 Ken. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a few years I don't know. Ken Schatz, Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families, and I do also want to formally thank you for the birthday greetings, and Theresa, thank you very much for being here. It's important to forward to tasting. So what does bring us here, though, in a more formal sense, is you asked us to testify related to Woodside. I do want to point out that Christine Johnson, the Deputy Commissioner for Family Services Division, is also here, and may need to help me out here, particularly in responding to your questions. But again, the particular impetus was as we've been talking about proposals to close Woodside, we've talked about the requests for proposals that we had issued, and that we were looking forward to the responses to geared towards expanding our system of care, and the idea I know was to try to give you some description of what we had received by way of responses because we did receive those on February 28th to help you in your decision-making process. So as you may know from the media, we did receive four responses from Beckett Family Services from Oxford, New Hampshire, the Foundations Behavioral Health Organization from Doylestown, Pennsylvania, from Grafton Integrated Health from Winchester, Virginia, and from the Institute of Professional Practice from Berlin, Vermont. The idea, just to be clear, even though several of those are out-of-state organizations, just to remind you, the idea is to have programs facilities in Vermont, so the fact that they are outside out-of-state, the proposals are to do something here. The reality here is, though I appreciate the desire, I really wanted to come forward with much information as I could. The short answer, though, is these are interesting proposals. We're not ready to make any decisions. We recognize that we need to be careful and thoughtful about this. As you may recall, we asked for both proposals related to our short-term stabilization needs and our long-term needs. We are looking pretty carefully at these responses. Can't believe those are familiar with the procurement process. There is a process where you can follow up the initial responses with questions. We have recognized that we need to do that. So what that means is that we're not quite ready. And I know that's hard for you, and I'm going to be straightforward about that. I'm obviously disappointed in that. I hope you have a really clear, solid response that I could talk to you about today. Honestly, I don't. I'm saying this to you, though, in being straightforward, that I do think it's worthwhile thinking through and making sure we get answers to questions. And I say that also in the context of we continue to be doing well in terms of our existing system, managing our population well. By that I mean the population at which side remains at three. It's the same three that we have not had a new admission of weeks, which I think is consistent with the trends we talked about earlier in terms of a reduced level of youth delinquency, a reduced level of youth violence, and also that our existing expanded system of care is doing well in terms of managing those who do need supervision and care treatment in those different programs. So the bottom line is that, and I will, I have to say that I did hear your introduction, Reverend Pugh, on COVID-19 is also a factor for us. We are very, Christine and her staff, I will admit I was on vacation. But lastly, we put a lot of attention into thinking through working with our partners about how to address the COVID-19 issue. I'm not going to take too much time now, but I do want you to know that's an important priority for us for fairly obvious reasons in terms of children and care. I think that will be, I ask that we not go down that question this morning. That will be of the hearing at four o'clock this afternoon. And I do appreciate that. I just want to let you know that with that in mind, it's obviously important and we're definitely focusing a lot of attention on it. So the reality is this is a long presentation because I don't have much new to tell you. Time frame is we have an obligation under RFP to respond to folks by March 16th. I think that's correct. Thank you. And so it's not very long. And so we look forward within, you know, the next 10 days to two weeks to being able to give you a more descriptive response. And again, I do feel bad that I'm not able to give you more information. But again, I think it does make sense for us to be careful in this process and not prematurely either make decisions or get outside of the procurement process, which I've been constantly reminded by our lawyers that I have to be careful about. So with that, I think that I'm glad to do my best to answer any questions. But the short summary here is I do think we're doing well in terms of caring for and managing the population of youth that's coming to our care. And we're just need a little bit more time with respect to clarifying where we are with respect to the responses to the request for proposals. Anything, Ms. Christine? No, I think Christine Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, the only thing that I would add is that two of the three youth that are there are in the custody of the Department of Corrections. And so we continue to have one young person there from the Family Services Division. Can you just clarify for us? You keep saying, I cannot because of the procurement process. Is there a legal or is this an administrative decision? And if it is an administrative decision, what do we need to do to partner with you so that on March 16th you don't come with something that is totally unknown to us? So I think my understanding is a combination of both, that we have some legal obligations to not get out ahead of the procurement process in terms of disclosing portions of the information. But it is also in part a judgment call on our part that we want to be providing information to you that we've also had a chance to think about and to provide context in terms of what we have, what our questions are. But even, and again, I'm hesitating a little bit because I'll be straightforward again in light of the fact that we anticipate asking questions of some of the respondents. There actually may be more legal impediments, but I think that I do appreciate your question. I appreciate your desire to want to know what we have. I'm asking for you to wait seven to ten days for us to go through this process and then provide you with the information. And so are you, is it the department who is providing appropriations with potential language right now? Language about what to do with youth, let's say the two youth who are in Woodside right now, i.e. youth who have been in Woodside but who are in correction, who are in the custody of corrections. Language has been proposed. Is that from you all? Language has been proposed, has been given to appropriations for them to consider around closure. And so is that language from you? So yes, it's part of the budget bill. It isn't specific, just to be clear, as at least to my understanding, to Department of Corrections or anything else. It is the language that's proposed by the administration as part of the budget refers to the proposed closing of Woodside. I'm not sure if I'd answer your question correctly. And it's a little, I understand the position that you are in. The budget is not separate from policy. And you are now saying, I can't give you any information. I can't even tell you anything about the programmatic aspects or whatever else. So we're just going to keep going on along with closing Woodside. And I hope you understand. I think our collective view is that may be the right thing to do. Can't do it now. I appreciate that. And obviously I also respect your decision process. I have an alternative that I can suggest, which is actually came in part from the Senate, which as you know is also looking at us. And so one of the ideas that's been proposed by the Senate Judiciary Committee is that to consider the idea of recommending, consistent with the administration's proposal closure, but contingent on the DCF or the Museum of Services, however you want to frame it, coming forward with more clarity, whether you call it a plan or identification of more specific approaches to making sure that we have an appropriate array of services and programs to meet the needs both for kids in DCF custody and for youth under 18 in the custody of the Department of Corrections. So again, I am mindful and I am very respectful of it. The reality is we do think it's the right thing to do to propose to close Woodside. We are actually reasonably confident that we under our current system of care can do well. But again, as I've said to you before, I want to expand our capacity to make sure we're all comfortable. And so I know I need to do that as quickly as possible. Candidly, the RFP process was delayed. I wish it hadn't been, but that's where I am now. So honestly, I am trying to do the best I can under those circumstances. I want to be straightforward with you. But that's my thought is I get your hesitation. Obviously you have to make your decision and that's appropriate. Of course, the idea of holding, if you will, my feet to the fire in terms of getting you more information is obviously legitimate and appropriate also. Yeah, I mean, it really jumps off of yours, which is the concern. There are a lot of moving pieces and things are moving ahead with that location and site and future plans. And I'm wondering if you think it's realistic by July 1st when your game would be to have it closed, to have a place, like a therapeutic, we've talked about a number of different types of spaces that need to be created, therapeutic, short-term stabilization, a place of last resort. That's the biggest concern is just, do you feel like that's even possible? And yeah, as a policy group, I think we want to be able to weigh into that. So the answer is you're correct on all of those things. We want all of those. My point continues to be actually we already have all of those. The idea is we want to expand them to make sure that we have the appropriate placements even for those youth to be very specific who need, because I do think the potential gap that we're dealing with, I think what is really the elephant in the room, is the issue of a youth who is allegedly commits some really violent act who we don't know, we don't know what to do with. Where do we place that youth while we do learn more? So again, being straightforward with that is the angst that I'm going through too. And so we're working through, we do have some interesting proposals where we need to figure out is how to proceed, how to move forward. We have a set of great service providers now too. Let me make that point very clearly. We do appreciate that. But the short answer is yes, I am reasonably confident. Because again, when I look at the history and including recent history, the fact as Christine pointed out, we only have one DCF kid who's just waiting a placement. And obviously that's part of the issue is if Woodside isn't there, get specific. How would we deal with that certainty? That's right, we need to deal with that. DOC is definitely a little bit of an interesting aspect of this. And we're working very closely with DOC. Historically, as we've discussed before, they've only had a few kids who have actually been at Woodside. It happens that they have two right now. So we do have to work with them to end our array of providers, both new and existing, to make sure that we can do as well as possible for them. Because again, there is an alternative for them, but it's not a desired alternative in terms of using existing correction facilities, both with site and site separation. So there is an alternative for that population to be clear. But again, we want to come up with a better approach. Just one follow-up. Like if, for example, it becomes clear that July 1 is too soon to put all this together. I mean, you're open to extending that, I would assume. So again, I have to be that the caveat is if I don't feel that we're ready, you can be sure I will say so. We need to work through, I need to work through the administration. It is a complicated budget process to be sure. But please know that if I don't feel like we are ready, we are ready, I will say so. I apologize for looking like I was a teenager and being on my phone. I have forwarded, of course it's not coming, the language that I got sent from appropriations around the youth who were in the custody of corrections who, I want to say, the two kids who were there as well so that people can look at that and you can see that as well. I don't think I have seen that. Again, and honestly, I was on vacation so high, I want to own that I haven't completely caught up to all my emails, but I appreciate you sending it. Commissioner, what has, if not been said by someone on the record, has been said in the hallways a bunch, which is that yes, there are no new admissions, but guess what, who is in charge of the admissions? It is DCM and what is being suggested by some is that there is a concerted effort and a plan, since it is your plan, since it is the administration's proposal to close Woodside, that in fact you are sending more youth out of state, that you are saying more youth don't require residential treatment and that you, not you personally, the department is, if I recall, a judge can, what you told us is a judge can say youth needs to be in Woodside and you can overturn the, overrule the judge, the department can overrule the judge and in fact that's what is being done. And so the long and short of that is there is, you know, there is some conversation that we are being told that there is a concerted effort to create a false narrative. I actually really appreciate you putting that out there so I can respond to it, so thank you. That's my job. The reality is, I actually am very proud of our approach to making sure that we care for youth in the least restrictive alternative, consistent with their needs and safety needs of the moderners. That from my perspective, that isn't new. I've been commissioner for five years. That has been one of the principles that I have worked with our staff to look at what youth really need to be locked into a facility that is a juvenile correction facility. Those of you who've been there know it looks and feels like a jail. We know from research that that has significant negative impacts on youth. We know that there's a stigma attached to youth who've been at Woodside. I have always taken the position that we need to use Woodside for those youth who really need to be in that environment for security's safe, for treatment's safe. On the other hand, if a youth can be safely cared for in less restrictive alternatives, I want us to do that. If you recall some of the data we've provided you in the past, in the five years since I've been commissioner, the trend has consistently gone down. It's not new. When I started here, the population of Woodside averaged approximately 20 youth per day. That went gradually down year by year. It was at 10 last year. Admittedly, it really went substantially down in the last 10 months. You actually shared with us the approach two years ago to change how youth got to Woodside. It used to be that state attorneys and judges could make the decision to place the youth at Woodside regardless of a DCF recommendation. Even though they then put the youth in DCF custody, we were not free to make decisions about where the appropriate placement for that youth was. Working with you, we changed the law two years ago. And so to be clear, we don't overrule a judge. But what you did was change the law so that if a youth is accused of a delinquent act, the question about where that youth, if the youth did need to be placed out of the home, it's a DCF recommendation. If DCF recommends that the youth be placed in Woodside, the judge has the authority to accept that or reject it. The judge could say, no, this youth doesn't need that level of security or supervision. So at DCF, you can't put the youth in Woodside, find another placement. On the other hand, if DCF recommends that the youth be placed in a community-based residential setting, the judge doesn't have the authority to overrule us. Because in effect, the thinking, and some of you will remember this from the conversation two years ago, if the court is putting the youth in my custody, then shouldn't I have a level of authority to make a decision about what's safe and what's not? And so when that law passed, it did change the dynamic. There's no question about it, that then DCF does make the preliminary decision or recommendation regarding placement under those circumstances. I think that's a good thing. It allows for our staff to use their professional judgment and expertise to make a decision about what's the appropriate least restrictive placement. That's what we've done. Consistent with that, again, I apologize for going over some things that we've talked about before, but I do want to give a full response. That's why in the last two years, we expanded our system of care. And we've talked about the expansion that we made to the Vermont School for Girls, the expansion to CO at Depot Street, the expansion we made with Washington County Mental Health, the expansion we made with Beckett to expand our assessment and stabilization beds in various places around the state. All of those were consistent with what we believe and understood to be the state approach of caring for youth in the least restrictive environment. So from my perspective, it's not a conspiracy. It's not, frankly, putting it more positively. It is a straightforward approach that actually we're proud of. The reality is that the more recent change in the last eight to 10 months has actually been the youth. Honestly, as we've showed you the data, the number of kids coming into custody, the number of court filings related to Lincoln City is all markedly down, which is a very positive statement. And so all of that is involved in reviewing this. And again, understand that I did make a proposal. We did analyze this a year ago. At that time, when we were looking at basically every day having 10 or more kids at Woodside, my view was our community-based system could not manage that expansion. When that reduced under five, that changed my opinion. And my point is that is what drove it. It's the kids who are actually doing well in our communities. It's not to say we don't bear some legitimate credit for that, including when I say we you. You have helped support many programs in our communities to support families, to support young people that I think have helped this trend. So again, part of this is very much a good news story that we simply are seeing less need for numbers of youth to be insecure setting. So that's what's driven it. And I hope I've answered your question, but I don't. I'm glad to sort of follow up if I've missed something. But again, from my perspective, we're proud. I think as a community, we can be proud of the reduced number of youth who need to be in secure settings. We have a question. I think the piece that I wanted to add is to not lose anything. The question was, are there more kids out of state than in-state? And that is not true. There are fewer kids out of state than there are in-state. And I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that 16 of the, I think, 42 kids that are out of state today are because they are on the autism spectrum. And we do not have a facility in the state of Vermont to meet their needs. So yes, we have kids out of state. Yes, that is part of our system of care. But it is not, we are not setting kids out of state instead of serving them in state. And I continue to say that my mantra is I want kids and families and when they can't be in families, I want them with extended kin, fictive kin. And if they have to go to residential placement, we absolutely want them as close to their communities as possible. That is not always feasible. And so yes, we do use out of state placements. And often they are close by. Sometimes they're not. They're in Florida or Tennessee. But we, but it's, I think part of the narrative is that we're doing this intentionally. We're sending kids out of state intentionally. That is just not the case. Can I make sure that 42 kids are the same number that I'm thinking about? Or is this 42 kids? So we did, the 42 come from the point in time. The point in time, but does that include, because I forget, I don't have that in front of me. Does that include the individuals who maybe Department of Mental Health has sent out and does that include who might in fact, you know, the no wrong, shall I say the no wrong door entry kinds of things. So we have education and we have mental health. So the answer is no. The data we provided you are the children in DCF custody. It is accurate as you're pointing out that the Department of Mental Health and the agency of education do place youth in both in-state and out-of-state programs. And that is separate. We do work together. Let me be clear. We do talk together. And your proposal and your RFP does in fact reflect that. And so I think for us to make a full understanding is we need to know who all is out-of-state under those criteria. We're glad to provide that. The Department of Mental Health actually just produced a report last week. I'm mistaken again trying to keep up to my email that does actually break out that information in significant detail. So we can work on getting you that information. Thank you. Sorry. I jumped ahead of Teresa. You're the chair. So I appreciate the explanation that you just provided. One of the things that is concerning to me is the... Let me try to rephrase this as a question. In testimony before the break, we had testimony from a number of providers that DCF currently contracts with. And all of them, I believe, said that they have in the past relied on what's inside as that sort of place of last resort when a youth was just kind of like off the wall and destroying stuff and hurting themselves and other people and needed a short term, usually, although I think one place said that they actually had to say, I'm sorry, we can't take person back. And then I just heard you say... So they all said that they needed that. And I heard you say that you're reasonably confident. That's not competent enough for me. And then I see language proposed. Why is it proposed? I don't... No, I don't know. This was for patients. So now that I've seen it, I can tell you this is not our proposal. And I do want to review this and work with the Department of Corrections and the agency to respond. And I don't know if it's the... I don't know if it's DOC language. I think this is coming from the committee. Okay. Well, in any event, it's not good language, but... No longer join corrections oversight committee. So I guess my question is, and then you talked about the trend. The trend is... And honestly, one year doesn't make a trend. And so I'm struggling with the concept of... Because we don't know the responses. So we don't know to the extent to which any of the four responses are able to be that provider of last resort. And I think that it is a good place that we're in in terms of having developed more community capacity. You know, it would be disturbing if we saw these numbers increasing because we've put the significant amount of resources into trying to not have that happen. But I just had... Nothing, unfortunately, today that you said has convinced me that we don't need some sort of place of last resort that... And I don't know whether or not any one of the proposals or more of the proposals are able to pull that off by July 1st. So let me be candid about something. The free provider of last resort, although I appreciate it, as I've come to look at this situation, honestly, I don't look at it that way. And part of the reason for that is I think what we've learned over the past particularly two years is that the needs of some of our youth are unique. And sometimes you can categorize them, but they don't always mix. So the point that Christine was just mentioning about youth with autism, who may be engaging in seriously disruptive behavior, mixing that individual with others with different levels might not work at all. Mixing girls in a facility where the overwhelming numbers of youth are boys may not work. Mixing kids, and this is a lot, I think of what you heard, I wasn't here all the time, kids with serious mental health issues with other youth who have different levels of problems or reasons for their disruptive behavior might not work. So candidly, my view is we need to have a variety of resources. So that's when I come out and I'm expanding the system of care. That's what I'm talking about. And it goes to also, I'm very mindful of the point that any time a youth is in a program it might not work and it might be temporary, that they just need a bit of a break or it might be permanent. And yes, that's again, part of our system that partially already exists. So that the point would be is if a youth is in one program and it's not working and they need at least a few days to figure it out, we need to have, and we do have capacity already, but honestly, again, I want more. The ability to move that youth to another program, at least on a temporary basis to assess what's going on with that youth and what should be the next step. That's part of the reason why we have an assessment program now. We did not have that a year and a half ago. The point being is we definitely need to have the capacity to address all of those needs. I don't believe it is one place. And so that's why we're talking about expanding the system of care. So I looked at the RMP request a while back, and I recall that it included mental health issues and it included education issues. I don't recall that it included children of minors who have been convicted in the adult system and would otherwise be in prison. So we did not specify those youth because, again, that's a legal category. It's not a behavior. It's the behaviors that are still the issue in terms of making the residential placement. The jurisdiction in terms of who they are under the Commissioner of Corrections, the Commissioner of Health, or the custody of DCF, or for that matter, their parents, going to the point that Representative Pumic is not the issue. The issue is the behaviors. So the issue with respect to a youth who's been charged as an adult is, again, being straightforward, is typically their cues of committing a violent act, right? That's typically why that's going to happen. And so the question is, is there a program that can address those behaviors? Is that a decision that may be made by the Commissioner of Corrections, not necessarily me, about whether or not that youth should be in a corrections facility or a community-based secure program? So my point to you is, I do believe that the requests have the potential to be able, or the responses have the potential to be able to address that population. As I think we talked about before, we are working with the Department of Corrections. So as I said, to a certain extent, they have to make judgment calls on a case-by-case basis, because when a youth is put into the Commissioner's custody, that is his or her prerogative. What we want to have is, again, the capacity and the relationship to be able to even place that in the most appropriate setting consistent with the court order in that particular case. But that's why it's a little different, because the issue of whose jurisdiction we didn't, I don't believe we laid out in the RFP distinctions between whether a youth is in the custody of DCF or mental health, or in their parent's custody either. So I get your point, but I do want you to know that we are mindful of the issue of where should... Don't we want to have? And the answer is yes. We want to have the capacity to give more choices to the Commissioner for Corrections with respect to youth under 18 who are charged as adults. So does that more discretion mean putting them in an adult facility, separated by whatever... There's a requirement to clarify that the Commissioner of Corrections does have the authority to place youth charged as adults 16 and 17 of age, years of age, and older, of course, in the corrections facility subject to sight and sound separation from the adults in that facility. That is the Commissioner of Corrections authority. But the Commissioner of Corrections has said, I think quite publicly, is he does not see that as the preferred approach. He would much rather continue the approach of working with DCF to find other settings to enable that youth, even if they need to be held in a closely supervised setting, but to be with other youth rather than separated in a correctional facility. Is it a question for him rather than you to have a sense of how many youth aged 17, 16 and 17? Could it be a 15-year-old? So there are youth occasionally charged as 15-year-olds, and their distinction there is that youth is not, even if they're charged as an adult, they're not allowed at all to be in an adult facility. That's a legal issue. I did use some information on the numbers. They're relatively small. We've seen an average, approximately six per year. One of the challenges with that population is the adult court system process takes longer. And so one of the challenges we face with respect to working together is those maybe kids held in a holding pattern, if you will, for longer periods of time than youth in my custody, where I have more authority to move forward. I'm going to have lawyers, so I don't care about that. Where are they held for a longer time in the sight and sound of maybe nine youth? So historically that's what Woodside has been used for by the Department of Corrections? Absolutely. And you are trying, based on the fact that the RFP does not include this population, what's going to happen to those nine kids? So again, what I've tried to say is that we would call it out, especially in the request for proposals, but we think the issue that we're working on is to identify both in terms of new and existing providers, many of whom who take youth who are up to 18. That's not new. Again, if you remember our information we provided you, that's not a change. The issue is where could, which of those programs new or old could take on this population as directed by the Commissioner of Corrections? And so that discussion is going on as we speak. Sorry. Asked a question that's been asked three times for some of us. But again, I don't mind. I'm glad to try to clarify. This is the language that was sent to me by appropriations for comment. You don't know a lot about my comment. You know, one, just I don't think the Commissioner of Corrections has morphed into the justice the justice reading court so we're sure quickly the committee name is wrong from what you just said it's not youth age 17 and under it could only be youth 16 and 17. I mean, there's some things that are I don't know where the, I have no idea the genesis. I just know who sent it to me but I'm not going to that individual was saying the language came from them. What I found disturbing about this is this isn't talking about kids in the custody of corrections. This is talking about people in your custody. I'm pretty confused by that. I'll just be straightforward. At first, we wouldn't use an adult facility. I think it probably meant Department of Corrections because they don't know what led to it. I think the idea there in subparagraph A should be reading Department of Corrections in the cut because they're not in our custody of these youth that we're talking about they're in the custody of corrections. So then this really only you're saying that maybe this is the sixth that you just referred to and only those that's my understanding. Again, I'm not knowing exactly what led to this. That would be my interpretation that there was a misunderstanding but the question you posed to me in Representative Pospos was about youth as I understood it. Youth in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections but who are under 18 and I get that but that's why this is a little confusing to me. Again, I appreciate the concern definitely working on it and I appreciate your hesitation. I was just wondering if the proposals that you received were less or in terms of the cost than the current operating costs? So we can't part of the question that we need to clarify. Is some of you who have had experience with these things know sometimes when people respond they're not always explicit about the cost. So that's part of what we're looking at. Would you be able to provide us with that? I'm certainly after yes. And let me be clear that's part of I have to be mindful of the cost. So it's clearly we want to make sure we have appropriate program services but cost is one of the factors. So if I'm just thinking about that cost thing you just said and if let's just say because this is potential that not able to fully operationalize the plan by July 1st would it come on. Please, let's be real. I mean I am. I'm trying to allow some flexibility Madam Chair. Would it seems apparent even given everything that staffing for a facility at a 30-bed staffing level seems like that's not necessary. Agreed. And so never mind. I just realize I can't really ask this question. Well you probably know where I was going but I can't really ask it. The place that you have now do you pay does the state pay only when a child is present? Do we pay for capacity? So the answer is both. And when I say we I'm sort of actually looking at the agency because it's one of those things we're looking at pretty carefully in this spot because right now again I don't need to I don't know that I want to get into this too deeply but we have a system of payment called refer to often times PNMI Private non-medical institutions and it's a rate setting mechanism that actually is currently housed in Diva that tries to deal in a kind of appropriate manner with the cost of residential care and they have a very complicated system for doing that again you may one of the things that we are looking at that because we've heard a lot of concerns about from providers and from administrators because sometimes it results in emergency requests for more money that are not budgeted and it's challenging all the right. That's the basic system. Having said that there are other systems that allow for paying for capacity so that there is a set amount of money provided regardless of whether or not the bed is filled the Department of Mental Health uses that for its so-called level one facilities so an acute level of inpatient hospitalization for those with the acute mental health levels that system does provide in effect guarantee payment. There are some other alternatives to hospitalization other programs that also have a set fee. We actually have at least one contract now where we are basically paying for capacity as we go forward one of the things that we're looking at is recognizing some of the challenges of some of our populations and honestly it's part of the context of being a small state. How do you appropriately provide capacity for relatively small numbers and sometimes that will mean we are we will need to pay for capacity and then do the best we can to utilize those beds appropriately. It also involves then getting into a little bit deeper in terms of how our system works which you may have heard a little bit about but it also sometimes means if we have a bed that's really appropriate for very acute needs needing high supervision but we don't have any of those youth here and if we're paying for it we want to use that bed but then if the next week a youth comes to our attention who needs that capacity we have to figure out how to move things around to make it work so that's part of what we're doing. It's a complicated system I want to make sure you do understand that and as we talked about earlier in this session we're glad to go through the level of detail about that system but it is complicated I want to forewarn you. Can I just circle back to the four responses? I am aware that we the state has a relationship with Beckett and Beckett has facilities here. Do we have a relationship with any of the other three the foundation, the graft and the institute for professional practice? Yes, we have a relationship with foundations which does run a residential program in Pennsylvania we do utilize that in our list of placements so yes we have experience with them I don't believe I'm looking to Christine for health here I don't believe that she's confirmed we don't have a relationship with the other two. And is it fair to ask? You can tell me I can't How many of these are for profit? It's fair to ask, I don't know the answer though and I don't know if Christine does I know at least one of them is but I'm forgetting if two of them are but I do know that one of the four is a profit Do you know who that is or do I have to go on the internet? I believe foundations is for profit, is that right? Do you know? Foundations may be UHC, foundations may be We need to be on the floor at 10 Are there any other questions right now? Thank you Commissioner Someone might want to take a picture of that Can you send, is it possible for you to email that to someone at the far ground? Oh thank you Great, sorry to hear that I will also touch base because it has appropriations I appreciate you Well It's our job as a committee to put things out there so that people can respond and I just want to be clear that I'm not sure even the fact whether this was a real proposal I mean I got this from appropriations from a member of appropriations as what do you think and I don't know where it came whether you know so I don't want anyone to grab on to this as this is the best thing since sliced bread or hootie or where did this come from and it seems a little odd Should we try and look at the knowledge that the commissioner mentioned from the senate that they might be working on something? Yes, and I'm going to perhaps ask Sandy Mary Beth Mary Beth because you have done a lot of stuff in terms of corrections and because you're on the justice oversight committee to check in with or try to discover what that is unless you happen to have it I'm sorry not you Christy, you've been on vacations We don't have anything for them They were more informal communications But that's where we are We'll be flexible today I need to be somewhere else at 10 so I will not be on the floor for a bit to take your cues from and I will and I will be emailing who's going to or I'll be texting who's going to have their text Okay If if something needs to happen or if you need to tell me that something and I may be going for 15 minutes it may be a little longer I believe I'm presenting to 15 Oh my god, yeah I'm so sorry I'm good, I'm all set Okay, please Thank you for saying that and I'm so sorry that I totally I got a little over if people can be there in case I'm not there to support and see you when we see you One clock for one thing