocate. There's a line in there that talks about the office shall act independently of a State Department in the performance of its duties. There is precedence for putting language in a bill that creates some some ones of independence. And again, I thought judge Greer since comment about making an independent office was was very interesting and really beefing up the office to do the work for around racial equity. Another another point I wanted to make is there are other bills that have data collection included in them. And it was really actually fascinating to read through these other bills. One is age to 65 which is the office of child advocates, and it includes data disaggregated by race ethnicity gender, etc. And any other categories that the advocate teams necessary age to 10, the office of health equity creates an office of health equity. And for more inconsistent data collection and access to better understand health equities in Vermont, and health equity data talks about demographic data included but not limited to race ethnicity primary language, age gender, etc. This bill is used to track health equity as 16 has a robust section on the collection of education data under the powers and duties of a new task force on school exclusionary discipline reform. This bill proposes to create the school discipline advisory council to collect and analyze data regarding school discipline in Vermont public and approved independent schools. And also talks about economic development housing general affairs. This bill has a section on state BIPOC business development in part to create a portal to improve state data collection to better serve the variety of identities represented within the BIPOC community. And when it becomes active. They want race data ethnicity and gender for individuals registering businesses. These bills all speak to the comprehensive nature of racial disparities and the wide ranging data that are associated with it. And I think, rather than separating this out into separate data collection where you've got a bunch of different communities asking for the same data, some saying, some not so saying, but it's all pointing to looking for racial disparities in the system. I think it's it, it. It's important to look at what's a way to create a place, an office the bureau, so that all this can be looked at in one area, collected at one time. There may be different analyses going on for different data sets. But a lot of this information being collected is similar. We're currently working on there's another piece. There's another body of work that I think it's really important to talk about. And it really has to do with data integration. We're working right now with the Vermont National Criminal Justice Reform Project Department of Public Safety are the leaders in this. The national organizations involved in this or the National Governors Association and the National Association on criminal justice. The Arnold Foundation is, is funding the project. We have a proposal into them right now that they're reviewing. This includes a process one of the things we've learned through this and believe me I am, I am not a technology wizard by any stretch of the imagination. So, it took me a couple times of hearing this to understand the implications and importance of creating a process for data governance, creating data requirements. And looking at architecture, the technology needed to make that happen. We've been working with this, an organization called search, which is a was the is the premier justice sharing information organization in the country. We have our technical assistance on this project and one of their TA folks has talked with us and given us a path forward for exactly that data. How do you do data governance, you know how do you get the departments to agree that they're going to share their data with you and what data can be shared and what rules and regulations there are around each piece of data. Data requirements are something that we do with our clients all the time, and that is, we have to actually know what their data fields look like and have those conversations and build those relationships so we can talk to them about. What is what, how, what's the code for this field, what does this field look like how do we get that data out of the system so we can actually do our analyses. And that's a really important piece of information. And then the data architecture needed to make that happen. I want to say again, ADS has been critically important for getting those conversations done because they understand exactly all those things. And I think to build this somewhere else when you have systems in place to make this happen. We should at least take a look at that and see what they have to offer. And that's what I want to offer. We talk about this all the time at CRG with my researchers. In each department the structure of the data is different. The judiciary uses charges to enter data into their system. DoC uses person data, individual person data. Law enforcement uses incidents. We have a way to merge that data. But for you, think about this. If you want to find out how many books you bought this year and what they cost. How would you do that. So the possible sources of data, if any of you are still using checks, you might write a check to bear upon books. And so you can look at your checkbook and see where the where your checks went to bear upon books. You might buy a credit card and you've bought books at different places using your credit card. You might buy books from Amazon. So then you have to look at your Amazon orders to see where you bought the books and how much you spent there. These are all different data structures. So now you've got three sources of data that you're attempting to get data out of. And that's different. Your checkbooks looks different from your credit card statement looks different from your Amazon order report. So then how do you merge that data. And that's what we're trying to get at are the complexities of taking data from different systems when it's set up in different structures and different formats and merging it together so we have a complete picture. So that's just to kind of help visualize some of the work that needs to be done behind the scenes. And that's all I have today. Well, thank you. Thank you so much. I was lucky to come back shortly after he started and very helpful and thorough testimony appreciate it. That's up. I was gonna say, okay, do see Martin go ahead. Thank you very much Karen I take it you don't want us to give you authority to make all these administration in courts and everybody provide the data. That's a very rhetorical question but I just wanted I want to confirm how you fit into the whole system. I would say we're consultants on this. I would say we have the information and knowledge to share how this works and we would be willing to work with the bureau as it's set up to figure out how to use the data to get at racial disparities one last comment if I may and that's that it's not just about the numerical data and quantitative analysis it's also about qualitative analysis. One of the things we learned in doing some of our racial disparity work with the data is that people of color their stories aren't necessarily reflected in the numbers. That's a really important piece and it's a very emotional piece from the conversations we've had. And I think it's really important to figure out how to do a really rigorous qualitative analysis using those stories and analyzing them rigorously to figure out the patterns and the trends that are going on in the state of Vermont so that we can better understand what's happening because the numerical data don't always tell us those things. So just for however, wherever we end up with this. Is it helpful or appropriate for us to put into whatever legislation some sort of charge to to either to CRG to assist or you know in this or to the Bureau to look to CRG because I could CRG you folks have as deep a knowledge as anybody in the data as you said as a consultant but should there be something in the legislation to make sure that connection occurs. That's an interesting question I'm not sure it has to be legislated I mean it would depend on how much you know in in my world as a small nonprofit it would depend on how much work would be expected of us. So a lot of work is expected and and we're more than willing to do it there might need to be some funding for that but otherwise we do this under we do this as technical assistance for a lot of different agencies. Right, I just know that we do have you in other places like I think their justice reinvestment may have specifically listed you as helping out with our DAP and such or maybe it didn't. I think we occasionally do have your name in there as part of task forces. Yeah, certainly what led to our well in the Sentencing Commission as well that you're involved in that so yeah there are points but yeah I understand the balance thank you. Yeah. Sorry, took a minute to unmute there. Thanks. I was curious. So one of the conversations that is continuing to come up. Is this idea of like how do we compel the data like how do we make sure that we can receive the data from the various parties that we're trying to get it from and the previous person who is was offering testimony was talking about how it would be helpful to talk to folks who are most intimately involved currently with the collection of data to get a sense of, you know, what do they call upon when they when they're running into obstacles to getting the data that you need. And it was in the context of like, you know, where do we place this office and but essentially just this question of like, I guess I'm curious from your perspective because you're so involved in the like minutia of gathering data, what your experience has been in terms of what's been most effective at overcoming obstacles to getting the data that you need if you're running into an agency or a space that is feeling reluctant or maybe dragging their feet or there's reasons that the data is not being received that's outside of just like they don't have, you know, it takes a while because they don't have the operational systems in place but other other kinds of issues that might get in the way. That's a good question. Representative Donnelly and I'm, and it's a bit of a complex question because it goes to what's available in their data sets and what they can extract. So for example, we were doing a, we're taking a look at probation data, and we were working with their third party vendor. And we submitted using the ADS representative over at the Department of Corrections we submitted a list of data that we were looking for and the data came back in a, the data didn't come back in useful to us. So we had to go back to the drawing board and have those conversations again so that's, that was one issue. I have not found any department that we have worked with to date to be reluctant. Well, I shouldn't say that most departments are not reluctant to give us information. I think it's a matter of building those relationships. I will say when we first started working with law enforcement this is a good example of this. Back when I started with CRG about six and a half years ago, we didn't have any relationship with law enforcement. VCJR, which is the name previous to CRG, used to get the law enforcement data from something called VECON for crime online. Some of you might recognize that. There's a system set up at the Department of Public Safety that had all the data from law enforcement in it that then got transferred to the FBI, and the researchers could go in and just get that data and do their analysis. What happened in VECON was no longer available and was no longer being kept up. And so it felt very necessary to us to start building relationships with the police department so we could get their data, and we could do analysis on crime data. So we started talking with the two governance boards that govern the two cat RMSs for the police. And initially when we went there, they all own their own data, and one chief who is no longer there anymore pointed his finger at me and said, you know, you're not going to get our data. And I was a little taken aback. And, but eventually, after talking with them, and after sharing with them what we were going to use the data for that stopped. And the different police departments and the sheriff's departments were willing to share their data with us. And so I think the relationship building is a really important piece when you're dealing with reluctant people. But I think most people when when you let them know what you're going to be doing with their data, if it's available to share with you, you know, bearing any rules and regulations and laws. People want to know what's going on in their department. And they want to make things better. Thank you. Okay, any other questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you again Karen. Appreciate your welcome. Thank you for having me. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Okay, Suzanna. Thank you're here somewhere. Santa Davis. I'm here. Welcome. Thank you very much. Nice to see you. Thank you for the record to Santa Davis racial equity director for the state. I can be very brief. Of course I'm, you know, remain available for questions but I suppose I can distill very cleanly my feedback on on this proposed bill. First of all, I support any efforts that we want to make to expand and improve data collection. I think it's really important that we recognize the deep just we have recognized the deep disparity in justice outcomes by race. And so taking this step I think represents that acknowledgement and a sincere effort to try to correct those disparities by understanding them through the collection and reporting of data so I support those efforts. I will say that the big question in the room or one of the big questions in the room has been where do we cite such a bureau. And I know there have been a number of proposals or recommendations put out there on where to house it. Additionally, I think that it would be a natural fit to put it in a racial equity office. However, I don't think that a racial equity office is necessarily a natural fit in itself for the agency administration. Therefore, I wonder if this bureau would be better situated in another agency that's more topically or substantively relevant to the other functions of that agency. And I'm thinking about this not just for this particular work but down the line when we create six more bureaus and And suddenly we have a Pluto Kuiper belt situation where nothing seems to fit. So that that's my only caveat but again, you know, should the legislature choose to move forward with citing this in a way under racial equity, provided that there's adequate staff support for this specific work stream. It would, it would be a welcome addition to to the office. But again, I do caution us to consider if building it this way is structurally a natural fit. The other thing that I would say because I just can't help myself is, while I love the idea of a bureau of racial justice statistics. It also really begs us to look at how are we addressing racial justice statistics for other oppressed communities people living with disabilities people experiencing poverty and homelessness mental illness people members of the LGBTQIA plus community. And so as we consider this big step of creating this bureau I ask us also to consider equity across all those other spectrums as well. Thank you, thank you I appreciate it's really very helpful I've been waiting for your testimony so thank you so much. Let's see Barbara and then Martin. Hello, so you raised two really important points and I'm wondering if, if the data. If this project were to be housed in a bureau with other statistics that get collected so it isn't going to create problems down the line. Would it make sense to have a dotted line or have it be. An employee of your office but housed in a different office as a collaboration. So that's one question and then I started thinking about your second point and the Human Rights Commission, not that necessarily it housed there but having that same kind of dotted line and I know, I mean I know that happens in state government all the time for people to collaborate and report somewhere else. So I'm just wondering how that would see. Thank you representative I think there are a lot of creative ways that we could structure an org chart that make that makes sense, and that make best use of the work and the resources. You know, one, one suggestion that I've heard a couple of times so far on this morning's testimony has been to create an independent body office. And if that were the case, then I could see a lot of really great potential for that being expanded outside the scope of racial equity to include equity and more forms. And I could see it focusing not just on justice but also on things like education equity housing equity, etc. Of course not to overstep the bounds of the HRC which does have enforcement authority over public accommodations, employment, etc. So I think it's an administrative agency or office that is dedicated to the policy and the education and the service providing side of things that could be very powerful and and I don't want to talk out of turn too much because of course I have big ideas for what that could look like but I think that that's certainly something to consider. Another, another consideration that I have heard, and I think it's a valid one. And should be discussed is the importance of independence. When it comes to this kind of work, you all have heard me say in other contexts that personally I think any, any, any office that serves as a watchdog of government would probably be better to be independent. Our current, our current administration here is clearly motivated by issues of equity and justice and I don't, I don't worry that this admin would would be problematic in getting this work done. But we make these decisions for any admin that comes in in the future. Exactly. Exactly. It's not about a person but the what makes sense. I also think it would be incredibly helpful for the Human Rights Commission to have that data to see, you know, are their trainings making a difference like where are, you know, because I don't know how much data they are able to collect right now. So, I love your expansion idea I think we would need to source it accordingly and not be like, Oh, while you're doing that, could you collect this and this and get the Medicaid, you know, like, because then it'll just be repeating the one person in the office. So, yeah, I mean, and right. I mean, and then I think of people who fall into more than one discrimination box and making sure we're covering the person of color with the disability that is trans and not, you know, yeah. So, yeah, I'm glad that you're thinking big and that independence seems really important because if it is in the administration and you don't have a direct role. It seems like we could set up again, structurally not about the people. You know, it could be budding heads about what's important to collect. So, thank you. Thank you. And you know, there are drawbacks as well to that to that level of separation. I mean, for example, there are certain restrictive regulations that prohibit sharing of data across certain agencies, even within the community. And so as we consider who would have as to which data, and how hard are they going to have to struggle to be able to, you know, get information. That's another thing to consider so in that sense, perhaps housing something more in-house might be of greater benefit I think that is going to depend on how the legislature chooses to structure it. And does it then make sense to consider as a pilot like it's going to be in this office for the next three years and then we're going to revisit where state government is with collecting data and what makes sense. I mean, so that because, because maybe what makes sense in the very beginning won't make, you know, it could morph into something else, but at least it would get off to a start that's sort of synchronized with the work that you're doing. Possibly. I appreciate the openness and the flexibility of that sort of proposal. But, you know, it could be tricky. For example, I know that AHS agents of departments may be subject to certain kinds of trainings regularly. If we house something in, I don't know, ADS at first, and then move it to AHS. Have they gotten really sector specific, you know, gotten accustomed to a certain kind of training environment or a certain kind of operational environment and need to switch that is that going to impact the work somehow. How do we do funding at that point, distributing of staff positions, etc. So we would have to work it out but what I appreciate about that proposal is that it remains open and flexible based on ongoing monitoring of that office's success and outcomes. Right. Right, it's it's there are pros and cons to each, you know, like, it's, yeah, anyway. Thank you. Martin. Thank you, Suzanne. It's nice to see you again even though yesterday your screen was blank at the RDAP but that's good to see you this morning. So, the way that and if you've been at the RDAP meetings you've probably heard this coming from me there. I'm really looking at this, and I think from what Professor Crocker's testimony was as well is there are two aspects of it it's the data collection, and then it's the data analysis, and from the testimony I've heard and from just understanding where it just seems that the data collection to have the appropriate authority has to be somewhere in the administration. I think I think an independent entity is somewhat hamstrung although we'd certainly create independent entities with subpoena power and all those kind of things but I'd rather not do that I'd rather be in a collaborative sense. So my thinking I'd like your comment on this is, you know, really splitting those two things off and the data collection. It just absolutely seems that the agency of digital services and the under the chief data officer for that matter is the the most appropriate place that we have right now has the knowledge has the skills has the ability to oversee this I understand there needs to be more resources to get it done. But on the resource side, I'll jump to another. I'm sorry I'm talking a lot but I just want to set this up. Yeah, from what I heard from Professor Crocker as well is that it's, it's a lot of upfront costs to get these systems to talk together to get it set up and then it should be running a little And I do understand that the racial and other disparities that we're seeing have really been highlighted in COVID. And I think that maybe there's some COVID money that can be actually put towards that setup component of it. But we would need to know what those resources are that are needed. But before even that we would need to kind of get the commitment of the agency of digital services that they do want to be this entity. But it just makes a lot of sense to me, the mini bills that actually Karen discussed where we already have put into place bills that we sent over to the Senate or the Senate has sent over to us seeking all sorts of data. And this is just one more aspect of it is the criminal justice data. So, and then you know if we can figure out that collection side. If that data becomes available a data set it can be used by your office. It could be used by UVM it could be used by the racial justice alliance who have their own data crunchers. But it's getting that common data set it seems is a separate issue and really. I've not heard of a better place to put it than in the agency of digital services so if you could comment on that and if you could give me guidance on how to proceed. If in fact I mean I'd rather not just dictate this from the legislature but actually work with the administration to make sure we're doing this right. So that was a long setup for if you just kind of comment on where my thinking is going on this. I think Professor crackers testimony was extremely helpful and helping understand the the sort of, I guess the chain of command or the chain that the data has to take. And I agree that there's the technical aspect of the collection of it the housing of it and the digital translation the ones in the zeros right and then there's a reporting and in order to do the technical piece of it. Perhaps you don't have to have substantive knowledge of the underlying criminal justice issues. If you're just collecting information. But it tastes very strange to go with that so if we were to put something like this in ADS for collection purposes, I would still feel strongly that somebody who knows something about justice. Not just from the, you know, legal is legal perspective but from the social perspective, who knows about justice be be in charge or involved with that within ADS. And that's the way that we're going to have somebody who can spot errors, trends, or unusual things in the data, because if you don't know what to look for then you don't know if your collection is actually working. So that's one thing and then in terms of analysis I agree with you representative that the we've got a lot of entities who can do a lot with the data once we get it community groups like the racial justice alliance and, you know, other entities we have like, you what have you and then other state agencies as well. So, I think once we get the data that the analysis part of it and being able to use it responsibly. We have a lot of entities that can handle that. And again that's going to go back to the conversation about data use data management and sharing agreements. So in terms of the collection I suppose to answer your question which you can tell I'm struggling to struggling to come with an answer but I don't want to speak on secretary Quinn's behalf. Of course I think it's ADS is perfectly capable of doing the collection. Topically it is incongruous with their work. So, you know, it's, we have to ask ourselves. Are we okay with that. They can. I'm again I'm confident they can do the nuts and bolts of it. But this feels more like policy and less like it support. And so I just want to make sure that if we if we do begin to, you know, narrow that line between the two that that we have the right staff in place who can swiftly move between both. I hope that makes sense the way that I said it. I think I think so and I guess. I mean the other thing that would be would be helpful and and I don't know if there's something we direct and legislation taking a slightly different tack than what we have here is is asking the agency of the you know, under that would be you an agency of digital services to tell us the game plan for the collection and that includes the technical part and what should be collected, but then also some sort of independent body, providing oversight on that. The problem is trying to figure out from where we're sitting, what the best way to do this when really it's the I think it's the administration that is in a better place to help us tell us how best to do this. And then us certainly interjecting how we would want to have some sort of oversight independent oversight as well. But we can ponder that a little bit further. I don't want to proceed with this because I really I think this is critical that we, we make progress and we start the process of being able to collect this data we've been dealing with this for last four years of trying at a minimum the last four years probably longer to try to make sure that we're making our decisions a little bit more data driven. I don't want to see this just run into a wall, because we don't quite have it right in this document yet I don't think maybe we do any event I'll stop rambling on thank you. Okay, can Kate and Selena. Good morning, Susanna. We have a lot of data that's already been collected. I believe whether. And in my mind, we've created a lot of walls of what's looked at and what isn't looked at. But is there enough. It's available there for for you to look at it and start getting a handle on what's going on with with the society in Vermont. Yes representative we know what's going on. It's systemic racism. Okay, I'm being a little facetious here but yes, we have a lot of data that we do already collect, and it does point us to trends and disparities. And some of those were already addressing work through justice reinvestment and a number of the bills that you all are already are already moving this session and have moved last session. There are data that are informing our decisions and that we're able to really get insight into a lot of the disparities. And yet, there's always the case. There's always the case to continue and to expand the data collection and not just to expand it but to refine it, because often we see disconnect in things that seem like little points but actually could add up to be quite big ones for example. There are some entities that believe that race data should be perceived and others who believe that it should be self identified. And this matters, because if I get stopped or arrested or what have you and we're going by perceived data, they're going to log one African American female. If it's self identified, then they're going to log one Latina, and that's going to skew numbers right especially when we're talking about a population that only represents 4% of the state. So, so those are the things that sometimes seem minute but in fact have larger ripple effects and so I guess the short answer to your question is yes we have data already that do and can continue inform our work. But the centralization and uniformity of our collection is where we can really make big improvements. And so I think this proposal stands to do that. The question is just how do we structure it organizationally in a way that makes sense and is sustainable. I hope I've answered your question. And, and I think with your experience so far you asked some really good ideas how to do that correct. Got some ideas yeah. I mean, most I think most of the best ideas that I've seen on these topics have come from the community and so it's it's always my preference to defer to them and to people with with that lived experience. But I look, I look to you for the leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. I don't, maybe this is just a comment I guess I just felt compelled to raise my hand, listening to Martin, talking. And maybe I'm just reiterating to sort of what you were saying. It just feels important to name as we're having these conversations, but this isn't in my mind, just about gathering certain data points, like, you know, I think we have to look at I guess this is what concerns and we talk about having it in a department that is specifically focused on data collection is it feels like we're talking about a space that has to merge, you know, an expertise in data collection with an expertise in social and racial equity issues. And that's, you know, data doesn't exist in a vacuum you have people who are determining the kind of data that we're seeking we're analyzing that data we're, you know, like was stated before looking at trends, things of that nature. And so, you know, I feel, I feel like if we're talking about housing it within a department that's focused purely on data. I would want to really go through this bill would find to come to ensure that the way that the specific department is operating and the people who are hired to perform these jobs have an expertise in social and racial equity so that we can make sure that the aspect of it is being captured. Thank you representative. Yeah, it's, it's, you know, it's tricky this is this is work that is necessarily technical in nature, and necessarily policy focused in purpose. And, and it is about marrying those two in a way that that makes sense thank you for your comment. Thank you, Selena. Thanks. This might be a little redundant but I just, I know the, I went back and looked at the Rdap sort of list of eight, you know, impossible places and I know the agency of digital services is on there but it was really my impression from their testimony that they were cut from from a tons testimony at least that there was some weighting of those more independent options such as standing up a new agency or the Human Rights Commission or I think there were a couple that, and I just, I know you're, I think you're on the, that advisory panel, and I think I'm hearing you say something similar, a little bit similar in your testimony around just the importance of that independence and I don't make you, you know, have to repeat yourself but I just, I just don't, if you want to expand it all and just if I'm understanding your testimony correctly that would be helpful for me. Believe it or not, I did not formally sit on the Rdap I think that's the one, the one that I don't. I think it was created before this role had existed. But I do attend all the meetings and have been sitting in on their conversations about this. So again, you know, I'm going to say what what David share said earlier which is I would probably defer to a ton to speak on the panel's behalf and I think you have at least one more member coming into this morning to testify. But but what I can say is that my assessment of those conversations is similar to yours representative that it appears that the Rdap does have a greater preference for a more independent writing of this bureau, rather than housing it in something that's really directly overseen by the admin but again I will let the committee speak for itself I will say you know again I speak to the importance of independence not because of considerations for you know any current players, but just because historically in the United States we've seen equity work get sidelined with the coming and going of different of different leaders. Right, we saw this between Lincoln and Johnson we saw this between I mean you name it Sherman and then after Sherman and pretty much it's it's a defense mechanism more than anything to protect the longevity and the long term integrity of the work so yeah I just I hope that that excuse me comes across as just a big concern like an overarching consideration and not necessarily concern over any you know current current players. With that again I reiterate with, with appropriate, you know staff support and with the flexibility. Perhaps that that that excuse me the representative Rachel said my mentioned earlier. I think that we can certainly, we can certainly do the work. With my trust and always capabilities. I just, I ask us again to consider. As we build up this body of work. Are we going to feel like it makes sense in structure in three years five years six years. Thanks us really helpful. Thank you. Martin. I wonder if you have any insight or input on how we could give an independent authority sufficient independent entity sufficient authority to be able to rest this data out of potentially reluctant agencies. So that's where my biggest issue is I'm trying to figure out and if you have any insider suggestions or thoughts on that. Um, you know, I would probably. I would say that the sort of quasi independent agencies that exist might be good models. You know you don't you don't necessarily want to have to resort to things like subpoena power that's heavy, not that it's a bad thing but it's it's heavy and maybe it doesn't have to be necessary. If we structure. I mean look we already have a couple of bills that I think were passed last session that have improved or expanded access to justice data for the executive director of racial equity. So that's just something that the legislature was able to mandate, and now AOA kind of enforces that. So there's a lot of in so so already providing more data access to an internal agency like AOA is something that we've made a possibility. Now maybe that just means something as simple as creating a data sharing agreement with that independent or quasi independent agency. AOA is not reluctant to give those data, right instead of having to wrestle it from 80 different 78 different agencies. Perhaps just have it funneled to an internal centralized place and used as needed. Again, you know I'm, I'm, I'm not a fan of huge government so I don't want to create more layers of bureaucracy and process. But of course if we're just thinking creatively about how to make sure that this work has real integrity and real teeth. And you know at the end of the day, a lot of our focus here, of course is on the data collection and the data reporting, and these are important pieces of it. But again can't help myself, I again have to stress more than anything I want to make sure that we're doing something about it once we, once we get those those data and those numbers. And that's not, that's not as a sort of counterpoint to anything that's been said here just needs to be said in addition. So what was the legislation is it something you can actually point me to a little more specifically I'm sorry. It'll take me a couple of minutes to pull it up but I can, I can give you that that act number. Great, thank you. Oh, sorry, are you. You're muted I didn't know. Sorry, Maxine I didn't know if you were calling on me or not you were muted. No, I, I wanted to give Susan a time to pull the. Yeah, and then I can still take, I mean, I'm, yeah, I can still talk to you well and I just won't look at you. That's okay take. Take your time. No, that's okay take your time. Thank you. And then we have Act 147, which was as to 19, which came out of the, which came out of this committee actually, so I should have probably remembered that. Yep. And specifically, it's a that state grant funding for law enforcement shall be contingent on the agency or constable complying with the race data reporting requirements set forth in 20 BSA 2366 section six months prior to the secretary of administration's review of the proposed grant funding. Thanks. And we added more categories to race data collection and fair and impartial policing. Thank you. Okay, Kate. Thanks I was clearly very eager to my question. So maybe this is sort of what you were just referring to Susan, I guess, when we talk about white supremacist culture, there is a strong reliance on data. And this sort of desire to, you know that that anecdotal evidence and stories of people really lived experiences are are devalued and what's valued is this sort of what's claimed to be valued is this like hard evidence. But I also feel like there's ample evidence to suggest that, even when we do have data, we can present the data. That's still for for many people isn't quite enough. And I worry sometimes and I'm not. I mean, there's a lot of support efforts like this bill, and that, you know, in part because I think it ultimately where it continues to remove obstacles that people can sort of hide behind and continues to bring the story up to the forefront but I don't know, I mean, maybe this is an unfair issue, but I guess I'm just sort of curious. I'm worried that we're going to spend years and millions of dollars gathering boatloads of data to prove what we already know. And where does that where does that leave us exactly and I guess I'm just curious from your perspective, like, you know if you if you sort of could dictate the next three years of addressing these issues of systemic racism in Vermont would you be putting that time and money into data gathering would you be putting it into other forms of intervention that that are addressing the issues that we that we ultimately know we're going to find like I think we know what we're going to find when we pull when we pull this data together. So again I'm not sure that that's a fair question, but I just felt compelled to ask it. Yeah, there's a lot in your question and I appreciate it because one is qualitative and quantitative information, as you mentioned and both are extremely important. Yes, it is often the case that we maintain existing disparate systems by relying on things like data and numbers and rigidity and excluding or ignoring stories and lived experience and that's why it's really important that we're capturing both. And so I think the state should continue to do that, whether it's through this Bureau or through additional efforts. So I agree we shouldn't prize the qualitative over the quantitative over the qualitative separately to your point about is the juice worth the squeeze or are we just going to find more of what we already know. I think we're going to find more of what we already know. And we'll be more secure in that knowledge because we'll know that we did our due diligence and collecting it thoroughly. So, yes, I think that if we're going to spend money on this. Let's not make it exorbitant because we already have a lot of data collection systems in place that are pointing us to disparities. So let's not stop those systems, but let's also make the bulk of our equity investment in the, the correction of the upstream things that are leading to those disparities and and I say that I know you all are probably sick of hearing me say that, but this was something that I said often in the conversation around staffing for the racial equity office, which was, yes staff are appreciated but this should not represent the bulk of our equity work the bulk of the equity work has to happen in the community where disparity is showing up. That means housing that means education that means employment that means all of those other topics that are hard and hard and costly. So, yes, I agree that this is a worthwhile investment, but it shouldn't be the only focus like I'm not going to take a spreadsheet and frame it and hang it on my wall and say the work is done. Thank you. Just seeing if anybody can see any other, any other hands. Well, thank you. Thank you as always for your thoughtful and helpful, helpful testimony. Good to good to see you. Well, thank you. I'm gonna, I'll remain on I guess for if you have more more witnesses but of course I'm available to come back anytime thank you for having me. Great, absolutely appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so I think if I remember judge Greerson I forget if he was freed 1115 or was. He gave us his input before, before our break, as did David share. Okay. All right, I'm sorry to miss that. Okay, so then I think that's everybody right I'm not missing anybody. I think that's right. Okay. So I think I'd like to turn to coach and Martin. For starters, the two of you have been sort of taking the lead in in this terms of discussion, next steps, what testimonies needed just to hear your hear your thoughts we heard a lot of very helpful testimony this morning. Thank you. Any other committee members as well. So, that that works for you. I'll go to coach initially and I can certainly add my thoughts after, unless coach you're not ready to go then I can share my thoughts with you. Be quiet, because you'll learn a lot more sometimes listening. Well, not sometimes all the time. We had some really great testimony today. We had great testimony. The day before. I'm going to go back to you know the construct and thinking about the idea of s108 and h317. And so at first when you look at it you go, wow, this is really great. This makes a lot of sense. It's work we should do. And so it's in the center of this little map that I put together. I've got to figure out a way to, to get it, you know, on my, on my laptop, because right now it's on my iPad. And so sharing it at the moment is a little difficult. So I started with the bills, those two bills. And then I took all of the testimony that we've had so far. So, Professor sand, and his comments. Attorney Turner. And her thoughts, you know, both from the defender generals office and from our depth. I started to see. And then also a tons. Testimony as well. And his explanation of our daps. Eight considerations. So, so looking at it, wait a minute. There's something. You know, showing itself here. And what I started to see is is that, and some of it is what Susana mentioned as well is in statute. We already have the functionality to get the data that we need to make these decisions. Three, three 17 would do, hopefully, is create an umbrella to ensure that the racial justice data points are all together. So going back over to what's in existence. And when we look at how our DAP, for example, you know, is set up. A lot of the data that has been referred to is already being analyzed, you know, by our DAP. When you look at justice reinvestment. One and two. The work that's been done by the Council of State Governments. Helping coordinate those activities. Have come back to our committee. Have come back to Senator Sears. Committee. And also the corrections committee in the Senate. Corrections committee here and then also government operations in both. So the major users, you know, of the data. Are actually already in that oversight policy position. So you go a little deeper and you start looking at some of the legislation that we as the policy makers have already created. And you start to see even more, more similarities or synergies, let's say. So you look at the criminal justice training council. And the effective data on their work. And how, especially in the last session. We've changed the structure. You know, of the council to be more inclusive. Of the affected communities. That work was done. Recently. And another piece of the justice reinvestment. Work shows collaboration. Between the national center for restorative justice. So now we're bringing in that. Academic component again. You know, as well as. CRG. In their work. And our other academics. Including like Dr. Seguino. Dr. Crocker, Dr. Fox, you know, we heard from Dr. Crocker this morning. We're already inter intersecting. You know, with these entities. So the thought came to mind is, where do they all end up. And right now. Our DAP. Is comprised. Of all of those folks. So. What I'm. Gonna, I'm going to go out on this limb. And potentially suggest thinking. In terms of. Possibly. Housing this with our debt. And there's another piece to that. Structure. That as you look at. Our DAPs mandate. And it's. Enabling legislation. It already has access to every single facet. Of. Racial social justice. And equity. Across all systems of state government. So, so my point being, you know, to those of us that are like. I'm not creating another wheel, you know, it's, it's. I won't use a car analogy. Because I said to my colleague. Martin that I'd, I'd. I'd kick, I'd hold back on the automotive. Metaphors. So I'll, I'll, I'll come up with. A plant based one. But. It's not about more government. You know, I think it's about trying to utilize quality. We have some very credible. High quality. Entities within the state of Vermont. And I think that they're already working together. And what. You know, I'm, I'm sensing here. Is is that if we. Help facilitate. Bringing these entities. At least to the table. And under the auspices of an existing. Entity that has the authority. Within a labeling. Legislation. To do. I mean, I mean, it's, it's almost replicating every. Point. Within 317. Being our debt. Now I know this is, it's still. A skeleton. In the sense of an idea. But I think it. Can be. Clearly flushed out. That. There might be a pathway. Without a lot of. Reinvention. Utilizing that path. That's just the cliff notes version of a thought. Thank you. Actually, that's, that's really interesting. It's very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, so. Yeah, coach and I have been kicking around ideas. For a very long time on these. And, and. You know, our DAP is certainly a possibility for some things, but I'm not quite as onboard as a coaches on that yet. And I think part of it is our DAP. Last night, they, they're not going to get to look at this a little bit deeper until next month. So. But that's fine. We need to do this right. We don't need to do this fast. But, but there are some issues with our debt that they only meet once a month that they don't really have any administrative support. We'd have to, it'd have to be a fairly significant. Adjustment of what our DAP is. And I'm not saying it's not the right entity, but it also has eight government employees as part of our DAP versus five people who are citizens. So one could argue it's not entirely clear how independent they may or may not be all things that can be addressed, but it's going to take time to address. You know, I think the other thing to look at because. I mean, our DAP really focuses again on criminal justice and what we're also hearing and not just from Karen and her testimony today, but I've been hearing from other legislators. And just aware of it myself by looking at all these bills that are coming out with different disparity data components. And Karen listed five and I agree that all five of those do have that. And I think that this, we probably need to find a way to have an entity that's dealing with this much more broadly than just a criminal justice data. I criminal justice data could be the start, but that's not necessarily the case because there are five other bills that are moving that are ahead of this. So the health disparity data, the education data, the BIPOC business data, which is the secretary of state primarily may all be ahead of us, but this does point to maybe really taking a deep look of having some sort of a quasi independent entity. Like we don't know if I want to bring up the child advocate as the one I would look to, but you know, there's a number that were mentioned today, crime victim services and some others. And there's, maybe we really do need to look. At an independent quasi, you know, independent agency that would also be able to balance. That need for authority to get reluctant agencies to actually work with them. So. You know, there's a lot to look at and maybe. Maybe, you know, where we try to head because we're not going to resolve this, I don't think, particularly since gov ops really sorry, I want to be talking about a lot of this and they happen to be pretty busy. Do we try to direct a group, I hate to call task force, but do we try to direct the appropriate entities to work this out over the off session and come back with the implementation plan. You know, I think the work that went into S or I mean H three 17 is good. It identifies, I think a great part of it, which we haven't really talked that much about is the identity of the. High impact discretionary decisions that are made in the criminal justice arena that we need to collect data on. I think that's great work. And it's gotten the conversation going. But I'm kind of stuck in, in figuring out how best to proceed, but we could get the right people around the table, including our DAP, including the agency of administration, be it the racial equity director and the agency of digital services. You know, we could, we could perhaps construct that with a very clear directive of what we want, but this would be bigger than just the judiciary committee as well because of all the other committees that are have bills seeking this kind of data. I mean, I hate to punt this, but, but there's a lot of open questions that I don't think we're in a position to resolve. Well, I guess if I, to pick up on that, that part of it. I don't know where this energy is coming from. Maybe my COVID shot is finally starting to turn around and maybe it's infusing some kind of weird bug. My, my responses is that, again, is, is that, you know, I really believe a lot of good work has gone into the constructs that are in existence. And when I look at the, the work, especially at the end of last session, you know, that really strengthened a lot of the work that we're talking about. And, and even, even going back to, you know, just the thought of it's a shorter reach. I think for, from a structural perspective, looking at RDAB in a way, it says in its enabling legislation about the terms. And granted, there are, you know, like the seats, chief superior judges on the group, commissioner of corrections, public safety, children and families. That's a big one because that crosses almost every facet, you know, of the state when you look at, you know, AHS in particular, you know, the missing, you know, component would be education. And, you know, because of, you know, you know, that, that already design, you know, component, we have that access. And it also goes on to say members of the panel, you know, shall select their chair and co-chair and not be state officials, you know, and that's in the enabling, you know, legislation. So what they're doing is encouraging that those public affected community member members of that commission already, you know, are community members. Such as Etan and his co-chair. The group that, when we took testimony from Professor Sand, it also reinforced the work that's being done, with, within the National Center, you know, for restorative justice. That collaboration with the law school and with UVM includes a number of our folks that spoke today. We also already have the relationship established, you know, with CRG. And as noted, they're actually in statute in a number of places. And so that relationship, you know, is there, I think some of the back to Martin's, you know, questions, you know, is, I think convening some of the players over the next, you know, you know, a few days, basically, could be very helpful in maybe leading us to those next steps. Not necessarily a defined answer, but it would be fascinating to see what comes from that interchange. Because these are the folks that are doing the work, you know, you know, Susanna, Karen Gannett, Professor Crocker, and, you know, Etan, of course, and shaking that bush to see what we get to fall out, you know, for a different metaphor, Martin. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I think, yeah, I mean, certainly, I don't want to give up on this. I'm not giving up on this. It's a matter of how to come to what's workable and strikes the balance between actually getting it done in a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable cost. And on the one side and independence on the other side. And yeah, if it's a matter of, of convening a few people, I don't see, given what Etan suggested last night, I mean, he's not going to speak for, for our DAP as being the entity until they've had a full conversation, which again is not going to happen until second Tuesday of May. But if there's a way to proceed with what we also have currently with agency of administration in some manner, but having an independent oversight of an entity like our DAP, you know, maybe that is something that we can get put together. But, you know, we would need to move obviously fairly quickly on that. Well, the. Now I'm starting to see, you take me out of my comfort zone when I can't use my mechanical metaphors because I had a good car one. Go for it. Oh, geez. See, that's, we've been working together so long, you know, with Martin and Tom and, you know, Maxine and I, you know, we have to be careful. We get on each other a little bit. We're at the starting line, you know, and we're ready to hit the throttle. Everybody's been, you know, at least contacted at different levels. You know, we, I've got calls into the council of state governments. So that brings in, you know, our whole justice reinvestment, you know, discussion, you know, with them. Left a message with Dr. Fox and Dr. Crocker and I'll be contacting you anytime in our meeting today. Kristen McClure, the data officer for the state of Vermont, you know, reached out to her already spoken to, should say, Dr. Sand. And, you know, the list is lengthier than I have right in front of me. Hopefully being able to pull those folks together. Who are already doing like the lion's share of the work that we're talking about. And, oh yeah, I did say Susanna in there too. Yeah. I'll put it on. Thank you. Thank you both so much, especially coach. Thank you for, for your leadership in the lot, lots to think about and sit with and digest and we'll check back in after you have some of your meetings today and phone calls. Yeah, so, so thank you. So let's, let's leave it at that. I think it's very helpful and informative morning with a lot to, lots to think about. And I, I envision possibly calling on Selena at some point this is a great thing for a flow chart, right? Or some of that sort of thinking about where we are, you know, different moving pieces so Selena, go ahead. I just had a question after listening to Martin and especially coach talk coach, I know you are deeply connected with the work of the Human Rights Commission and I know that has come up as a potential model or even site for some of this work to be based. And I didn't hear you mention bore or the HRC and the players that should be around the table thinking about this stuff. And I'll just say, I mean, that there's a lot of resonance for me and thinking about the role of the Human Rights Commission, but I'm just wondering if there's, like, is there, is the Human Rights Commission trying to think about how to say this diplomatically like, no way, we've already got too much on our plate and that's why you didn't mention them. You know what I mean? I won't, well, I guess I can, I'm not sure the commission, I guess I can speak for it to a degree. I try not to, you know, and less necessary. You know, we usually have our executive director make, you know, those statements. But I guess what I can say is when we think about independence, we want that commission to stay as independent as possible because of its fiduciary, I'm not fiduciary, it's judiciary or quasi-judicial role that it plays, both in investigation and then in determination because, you know, that's, you know, that's the first and foremost part of the work. And right now, with the volume of work that the commission is involved with, it's regular investigations and now litigation that we're also involved in. It's bordering, you know, a wrestling metaphor of wanting to tap out. It's that voluminous right at the moment. And then the amount of training that we do as well, you know, and we don't just do bias training, general bias training, you know, we do it, you know, in housing. There was, Amanda was doing one, two days ago. Or does many, you know, she'll be working legislature, you know, in some professional and activities that the legislature is going to be involved in. Is it totally out of the question? Nothing's totally out of the question, even when Susanna spoke. It's not, it takes the right fit and the right pieces for it to work the way that we would hope that it would work. And I think as long as we're, you know, focused on progress and not perfection, you know, I think we can keep moving, you know, like forward. But initially, you know, that, that's why I didn't mention it to your question. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I actually had that question too. So thank you, Selena for that. Go ahead. I'm just looking at the time. So, but you get the last, I would just suggest that there's conversations happening over the next few days that I think it would be helpful to include or in them if she has the capacity for us, just even if, you know, for all the reasons you stated, that's really good fit. Just a sort of hers, a helpful voice in thinking about the future direction on this. So I just make that suggestion. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you again, everybody.