 This is a continued discussion of the S-2.2, which is an acronym to implement an expungement, excuse the expansion of juvenile jurisdiction. I still get my slide on expungement from yesterday. When I first listened to the Commissioner of Corrections, Jim Baker, Jim, thanks. Good morning. Good morning. I think the basic question, and I think it's a surprise, is what do you do with people between the ages of under the age of 18 who are committed to the Commissioner of Corrections? Right. So, you know, as it stands now, they would be at Woodside. And, you know, as that discussion continues to go, for example, if Woodside was to close tomorrow, we would have to find, in the current situation, one of the folks that are in our custody is 15. That would complicate that for us greatly because we can't put them in a facility, so we would have to find arrangements where, you know, we would put 24-hour security at them. Now, if they were through 16 or anybody above 16, there is the option of putting them in a correctional facility where we would have to cite sound proof it away from the general population. And certainly our position at Corrections is, is that's not something we want to be doing for a whole host of reasons. I mean, you know, I guess it's case to case, but, you know, it's our opinion at Corrections that 16, 17-year-old, no matter what the offense is, and, you know, the folks being held right now, as I understand it, was a pretty serious offense, pretty violent. But even in that case, we put them into a location in a room that's not much bigger than this, cite and sound proof. We have to bring their food to them. People have to come to them. You can't move them around the facility. You can't program them. It's not a place for, you know, juveniles that age. So, you know, I think that's been a long-standing position at Corrections long before I arrived in January. And certainly that's not a situation we want to find ourselves in. Obviously, if it was to occur, we have to do what we have to do and we have to follow the law, which is cite and sound proof. My understanding is the administration plans to close the food site on honor of about June 30th. And it will eventually be used for the Department of Mental Health for their facility. They're planning to tear it down. I guess that's the plan. And I remember back when we had to provide two Corrections officers, three shifts to how somebody who was on detention who was under the age of 18 but the judge had placed them in DOC custody rather than DCF. That's when MOU was developed between Corrections and DCF letters, good side to that population. Yeah, well, you just described there as basically babysitting. That's not it. It shouldn't be a function. I mean, the function should be, obviously they're in custody based upon the court's wishes, but the process of working with them should start right away. You don't have any contracts with private contractors. As it stands right now, we do not. Could a private contractor take somebody if they're... I'm going to guess yes, but I don't know of us. And I want to run that by our general counsel to make sure that I'm not missing something in statute. You said if Woodside were to close today, we would have to find a situation. As though there's not currently any contingency plan, is that actually the case? No, we could accommodate one of those two folks that are in Woodside right now in Rowland by site soundproofing an area in Rowland. Well, but I mean, what about the other... The other... Don't know if it's the center, but I think the other individual in turn is 16 over the summer. So the issue of June 30th is a challenge for us. Because in that case, they can't go to the facility because they're under 16. Right, so it seems the obvious worry that people have is that June 30th is coming up very quickly. There's not a viable plan now. So can I ask this? Sure. Would the administration be willing to push back the closure date if it doesn't have a solid plan? What I would say to that is I would encourage the administration to push back the date, right? And just as far as the plans, you know, you know, DCF commissioner and I have been talking quite regularly about this issue, right, about how to try to come up with a plan. And I think he's waiting for some RFPs to come back. So it's not like we're not doing anything. But as I say here today, I can't tell you, this has been definitely a plan. Thank you. And I understand that. I guess I'm just thinking waiting for our RFPs to come back three months till closure date. So if the RFPs come back a month before closure, is that... Yeah, I think the RFPs would probably do back any time now because they've been out for a few weeks. This conversation started with Ken probably... This is helpful. You know, it started right around the time that we met with the new senator a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, no, I think it's something that... Well, I mean, one of the ideas that's been floated is, I mean, Woodside become a department of corrections facility which would take people under the age of 21 most of the way. Those people, you... How many offenders do you have that have been upgraded out of the age of 21? I just asked for that number. I may have one that's not back yet. I just asked for that number. You anticipated it. No, no. You know, my good friend Steve Howard gave me a tip-off. Oh, okay. Well, it's one... It's one officer. You know, for those of you who aren't familiar with my history back in 1969, I got hired at the St. Albert Instructional. So it's going to be a new flow of vendor facility. For those under... I think it was under the age of 25, but I don't remember. And it was 40 beds. And I believe Woodside is still licensed for 30. Right. Because it's kind of a crazy thing. But to your point, Senator, I will go back and discuss with Secretary Smith the issue around the date because I haven't had that conversation with him in a couple of weeks. We won't know what happened in town meeting if the Arab fees can prove that. Correct. I would urge that. And I think it's... At least you look at the options of some other program being able to, you know, that currently operates. You know, in my conversations, you know... Particularly over the 15-year-old. But I know that you expressed we do not want to have under 18 at one point. You know, we'd have to do what we have to do if we had to do it. But I'm going to say it again. I don't think, based on the people that are advising me that none of this is better than I do. But I just think it's kind of a sense that you've got... It's just not the way to start working with someone that may find themselves in that position at the age of 16 or 17. I mean, they're basically locked into an area where it's isolated. And I can't imagine that's healthy for anybody. Okay. Back when I operated in 2014, we had both DCF and DOC clients. Some of them were in combination with both. They were up to the age of 18. It was hard to tell the difference and tell you the truth between the corrections of the DCF and the kids. You know, it is, you know, I mean, you were just... The probation officer visited some of the kids and the social worker was in there. But that setting is much different than being in a locked facility with door slamming and, you know... And I don't know that whether or not any community-based program can handle those two kids. Right. Or the two corrections. Correct. But I think it's worth, you know, the approach that we're taking is it's worth giving people in to talk to them about because it can rank, you know, every case is different and it can range. And so, you know, in this case, I don't know that much. I know it was a... The allegation is a very serious crime. Yeah. It was very violent. So maybe a 15-year-old is charged with adult court arrest. Very violent crime. But I'll say it again, even though the nature of the crime is violent, you know, you really need to start working. I mean, just to put him into a facility to detain him and not start working with him, this kind of goes against what our mission and corrections is. Well, Commissioner, you left more answers. But you know what, Senator, was one of... That's the nice thing about being in court, isn't it? It is. But, you know, it was one of my easier days in here. How many days left? You know, I don't know. Oh, that's a good sign. That's a good sign, right? No, that's not a good sign. That is a good sign. Well, not you maybe, but for your wife. Well, let me do some quick math here. It's 31 days in March, right? Yeah. So Saturday, Sunday, 62 days. I'll leave you with that thought, sir. Not a good thought. By the way, we appreciate what you've done thus far to improve things in the court of corrections. Yeah, I know this is not part of this testimony, but you know this, there's some very dedicated people that work here really hard. And I'm just trying to be their cheerleader, sir. Appreciate it. Hey, Jay. By the way, there's a copy of Judge Crawford's ruling in your file somewhere. Yeah. I don't know where I'm behind, but I did read it over. And I'm probably, I was shocked. I don't usually get shocked. But I've got my hold of, I've got Judge Crawford here. Yeah. Well, you do. I'll ask him. I've got one somewhere, sir. Continue. It's the first thing in your file. There was a lot about what was happening there. And I had focused on restraint. But the focus of the ruling is on seclusion. I mean, it's partly on restraint, obviously. But part of it is on restraint. So maybe even say a few words about where you see it. Where you see it. Where you see what was good side then. What side made any significant changes. Any thoughts on the closure on the side or whatever you want? Sure. Thank you, sir. So my name is A.J. Rubin. I'm an attorney at Disability Rights for Mon. We are your mental health care ombudsman, as well as the federal protection advocacy system. I'm the lead counsel in the case that you're reading about. It's an ongoing litigation. We've got another STAS conference in front of Judge Crawford on Tuesday, March 10th, I think. And so it's ongoing litigation. In terms of what happened and what the court was ruling about, what I want to say is that I have been working with Woodside since 1993 when I was a public defender in Rutland. And our office has had a lot of concerns with Woodside over the years. In 2006 and 2007, we issued two pretty scathing reports about things like lack of air conditioning, lack of janitorial services, lack of educational space, lack of mental health treatment. Back then, 12 years ago, we negotiated with then commissioner of DCF, whose name is Casey. Steve Dale. Steve Dale. With Steve Dale. In terms of litigating that case, we were able to negotiate and make improvements, like putting in air conditioning so the kids weren't writing letters saying that they were going to die and suffocating in heat in the summer, putting in an educational whole building, basically, so there would be real educational service and augmenting mental health services. And so we've been very engaged, and personally, I've been in it for about 20-some odd years now. The bottom line is, you know, the building's general services said two or three years ago that the building is not appropriate for treatment of mental illness. That's a flat-out statement. It's not appropriate for treating mental illness. I think from the work I've done at Woodside, the big problem that we face is that we're confused about what Woodside's supposed to be. It was originally, as you know, built to detain two juveniles who committed a horrible crime. And then over time, including with the help of our office, it moved towards a mental health treatment facility. You know, as I said, after 2006 and 2007, they instituted a lot more mental health and educational services. And then when funding became tight in state government and the department tried to use Medicaid funding to float the budget, it forced the department to move even further towards a mental health treatment model, and then you all, the Legislature, changed the mission of Woodside to make it, statutorily, a residential mental health treatment program. That was to get the money. That was to get the money. Yet, it confused what the place is, and so now what you have, really, are three reasons that Woodside is being used. One is for commissioner-makers people. You know, young people charged with crime who may not have a residential mental health treatment need. They're just too young to go to prison, but they've been held on bail. Then there's people from the interstate compact where, like, a kid runs away from Kentucky and they show up here, and we have to hold them securely before we send them back. Some kids like that show up in Woodside. Again, they don't have a mental health residential treatment need, necessarily. But then there are the kids who do have significant mental health treatment needs. And some of those kids have significant trauma histories and personality disorders that involve aggression and self-harming, and those kids have never had a place in Vermont to treat them. Woodside was the place we put those kids, and you saw what happened based on the federal court order. I'm happy to report those kinds of kids, kids with severe behavioral disorders, kids who self-harm, kids who cannot be in a real youth. They have to be isolated because they're so aggressive or dysfunctional. Those kids are no longer going to be put in Woodside because of the court order that you read. That's part of the impact of that. And a bunch of other things were changed there. There was a girl that was described in the video, and they had a choice between mental health and Woodside, and they chose Woodside for some reason. So that's not really accurate, Senator. I mean, they had no choice. The problem was us. We, the people of Vermont, failed these kids. We do not have a place to put kids with behavioral disorders that are trauma-sensitive and self-harming, and so we as a state had no choice but to put those kids in Woodside because the hospitals we don't control, the emergency rooms, wouldn't let us put the kids there or keep the kids there, or they put a lot of pressure on the states and that was moved from Brattleville Retreat, which couldn't handle her to Woodside. So that's not true. No, it's not that they couldn't handle her, Senator. It's that there's a group of people, and it's not just kids. We fail adults, too. There's a group of people who have mental illnesses like personality disorders and other things that don't get better in hospitals. In fact, it's bad for them because they want to be institutionalized. Hospitals are really good for short-term treatment with medication. But some of these kids and adults, they have behavioral disorders like cognitive behavioral therapy and dialectical behavioral therapy and deep benches of highly trained people who don't get burned out in environments that don't re-traumatize folks. That's what's needed. We don't have that. We sent a lot of kids out of state. Not just in D.C.F. custody, in the Agency of Education custody, in the Department of Mental Health custody, over 100 kids out of state. Some of those kids have these very difficult behavioral problems. I believe that the state employees, if they were well-trained and well-supervised in a different environment, could and probably should do that work because I've heard people who run programs, private programs like SEAL and other ones say they need a backstop for kids with these very difficult behavioral problems. These are mental illnesses and hospitals, but they also get worse when you lock people up. And we don't have that we don't have that capacity in Vermont. We don't really have it for adults, especially for kids. So it seems to me that we need that capacity desperately, and that's the capacity that I'm worried about as a lawyer for disability rights. These other two things at which size being used for don't necessarily involve kids with significant disabilities you know, I think if you ask DCF and TOC there's like five or six kids maybe seven or eight a year who are in those two buckets but mostly you've got kids who have serious behavioral disorders that need really significant treatment and that's, I guess, my picture to you all is that the building in Woodside is not appropriate to treat anybody who has a mental illness, children who are girls. We can go on and on why that decision was made and why it was obviously made that they thought they were going to get. I would like to say that you'll hear a lot of testimony the science and how you treat children has definitely changed in the last 30 years since we built it. So I don't believe that the department is mistating the truth when they say we should be treating kids with these very serious behavioral disorders in non-locked, non-prison-like environments. I think that they're right about that. The last time we spoke about Woodside the issue regarding seagull and restraints came up and I asked Jim Henry to look at the number of delinquents that have been restrained and it's extremely low to maybe none and he's going to testify later but what we heard from someone from DCF was that there was three kids basically with a hundred of the restraints which tells me those three kids were probably placed in the wrong place and that also tells me that the girl was placed in the wrong place Absolutely That's the fault of the administration, not of the staff of Woodside and the staff or anywhere I think it's all of our fault there is no capacity in Vermont for those Jews No, I'm a part-time legislator and I have to go about what the administration tells us and when they wanted to go to this get the Medicaid money they made certain commitments and then they hired a person who was expert in corrections and restraint tactics taught those restraint tactics this is what John Shroffin says taught those restraint practices and then the staff used those restraint practices which are appropriate and according to John Shroffin I'm not an expert in restraint but then further used a lot of seclusion that Jim Baker couldn't use in a correctional facility we've done that here in this committee, we've looked at the use of segregation I don't know the difference between segregation and seclusion by the way but we don't even allow corrections to be used to that the way that they were using it at Woodside well I would say that our office has had federal litigation against the Department of Corrections regarding their use of isolation of people I would say that problem has not solved but you're right but again to defend the people who worked at Woodside with some very troubling kids they were not given any option they didn't have the ability to say you know what, this isn't working for us we even considered the last resort and that was unfair to them and it's not okay as a government to do that but what there is, going forward we can talk about what's wrong in the past going forward there's a great need for a capacity in the northern part and the southern part of the state to work with kids with these incredibly difficult behavior disorders there's a need for that currently and many of those kids are being placed at 204 Depot Street and they're racking up a lot of trains which is going to draw a lot of attention and it's not good for anyone it's the wrong placement so there is a need for more capacity and our feeling is that it would have been nice if the state administration would have by now had that created or ready to go as opposed to hoping that the private sector will fulfill that I've heard private sector people say we need a state backstop and the backstop can't be an education facility it has to be an appropriate treatment facility that again needs a deep bench of highly trained people I don't personally believe that I understand that these kids had these kids with chins absolutely and I've talked to some other legislators about what's going to happen to Woodside when it doesn't close July 1st because I don't think that's realistic and what I would offer to you is that it's nice about Woodside now there's very few kids there and there's some tight rules about it I think the legislature should continue regulating Woodside if it's going to stay open to sort of minimize the number of kids who are there and have time frames for how fast they have to get out to help move us towards not using that building for people with mental illness at least there's a lot of reasons why that's not realistic about three and a half million sitting in the government's budget where it took the money that was roughly six million dollars that it took for Woodside that was a budget for Woodside a. just savings or a term wasn't savings a three million or something like that so that was part of its 13 million and not having to to cut house where and which I believe two and a half million unfortunately they've spent about five hundred thousand on substitute care than they planned so there's probably a little less than two million but that's the reality for those of us that sit on appropriations is they put us in a hole and we struggle with that hole and people upstairs in house appropriations are looking for advice from the administration and I agree there's no way they can close Woodside on the four hand of the line I don't know where those kids will go I'm particularly concerned about the two corrections kids but they've changed the admissions policies so that places like CR are getting tougher kids but they're not increasing the resources to those programs to be able to handle those kids so then two or three years from now you can down up to or sooner than that depending on what happens but you know I think we have to look at this as a great opportunity it's a great opportunity there's going to be money freed up from Woodside because almost everyone agrees that we shouldn't keep putting children with mental illness conditions in there so there is an opportunity and we're clarifying what's being needed and I would just ask you as on the appropriations to me to consider these hundred kids who are out there and reconsider the department's request last year, remember last year they made this pretty gigantic 30 bed request for like 30 million dollars but within that request I think was an idea that you might bring back some of these kids who were placed in the state programs because you would develop the capacity in Vermont I know it's hard to come up with giant money but we are spending millions, probably millions of dollars, I haven't looked exactly at the number of kids out of state and we desperately need this capacity in Vermont so I would hope we would look at it as an opportunity yeah, well the problem is that I don't want to down hill on that I think I had a list of all those out of state that I probably somewhere around here yeah we do have one I think we do have one yeah, there is a report that they did of somebody age just of all the kids this is regional and state residential data yeah I have reviewed it I know that the department has an RFP out to study the residential capacity in Vermont and you know it's high time we do that because again we shouldn't have all these kids out of state there's two reports I think two RFPs, one for that study and the other is the replacement on which side so we really need two different facilities or whatever you wanted to find one for those five to seven kids that are under corrections or under the interstate contact that don't need mental health treatment and then another something else for all those kids who need serious serious mental health I know the retreat has an adolescent but that is for those not that level of kids right, these are people who don't do well in hospitals and what I would say Senator is that I think you're right that there are these two buckets there are people who have very serious residential mental health needs and then there are kids who are caught up in the criminal justice system but what I would push back on a little bit is those kids who are caught up don't just need detention I totally agree with Commissioner Baker what they need are basically the staff who are working on the website because those staff are expert at dealing with kids with behavior problems that aren't so serious that they're that ill but need structure so you have a great staff to deal with those kids and we do need to deal with those kids and they need therapeutic contact not just correctional contact but there are two we have those two buckets is there more to cross that you should you said that this is a preliminary injunction it is a preliminary injunction and we're still in the middle of the case and we have a staff conference coming up on Tuesday and so it's hard to say what's going to happen with the case but the court ordered these preliminary orders and so currently the conditions are much different than they were when we filed the lawsuit and there's only a couple of kids there which makes it extremely different than it used to be and there are new policies and procedures in place which makes it very safe this ruling one question this ruling was filed 8, 9, 19 August 9, 19 and that's when we started to see the drop in the population of Woodside so I can tell you it has this chilling effect the judge files this report then the population drops to zero and the administration's response is closing facility so that's the administration's response to Judge Crawford you could look at the population they were running 15 or 16 last year when DCF said let's build a new Woodside remember that proposal it was out there and it was disagreement they were running 15 or 16 so it was figured there would be 15 kids you have the suits and frankly when we went there and visited there last spring I had the same reaction by the way so then they have this suit the population immediately drops they change the admissions policy I believe they did several other things so now we're down if we just talk about DCF kids we're down to one kid and that zero we've been at so the time if you look at the time frame here that's what changed it's a good opportunity I don't disagree with you but it's too much coincidence to not believe that they changed the admissions policy based upon the report then the population went down they then had problems in other places so that's where we're at I think there's a general consensus that we should do something different with our kids with serious mental health needs acting towards that goal so let me get this straight in my head but it is appropriate for the current staff and maybe even appropriate to keep the DOC kids at Woodside while figuring out a way to move toward something better but the current staff is capable of dealing with them and it would not be terrible to keep them at Woodside the DOC kids not the mental health kids while we move towards something else for that population also something maybe better the other bucket of kids needs something right away that doesn't exist anywhere right now in Vermont and that includes the kids that are being sent to 302 or 304 whatever number it is that a lot of those are inappropriate to be sent there but they fall in this other bucket that should be so I haven't been to 204 in a couple of years I'm only hearing what you're hearing but the fact that they're saying there are restraints I guess children have gone up almost 100% is clear evidence that there's a problem okay so I get that now we have these two needs one could be could march in that direction the other one really needs something pretty soon some alternatives there's a problem but I don't know what the evidence is what the problem is I haven't been down there but the problem is the kids are placed there well that's what he said but keep in mind that the kids who are causing much of the restraints were not the Lincoln kids those kids are often sent out of state because they have such complex needs and we don't have that capacity here and for some of those that out of state plan and placement is very good for them absolutely they're the only place I'm certainly not against out of state placements and as the general says a lot of places are in New Hampshire and Massachusetts which are closer to my house and a lot of places however there's a chunk of them who are not close and the question is why can't we have those programs here if there is such a need not all the programs clearly but some and I think Senator White's right there is a sort of imperative to do something with these kids who have these trauma histories behavioral disorders who we're struggling to figure out what to do with right now but who are not at Woodside currently in New Hampshire here in a different role but I will say this it isn't going to get better it's going to get worse seeing kids at an elementary school for a second grade being pulled out of the classroom we invented them and just started with the popular elements you can begin mental health problems so we'll keep them out of the emergency but the fact that you need that tells me that this isn't going to get better but that's a great program is exactly what we should be doing I don't disagree but it tells me that if we don't have unique we don't change the way we're doing business it's probably not going to get better it's going to be worse I think we're all moving that direction what DCF is talking about is I think the right science how quickly we get there but many of those kids should be in the Department of Health not Department of Children the silos have always been a problem thank you for the opportunity to talk hi this is Erica hi Erica it's Nick Sears Senate Judiciary Committee and a number of people in the room and we appreciate you taking time away I know you're going to go to court shortly so we're trying to understand what impact the closure of Woodside would have on you because you have one of the programs that gets a lot of the kids who would otherwise go to Woodside at that 204 206 119 and many times the behavior gets out of control the police are called then they call you as the state's attorney maybe you could describe a little bit of what you go through but I know you supported always supported the programs not what we're asking about we're asking about what the impact would be on you if there wasn't any of that yeah the impact for we have the residential Bennington docket numbers which would mean not as much here some of these were having a difficult time getting from their local DCF because yesterday Ford Nudling because of emergency hearing usually to me it's always seems like it could be a simple thing those juvenile, a juvenile that is not a, the length has always been mental health he was so upset his program ran away and of the 204 206 I struggle with whatever it is the other one that we run in I see the most prevalent restraints and it's very different because it's like well a staff member not being supported but that being said if you're restraining and they pull and get loose I feel like I need some the kids that are in there it just makes it worse the placements in Bennington cause they don't know and so I've always, I don't know if you were there, Senator from Hock Bennington I was up here and they it's frustrating because it's a great model I think to have a local some place regional Rotlin is working on that same type of model the problem that we're having with it is at least in Bennington the pocket is only for kids 10 and under and it's only as they have it staffed so one of the kids that we have that actually was under 10 that needed a secure place to be that was more like a mental health situation they didn't have the staff to staff the room when we needed it so we had to make alternative arrangements and we need a place that we can, that workers can just kind of exacerbate the situation so that you know we have to do and you know which is an addition if 204, look we can't have this kid here you know it's not like we can put him in a foster home you know it's, we can't we shouldn't um, you know pending some type of mental health evaluation the room they use at the hospital here in Bennington I have been I don't know if you have a closet with no windows and we had kids you know the horror stories from the last like six months I mean we had a kid that was placed in that room for like 28 days it was from the Bennington school they windows for 28 days at the hospital well um I didn't know that and uh but we actually did the same thing the hospital emergency room should be for people that have an emergency and the hospital being asked to do this because the Bennington hospital is asking to do this because the state hospital's system is so messed up and you know we don't have the the bed for that group either I mean this state is in crisis and the administration um needs to wake up to what's going on in the community I go I took my wife to the emergency room the other night and I'm glad that they have that room so that my wife can at least get treated for having fallen and split her head over I'm not have to deal with whatever else is going on in there so I'm trying to defend the hospital they weren't designed for that population you know when they we've been so lucky I've been talking with a woman who runs emergency services and Robin Malhouse and about the juvenile population because we've been so lucky with you know in that situation the hospital has this girl there for 28 days and they called here and the hospital's been great about it was law enforcement the Bennington school 204 BCF I believe um and um uh morning deputy commissioner Fox was on the phone but we have this conversation about what can we do with the kids that can no longer be there I would have always said that this girl should have gone to Woodside because that's not because I want to punish her but because it was at the time it was the only ability of that kind we have you're also saying that the Woodside admission policy changed dramatically in February of 2019 it changed dramatically and now they didn't indicate that it had to do with federal funds but that's because Woodside was deemed essentially a psychiatric residential treatment facility and um that I just you know I've been doing this a long time 10 years ago Woodside you know we had various programs at Woodside that we always had a wait list we had to wait for to get kids into some of the longer programs um you know the programs that were 18 months longer and they had different ways and when you know what they're now calling a psychiatric residential treatment facility I just I don't know the size longer term psychiatric residential treatment facility has really been so I'm not sure why we have to abide by the federal requirements for that type of facility because I don't look at Woodside as being that well and they lost the federal funding that they were using they they required that so it's a $6 million general fund hit that's part of the boys and why we're here yeah I mean I honestly I think at least those of us on the southern end of the state like Wyndham, Rotland and Bennington and probably even Windsor would absolutely say having some type of some type of regional facility that has you know a wing for kids that are in mental health crisis and a wing for the kids that are violent and or significant risk of flight it would be less expensive it would be beneficial to kids they're not spending all their time on the road it would be better for the social workers the prosecutors because we would be closer to the you know the juvenile is placed in those places you know they still need to work with their social worker house you know local support put in place because the goal obviously is to get them out of that place and further we put them from you know all their supports and the people they're going to be working and living with the harder it is to make that happen um you know I think I think there are a lot of people that need to have a place because you know where we're really Bennington are coming out of those three locations Thank you Russ Well thank you Erika, I appreciate it Are there any other questions for Erika? Thanks so much helpful Bye Thank you Marshall Hall from the Office of the Defender General I want to start by just sort of observing that there's this is sort of an interesting bit of testimony because it doesn't sound like this is testimony where there's a lot of agreement between people because people have a lot of concerns and people have a lot of different concerns but I think there is actually a lot of agreement here we've heard from really everybody that it's this population of kids with profound mental health needs that are the biggest problem that are the hardest to place and um you know that's what States Attorney Martin said that's what Attorney Rubin said that is absolutely and I would fully agree with that that is the most sort of confounding population that we deal with it's the population that we deal with that is sort of the suffers the most harm causes the most harm and is the hardest to find a way to address those harms both harms that are caused and the harms that are suffered by those kids and I think I would also agree that there is an absolutely a need for in this state a much more well developed adolescent mental health system and I would go even further than that and say that as long as we have a not very well developed system of mental health for kids pre-adolescent kids for really young kids we're going to keep seeing the scale of our adolescent kids today that said Woodside is not going to be a piece of that solution in any way shape or form and that has nothing to do no matter what this committee does or any other committee does Woodside is not going to be the solution to that apart from just simply the fact that there's general agreement within our system that Woodside is a really bad place for those kids with those you know high profound mental health needs there's also now a court order saying they can't go there so no matter what this body does Woodside is not going to be the solution to the problem that we are really that's driving all of these other things that we're talking about that the core of it is these mental health kids and where they land and the fact that yeah oftentimes they land in really inappropriate placements and oftentimes that's for really bad reasons like that we don't have anywhere else to put them like that's the worst situation we can be in is when we walk into a room to talk about why kid is at Woodside or why kid is in another high-security residential placement and the only response that anybody can give is well we don't have anywhere else to put them and that's as you know it's it's the it's our system really admitting that we have a problem that we haven't solved whenever we wind up in that situation and it happens far too often so I agree with all of that it's just that to me I don't see any path in which Woodside is really even a factor in that problem anymore especially given the federal lawsuit holding that they can't those kids cannot be part of Woodside anymore so to that end I think I agree with everyone who's testified that we have a problem and it's a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed in a cute manner and I also think that it's not something that can be addressed by keeping Woodside open longer opening Woodside to other populations of kids anything like that isn't going to address that problem so then we look at sort of what is the remaining problem the the kids who are not suffering profound mental health problems that are simply have behavioral health problems that need to be contained for detention purposes for treatment purposes in some situations and is that the place where we need Woodside and that's the population where you know right now we are down to a tiny tiny, tiny number and that's not some sort of aberration that's not inconsistent with what's happening in all the states around us it's consistent with what's happening in states nationally I mean all over the country juvenile corrections juvenile institutionalized populations are not just falling they're falling almost vertically when you put it into a chart I mean it is incredible looking at New Hampshire next to us which has gone from populations in the hundreds to populations in the single digits looking at Connecticut that is completely closed it's only secure commitment center they still do because of the way they have their system structured they still do secure detention but that's not done on a statewide basis that's done regionally over the place but they closed the training school which was their last secure juvenile commitment facility New York City which closed back and they were the sort of ahead of the curve on this they closed all of their big juvenile upstate facilities that New York City used back in like 2003-2004-2005 range brought those kids back into the city into smaller facilities scattered around the boroughs and they've dropped their population it's in secure detention so this is unlike Connecticut which dealt with the commitment end but not the detention end New York City dealt with the detention end but not the commitment end their kids in detention they were down to 12 the other day and that's in a city of 8.9 million people so this is really reflective of what's happening everywhere and you see that when you look at rates of youth crime and when you you know I've heard some people speculate that that's because we're not prosecuting youth crime or you know really looking for treating youth crime in the same way that we used to some of which is true some of which is just that we've changed how you know this current generation of kids who are in their adolescence now I was looking at the results from the most recent youth risk behavior survey which is sort of the best data we have to go on tracking behaviors rather than charges or convictions and just looking at where it was 12 years ago you know the number of kids who by 9th grade had tried alcohol was cut more than a half it was up near 70% 12 years ago it's under 40% now the kids who had tried smoking cigarettes was cut almost as much the number of kids who had had sex by 9th grade was cut dramatically I mean it is the only line that I saw when you put all of the youth behavior survey indicators all the ones that I liked on one graph the only line that was going up was the amount of kids who reported playing 3 or more hours of video games a day went up every other line just plummeted and you see that in rates of youth violent crime you see that in rates of youth property crime I mean we are in an era where we have just seen this all taper off to nearly to numbers we've never seen before and that's really reflective of the fact that we've changed how we treat kids and that's you know when you look at the history of Woodside one of the things that we never talk about we talk a lot about the history of Woodside how it's changed over the years the changes in its purpose, the changes in its population, the changes in the sort of scope of services it provides one of the big events that we never talk about is the development of functional MRIs in the 90s and how that led us you know when they opened Woodside the best scientific evidence was that kids' brains were fully developed by about age 10 we can look at people's brains in an MRI machine but only statically look at a snapshot of what their brain was doing we couldn't watch it well they processed information and because of that the only information we had like how does the brain develop is its size and it reaches full size at about age 10 and the idea was well after that it's all just learning you learn how to be a better person you learn this stuff and when kids are behaving badly it's because they're behaving badly or learning badly in the 90s that we discovered because they invented these functional MRIs where you could watch in real time somebody's brain processed question and we discovered that adolescents up to age 24, 25, 26 depending on whether you're talking about men or women process like children all the way up to that point and that kids and adults are actually processing things totally different and that some of the issues that we see as being like the real the real factors in driving juvenile crime decisions about risk taking decisions about when to sort of resist the influence of your peers that when kids process those things it takes them 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 times as long to process as adults because they use a completely different part of their brain to process it than adults use so really and that research that happened changed how we treat adolescent offenders it changed and you saw it in what happened at Woodside I mean it's no it's not any coincidence that it was in the sort of early to mid 2000s Woodside saw this shift into providing more treatment doing more in the vein of mental health treatment rather than simply sort of containing kids that's because there was so much learning going on about how kids actually developed and what they need in order to treat it and that's what you know honestly that's what's driven this you know not just Vermont but nationwide decarceration of children has been this new understanding and it's more effective we're more effective at treating kids than we used to be that which means we're more effective at keeping kids out of jail and it also means kids are just committing less crimes in the first place because now we know a lot of what leads kids into that is not just bad thinking it's actually these sort of psychobiological or psycho has a bad word wasn't quite the right word but these sort of you know essentially brain development issues that are really driving that pattern of offending so and then the other point that I'd like to make is just that I think there's been a lot of look as if there's been some triggering event that has resulted in the serious decrease in population of Woodside and I think that that's only partially true I think what there really is is layers and layers and layers of events that have changed the population of Woodside when I started ten years ago dealing with Woodside it was not uncommon for Woodside to be up near 30 kids they would go over 30 kids and they would have to take kids because they were statutorily capped at 30 they'd have to take kids to a hotel and keep some of them there it was that crowded and it's not just like last year that the population plummeted or the year before that it's been dropping and dropping and dropping stage by stage by stage for years and years and years and I think that it's absolutely accurate to say that there's a bunch of things that have happened in the last couple of years that have increased that decarceration but I don't think it's accurate to say that those events are the only factors that caused it it's really been on this trajectory for quite a while and yes there's been events in the last year or two that have kept it on that trajectory but it's been on that trajectory for a while but a year ago the administration plan was to open a 30 bed program at Woodside for both seriously mentally ill kids as well as that traditional bullying so then you know we were talking about that about a year ago it was time so a lot changed in a year and the problems with that seriously emotionally disturbed kids or mentally ill kids is still there and if I would argue that it's even been exasperated so for me at this point I'm considering that this committee would recommend that you keep Woodside open until available community placements I just don't see how you can close Woodside until you can actually show us that you can handle that group in the community secondly you know the community I'm hearing from the state attorney in Bennington but I don't think she's going to be the only one if you close Woodside I don't think the communities are ready for the behavior if the administration isn't ready to have places that those kids can be helped I think we'll get a huge outcry from our communities we as senators and representatives as senators here is only because it's already happened those seriously mentally ill kids seriously behaviorally disturbed kids that you're talking about are not going to Woodside right now so that's already happened and that's only the terms of the court order but nobody has put the resources behind those kids I understand that and that's what I mean I'll tell you I agree completely with state's attorney Marthage the result of this RFP process is that there are proposals to scatter highly secure beds around the state for the kids with mental illness or for the children because we're talking about two buckets here we are talking about two buckets when we're talking about the seriously mentally ill kids we're not talking about kids who need to get out of Woodside and into something else before Woodside closes because they're already not in Woodside they're inappropriately placed and I think a lot of them are inappropriately placed I don't think that's a problem that Woodside is either the solution or anything else it's already been walled off from that population so keeping Woodside open doesn't solve anything for those kids they're not going to go to Woodside they're not going to go to Woodside if Woodside stays open they're not going to go to Woodside if Woodside closes it's not going to address that population I agree that we have a lot of needs that we need to serve and I want to but I'd like to close it on the 1st of July but I don't think the state is ready to close it on the 1st of July there is no plan that I can see that is viable at this point and I agree that there are fewer kids that may be down to one or two but those one or two can present some significant problems and I'm I think that they the agency should come back to both justice oversight and joint fiscal before they with a plan to deal with both population before they close and this is really testimony for DCF my understanding is that the RFPs either come in this week or next week it's sometime real soon we're doing the 28th we're making a final decision on this hopefully the week we get back from town meeting and put this into that bill but right now I'm giving you what I'm suggesting is that we require the administration to have a viable plan that's presented to both justice oversight and joint fiscal for approval before they close or wait until we get back to January but we can't remember it that the adolescent mental health policies need to be addressed I don't think they're addressing me I agree with you but I don't think keeping Woodside open has anything to do with adolescent mental health at this point but you have behavioral health issues that aren't being addressed and those are different than the mental health I mean I think I agree that they're different sometimes it's hard to tell the difference because the kid acts out absolutely and may destroy property in that which I would from you know the kid that kicked or punched I couldn't get what Erica was, whether the kid was kicking or punching the wall did damage and I'm not sure that's a delinquent problem as much as a mental health problem but you know there's certainly a solving staff those types of things should be dealt with as delinquencies you know if there were any those would be I think it depends on the context I agree with you in principle that's what I hope the committee will be wrestling with when we get back so I don't think we disagree but to keep this idea and keep the funding at Woodside going as if they had that population that they don't have any and that I think is the issue for me is that in order to solve this problem what we need is we need adolescent mental health placements that are serious that are available that are effective and we're going to need funds to do that and honestly I think that Woodside right now is costing a lot of it's costing way more money than it is providing value to our system and we have real needs right now for other types of resources and other placements and I don't think the magic that they're expecting from the RFP is going to show up we'll see I'm hopeful that it will I'm always open for magic so my understanding is that the RFPs are for this seriously mental health it's for both I think that would be a okay is it for both identify yourself Leslie Wisden from DCF RFP responses from a wide variety of needs including seriously mental ill as well as behavioral health as well as behavioral health but also the DOC are they considered the behavioral health I'm DOC will have a problem when we close Woodside I'm stuck into AJ's two buckets here there's three well there's behavioral health needs that aren't as serious as the seriously mental health and they need treatment that's true but I so the if all of the going to bucket number one which is but I forgot which is bucket number one not this is a test which is bucket number one bucket number one is the kids that are under DOC okay they don't necessarily have serious mental health issues they have behavioral health need and they need more than just being locked up if that population is decreasing all kind of across the country and we need some place for those kids that is just that's more than just locking them up and they need programming and they need actually go ahead they and so this is kind of two pronged question what types of though how does Connecticut and New York if their population has gone way down we know that New Hampshire is still housing people at the 100 bed facility if we have if it's going down and everybody kind of is seeing this happen it seems to me that if you have five or seven kids in a year and you have two or three of them at any time that putting those kids in what would seem somewhat isolation with two or three kids you can't provide the kinds of services that they need why wouldn't we and I know that people can't stand the idea of going out of state but I have to tell you that most of New Hampshire and Maine and New York are closer to Vermont than if you live in Montana it's one state so why can't we think about that that population that is under DOC of having some kind of a regional facility that really would provide the kinds of services and instead of you have a number that's big enough to be able to provide the services and treat them so a couple of things first off when you get to DOC there's some issues with that population that's a little different than with TCF population and specifically what I'm getting at is that there's a lot of situations in which you cannot really provide treatment to those kids early in their case you cannot do it while they are being detained and that's because kids who are DOC who are that young and need to be locked up are almost always charged with something very serious and their lawyer is 100% of the time gonna say nobody talks to my kid until this trial is over and as long as they are facing adult charges that's the right thing to do and that means they're not gonna be receiving treatment in a really effective way until after their trial is over and so most of the programs that provide secure detention for kids with adult charges not just in Vermont but anywhere else they're not providing much in the way of treatment they provide basic services they don't provide anything detailed because and that's where I would say in Vermont it is very very rare for us to have someone who is under the age of 18 who is sentenced to an incarcerated sentence as an adult I don't we have none at this point right now in Vermont the two people that we have at Woodside right now are both detention they are not sentenced so we have zero right now in Vermont and that's typical we typically have zero so they haven't even had their trials into this that's part of the problem we sit here and I've realized it's only two kids but it'll be corrections problem because they'll have to provide a motel room and two guards 24-7 three shifts a day to watch that person and it's a huge expense to the tax fairer in the state of Vermont who doesn't understand why we're doing this and then we get to craft for it because if you close it with the side that's what's gonna happen they got no choice they could put the 16 year old at Marble Valley there's other choices and I think that DOC could continue to have a memorandum of understanding with DCF and continue to use DCF's highly secure placements that will exist after the RFP process to hold kids who are and that's actually I wish I had more faith in the RFP we'll see you next week maybe I'll come back I am fairly certain given some of the people I've talked to around the state who may be involved in this I shouldn't say certain I should say fairly certain at best but so fairly certain that there will be solutions to this and let me just add one other thing which is one of the things they do in New York City and they're close to home program that I really like addresses a lot of what you're talking about with that population of kids so they have a lot of in the boroughs they have a lot of what were originally small secure facilities that have turned into because of the decrease in the population of kids in New York who need the secure facilities staff secure facilities meaning a wake overnight staff but with one or two hardware secure beds in them so one or two that are really more like a cell and those kids who are in that in those more secure areas of the facility may be able to participate with the rest of the kids in what goes on in the less secure parts of the facility or may be more restricted to the secure parts depending on their behavior and on their conduct and that is exactly a way to meet the needs that you're talking about where you are providing that high security but also getting kids into an environment where they can get that treatment where they can get those needs served that wouldn't serve the kids who are in detention though because they can't talk to anybody well and you know it's not that they can't talk to anybody it's that they can't engage in the kind of serious mental health treatment that often times they really need and talk about all the things you've done and why you did those things they can have their immediate mental health classes you can get education you can get sort of immediate acute mental health treatment what you can't do is have people sitting down with those kids saying let's explore your past let's explore the things you've done and why you've done them it makes it very difficult that's all, thank you hello this is Jeff hi again this is Dick Sears Senate Judiciary Committee as well as some other people in the room and I'm curious we don't really have a model are you there can you hear me yeah do you have any new news to add to we just talked to Erica and you know it's I think that we also we also have heard from AJ Rubin who's with the disability rights group that the suit regarding Woodside and Judge Crawford's decision and Marshall Paul from the Defender General's office in Erica and I'm curious about if you look back at restraint's issue regarding your delinquent kids who've been restrained versus kids who are not delinquent that have been placed at 204 or 206 yeah the numbers the numbers higher the non-delinquent kids than the unmanageable and somebody said the majority of the restraints were 3-4 kids yeah over just a hair over half made up four individuals one female was the delinquent the three male or not have you been having additional problems related to admissions to Woodside no issues lately now have you been asking for admissions to Woodside lately no well then you would not right yes thanks and I don't want to take a lot of time away from Jim but are there thoughts that you have about the position you're being placed in yeah we'll be we'll be putting some things together to spend out looking for some help in regards to some financial aspects so that we can do more have some more staff we had a complaint filed against us from the residents who was from our program and admitted to Woodside who may have made about two weeks ago and we can talk to licensing we have some concerns and based on our licensing discussions they have put forth some recommendations on some of our staffing we look into and put together some numbers and you know looking to get some some help with as we licensing recommends that you increase staff well they can put out recommendations and that is basically we have to see what we can do in regards to those versus you know like a violation and mandate and then we have to do some things so they can you know we can have that discussion but I don't think they can come to us and say you got to have more staff and then we have to turn around and go to the state saying well they got a license and we have to have more staff I think it's something that they put out there that we have to we can use that as as a recommendation but we still have to go through the whole process the licensure is worth for DCF yes other questions for you we appreciate what you're doing there it's a great deal thank you we appreciate that I really don't have many questions today you know we pretty much got most of our information last week I hope that you know you guys will hang in there there's a lot changing and I know it's always difficult when you don't feel like you're getting the level of support you need and I guess I'm not sure if I ever stated that overall to you but I definitely think there needs to be something and I don't even like the word Woodside is that because Woodside has kind of like a definition already passed with it and I'm not saying that in any negative context but what I think maybe it's a 5 to 10 best place in there has re-evaluated kind of thing but there definitely needs to be some place great thank you Jim thank you for the opportunity thank you alright thank you good morning I'm Alex Hodges from Woodside hi Matt nice to see you Woodside nice to see you first off I would just like to say that Woodside in and of itself gets wrapped up in a lot of negative conversations and I would just like to separate Woodside as the facility and the staff that work there from the policies that oversee what it is that we do there those individuals that operate outside of the policies put forward by the department are held accountable for acting outside of the policies put forth by the department but however Woodside being held accountable for shortcomings of the department's policies is getting a little out of control in my opinion yeah but in this decision I think the part of the finding was that the policies themselves are wrong that's what I'm saying the department is who generates the policy I thought you were saying that staff who went outside the policies were bad apples but here the barrel is bad anytime throughout the course I've been there for 14 years anytime throughout the course of my time at Woodside when somebody is operated outside of the practice acceptable policies at Woodside sent forth by the department they're held accountable for those that was a statement in and of itself not referring specifically to the because what I thought was eye-opening here was the judge pointing to the policies themselves and then saying there is no policy currently he says I can't see a policy but over the course of these next number of hearings I'm confident one will shape up that we'll be able to pass constitutional muster that's a pretty startling statement to say not only aren't there policies in place that are constitutionally valid but one is going to shape up over a number of weeks that's a pretty chaotic description of what's going on I think if the policies change so the numbers at Woodside have dropped because the policies have changed but there hasn't been a replacement so you're seeing the strains in the system and all these different programs we've been hearing about for the past few weeks they're saying there's still a need so just because there's less people at Woodside doesn't mean there's a need in fact there's more of a need because now Woodside is not an option and that's the main the policies change because for a number of reasons not the least of which Judge Crocker's rules but so the admissions policy change I don't know if internal policies have changed at Woodside in terms of the strain that other there were policy changes before that rule there are policy changes that Erika had mentioned earlier that started in February 2019 there are policy changes that were from July 2018 before these rules so these policies have changed over the period of a couple of years there's a confusion here about the different sets of policies internal policies on behavior the policies regarding admissions that's what I don't understand those things seem to be affecting population a year ago we were talking about a 30 bed facility today we're talking about a zero bed facility I'm trying to understand there are there are several policies July 1st 2018 legislative change impacting youth administrative placement and this answers the question that you had asked us to come here with why has there been a decline in population I would call it a rapid recent decline in population at Woodside number one is because they're being placed elsewhere the changes in policy July 1st 2018 administrative authority limited to post adjudication youth July 1st 2018 RSLI standard 508 shall accept and serve only chosen youth whose needs can be met by services provided by the program Woodside policy 301 this is more recent intake screening statement we do not Woodside does not have the clinical resources and expertise to serve so these are the policy changes it's not just most recently but and then Erica had mentioned something in February 2019 I'm not sure what she was referring to I've also heard July 2019 and I'm not sure what specifically that is but there's a variety of policies that have changed over the period of a couple of years and Erica did mention this one to two year period that they've seen in these kinds of changes in 204 206 inventing school for girls we heard at the Howard Center they've been going through a lot of strains in their system we've heard from Beckett who says we need a place of last resort as they called it the sheriffs have been here testifying saying they need it the people who work at DCF the emergency service placement after hours and the social workers we've heard it from anecdotally from hospitals as well waiting lists of people waiting to be placed in hospitals now I understand the mental health issue that this case brought specifically and that I think it makes sense that you don't want to place mental health kids in a place like Woodside you need an option but what we're hearing over in Oregon is there's no other option so until there's no other option we got to remain open to keep kids safe keep staff safe keep the community safe until something else comes along but I don't see anything coming along that's my point well the miracle will occur on ice February 28th today that's right even if they are there's not going to be anything ready by July so when you have a girl that stays in a hospital for 28 days that's a huge problem because we're not ready for it I'm not sure she would have been eligible for Woodside see I think I may be going outside here a little bit but again I understand Woodside should not be taking mental health but if you stop if you say no to Woodside for mental health and you don't have a better replacement then you're going to have the scenarios that we just heard about Judge Crawford did am I reading that wrong you did what basically said no to the mental health without saying yes to something else that's a huge problem I agree but that's what judges do which I think is why when they don't have a problem telling you no and they don't have a problem I just hope we don't hear about something in the community because then people say well why did they close this not have something else and if someone gets hurt significantly in the community what I think AJ and Marshall were pointing to is they did close Woodside effectively that's what I was hearing and that's part of the reason that you're down to one, two, three kids who are DCF kids and the other for a moment so I'm trying to understand if I'm correct what Marshall and AJ were saying was some of the kids who used to be placed at Woodside with significant mental health issues are not going there but then you still have you still have the staff who are equipped to deal with that population but they're not getting that population so I think what the interpretation of the ruling that Judge Crawford came up with is not to say that a youth will never be placed on the grounds at 26 Woodside Drive again I believe what it constitutes is that a youth cannot go into that a mental health youth cannot go into that facility as currently staffed as currently outlined a policy so if therefore if policies were to change regarding how Woodside was operated then it could be open again to those I haven't seen a proposal from the administration so one of the proposals that we as the staff at Woodside and the VSA was in support of last year was a campus style format with pods with different levels of security and different treatment modalities in each pod which would take care of a lot of the siloing effect that I think we've all acknowledged as a problem right now I think it's concerning that the department's direction right now is to strictly put out an RFP for services that are currently implemented instead of looking at new services that fill in the gaps of what's out there what's out there right now is a mental health system that is deteriorating and a juvenile system a juvenile system that's deteriorating and if you merge those two and get out of that silo capacity then you could build a campus where both mental health services and juvenile services and billing wood services could be implemented to say that mental health kids need to be around only other mental health kids is short-sighted there's often times where the kids that we've had historically at Woodside who suffer from mental health issues some of the best moments that they have are when they're around other kids so to just isolate them and silo them off to their own isn't self-serving I think if we look at it with a broader scope and see how can we use our resources to impact the most youth that we have for admitting that the mental health system is jacked up and we're admitting that the juvenile justice system is a little jacked up right at the moment how can we collaborate services to provide the best service for the kids of Vermont and as we've stated before there's behavioral concerns that come up in hospitalization when kids are in a hospital setting where those staff and those facilities are not equipped to handle that level of behavior and then there's mental health issues that arise in a behavioral setting like Woodside that we don't have the capacity to handle we collaborated more and we got out of this one department and the other and merged some services that we could have a collaborative care a system of care that's actually served the kids of Vermont instead of just silos them Yeah, I've been looking at the in-state and out-of-state residential count 2019 or DMH at 67 kids in-state Dale had two kids out-of-state non-in-state DCF 157 kids in-state and 93 out-of-state in the last two years 2019 and in residential so between the three departments Dale being only two so that really is DMH and DCF Well, you also look at the DOC population The DOC population that we're serving there I think it's a little short-sighted to also say that those are just behavioral concerns because a lot of the kids that come from the DOC have extensive trauma histories that they're working through and would greatly benefit from That may be, but they obviously committed this pretty seriously Correct, correct I agree that Woodside is a proper placement for those kids What happens to them inside closures? Right The commissioner of corrections said they'd go to Montalvo Correct There was a couple of things I've heard last time about Woodside building itself, we took some pictures around the facility along with talking about the increased changes to our programming and to the building itself It's been signed off as structurally sound by VGS and we took some pictures of the different places we have added calming rooms and wellness centers They have an incredible nursing station They have probably the best team library in the state with over 3,000 of the most up-to-date team books A gym that if you look at the pictures it's quite a facility, a weight room It's got a lot of things that is well used by the residents there The kitchen The Department of Health has given the kitchen a 98 and 100 which is unbelievable numbers for the Department of Health to hand out to kitchens We have an incredible cook there That's one thing I wanted to hand out I also wanted to hand out some resident testimonies because I did hear a little bit about that last time we've had We tried to collect this hastily but these are testimonies from ex-residents like Woodside to save their lives and just a lot of different letters that have been written to us So I did want to hand those out in defense of some of the things that I've heard recently as reasons to close Woodside We have a great building It's well used, it's got facilities that a lot of other programs around the state do not have We have an education system there that is unmatched I think as well We have a lot of residents that have enjoyed being there You don't want them to be there but while they've been there there's a lot of laughing that goes on at Woodside There's a lot of good times inside the building as we try to help them get to so they don't have to be there We don't want anyone to be there Hold on just a second I don't want to buy what I really want These have all been cleared The names have been cleared I've been authorized to be able to hang them out At least by the kids By the kids The kids have signed off it I'm a little troubled with that I'm a little close to being there But Marshall, can you give us another place? No No you won't I can't do this I would like to So you want to be passed around? I just I'm a little troubled with the names shouldn't be out there I'm not sure what the rules are Definitely don't post So Leslie was going to say I would maybe like that not to be passed out until I had a chance to look at it It doesn't have to be Do you have one that would be It's not the information It's the lost names being available I was told it was okay to hand them out You'd like to have these Why doesn't Leslie have one She thought it was posted on our website Where's that Where's that Where's the pile The pile was The pile of the kids comments It looks like this The kids comments It looks like this I know It's a different one There's three of them I won't post but I'll keep a copy of this for our part The question is going to be I'm going to do that I've tried you over the years The kids are in programs Even as adults So there are confidentiality laws about giving publicity to any youth who have been part of the liquid system including being placed at Woodside There's a process for all the parties in a case to sign off on disclosure I'm not sure that process was followed I'm not pointing to you guys at all I just want to be really careful to protect their identity I think we're going to hand these to Katie until we get some kind of a ruling She will keep them under and then either it happens or whatever Your point is that there's a lot of kids who've been at Woodside and feel that they treat well It's been a positive experience for hundreds of years We have some testimonies So the context of that was that these were kids that came to us To ask what they could do to make sure that their voice is what they're thinking about Exactly Absolutely I don't want to release the law here Right That's okay I'm sorry I should have gone through the proper channels I thought it was clear but it may not be But the point that our kids have done was that a question How many staffs are left? Is there enough if you had a son if you were back to 15? Yes, at this point it's hard to know exactly because we do hear people getting new jobs all the time but I would say around 5 staff that I know of have gotten new jobs and moved on and people have been relocated but if the capacity changed we could get people to staff the facility So as of current we're not filling any vacancies as they arise Today is actually my last day working for the state of Vermont in this capacity I have a family to support and I can't sit through all the uncertainty that's being provided by the department and the process so I need to ensure that my family is taken care of and I'm going to be stepping into that role in my position at Woodside and other staff that are currently already employed there Can I ask what you'll be moving to In light of the overall lack of leadership that I've seen from the department I've just broken ties completely with the state of Vermont I'm going to be going to sell insurance Oh my God Very difficult decision to leave Woodside I've been there for 14 years at every point since I began working there with staff that have 30 plus years of tenure and countless life experiences and experiences within the state to becoming one of the senior staff in the facility we have in my opinion handled ourselves as best as can be expected with the limited leadership that I've seen from the department in informal discussions I've heard that the plan for the Woodside property is to tear down the building and have it turned over to the department by if that came from two commissioners close but if we put all this money into this building I mean is the building itself really so bad that it can't be repurposed Building according to BGS and we have Jim's we put 800,000 how much money do we put in 600,000 dollars the problem I currently said it's a cement building with fences that look correctional and you know instead of repurposing what they've had there the plan is to say that it's a facility out of repair I think it's a misrepresentation some of the things could be updated 35 year old building is not that old in the grand scheme of things we're in one that's considerably older that seems to be managing just fine yeah what you had mentioned earlier about therapeutic prison for young offenders I think is an option for Woodside it would be interesting to hear what the number was I think it was James Baker was looking into that number how many youth are currently in prison between 18 and 21 we could serve that population if there's an adequate number that would be a good use of the building facility is able to support that the staff are trained for this type of youth and we're familiar with it so this is on the backside of what I had handed out earlier that we can do that and I also think that it would be something the department would have a hard time fighting considering the their statements over the last several months that the facility looks too prison like to operate in the capacity that's currently being asked to they would have a hard time saying that it couldn't act as a prison in that sense yeah I think it's worth giving some time to see what is going to happen if the current numbers at Woodside remain low what's going to happen we're seeing some of this I emphasized last time spring is coming it is a busy time of the year for us and I think in the state in general so leaving Woodside as an option revisiting some of those policies to allow more residents to come to Woodside especially the ones that you're hearing about from different placements that they would rather these people come to Woodside I think it's important to look at that okay any other questions I'm wondering does anybody know what happened with the meeting that was happening last week between mental health and DCF and that whole gang with regard to speaking to each other about Woodside and you know the Sarah Squirrel and others who were meeting last week allegedly I said they were I met with three commissioners after that meeting I remember it was after work before I had a meeting with them I just don't understand this week last week I had a meeting with them about the presidential numbers I mean they were talking about whether Sarah you know whether they're going to do that I had a meeting with them they ended up with this report they're a agency team and what's their name I think they're meeting Tuesday I keep getting more information I mean do they agree as to what they want to do with the building even I mean the whole thing is there any agreement any place all I can tell you is what I just said about the mental health that they're going to tear the building down and do their replacement to the middle sex facility a lot of this seems to be very rushed the whole thing seems so rushed that we were just told a few months ago that we're closing and now they're scrambling and it seems to give a little more time so that you can explore possibilities why destroy a building when you could actually use it well it seems the suggestion for the kids from 16 to 25 I mean I know 25 isn't a kid but it really kind of is we're desperately desperately looking for a women's prison I mean my only there's 30 beds there my guess is that there are a number of women that are in prison that should be in a different kind of facility not I know it's not big enough for that I mean with respect to the pictures that he took we did a field trip there and it did not seem like a facility where I think the design is conducive to people getting better in a mental health not mental health I'm talking about prison well and I mean we talked about the Norwegian model for prison I think Woodside moves pretty far to the other end of the spectrum thank you are there any questions for the witnesses I think one last thing I would like to say if I could is that over the last two and a half years that I've been back at Woodside in the role of clinical care coordinator I had a nine month break where I worked for economic services but since I've been back in the role as clinical care coordinator I have been involved in several conversations with Department of Mental Health for interagency contacts where we were trying to streamline the best care available for clients such as one outlined in the Crawford case that relationship can be and should be fostered and it should be improved and it should be there should be a process by which both of those services are available to the state at the same facility in my opinion and different level understanding that there's a requirement for the least restrictive placement available that was why that pod and campus proposal was the one that we got behind was because there could be different stages of care different levels of security at each pod with a response and a staff capable of working on both mental health issues and behavioral issues Thank you both Thank you I don't want to add that there's a child's name visible in one of these photos I don't have to okay don't post that either alright thank you for a few minutes before we take a break okay best care I don't know what to say but I do think I don't think you can propose it so you figure out what you're going to do until I've seen a vibe of the plan so my plan would be to have language in for feet to open so they provide a viable plan and that would have to go if it's not quite if it's in the interim while we're out of business it would have to be proven by the justice so that would be my plan at least to make sure that there's something because we leave here on May 18 then it's like we lose all control particularly in a session that's end of the biennium so you can see the bulldozers in there on July 2nd that would be my recommendation that we as a committee propose something to the department the plan is to take this up when we get back from our top meeting week and we need to pass out the bill anyway because it's a juvenile justice bill and so I will schedule Ken Schatz to get an update on the RFPs and see where they're at and then put some language in what I just described simple little bill you want to talk about your floor amendment are you recording this out today no we you put it off to Wednesday but part of the reason was this this was in the pepper had suggested executive sentences that for the record bring here from legislative council and Mary Jane Hemsworth heard about the way it was right so it was just the amendment so if you remember the way that the bill originally dealt with that problem of when you get sort of a de facto life without parole by imposing consecutive sentences we had originally amended that consecutive sentences statute so we restricted the courts authority to impose de facto life without parole and there was a suggestion from the state's attorneys to instead amend the parole eligibility statute to provide the sort of the a person could serve no more than 35 years without being eligible for parole unless they were serving a life without parole sentence so I think that the representative from the parole board was not here and you heard that testimony and you voted out the amendment right after and there was some concern that the language wasn't quite clear enough and that it may be read to impose a 35 year sentence on everybody so we remember that you have here is just to replace that whole section I can easily do instances if you prefer so it just adds a couple words in both places to make it clear that anybody who is serving any sentence unless his life without parole is eligible for parole no later than after serving 35 years so if you've got consecutive sentences that make your minimum term 45 years you'll be eligible for parole at 35 this would be an amendment of yourself but I wanted to go through it with the committee I don't know what you wanted to mention no I actually, the amendment I think is much clearer and fits much better Mary Janie from the board for the record this wording is much clearer I did talk to the state's attorneys yesterday and they were in agreement with similar language but it also meets the same we wouldn't want a person who wasn't serving a life you know sentence who wasn't aggravated not be eligible for parole but if they were eligible sooner this is true if they've got 20 years it won't have to wait that's true so is this okay with everybody? yeah