 This is Senate Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, January 26th, 2021. We're meeting remotely once again. And today's subject is the replacement of Woodside. Woodside no longer exists. Probably need to find a new term for this. But hopefully, we'll have a discussion today about juvenile justice and how we're responding to it. And I've become increasingly concerned. I think Commissioner Brown is prepared to talk a little bit about it. Just as we've had problems in the adult system with folks who have significant mental illness or traumatic brain injury or are low functioning or ending up in a correction system, same groups of ending up in our juvenile justice system and being asked to be dealt with by the Department of Jordan and families rather than either mental health or jail. I hope that this is the beginning of a conversation and not the end of that conversation. Because as we look at how to respond in talking with people in the field that I used to work in and that Senator Nicky used to work in, increasingly we're seeing numbers of people who are seriously with serious emotional problems being asked to be dealt with in programs that were developed for different categories. So anyway, I'll leave it there. And we'll, John Campbell, are you ready to say a few words or jump ahead if you wouldn't mind? Sure. It's going to be pretty quick because you guys have heard it all before. First of all, for the record, John Campbell, executive director of the state's attorneys and sheriffs. Again, as I said, you all have heard this repeatedly since this crisis has started when they closed Woodside. But what I'm seeing now, I've been talking with quite a few of our prosecutors over this past week who have told me about incidents that really scary, where the kids who are, as you just pointed out, either have some emotional mental health issues or cognitively are disabled. And they're being lodged in some police stations, like up in St. Albans. St. Albans has lodged them a couple of times because there's no way to transport down to 204. We've had a couple that have been in hotels. And to me, what you're doing is you're putting a person in a hotel, but you're also putting them with a caseworker. And I don't think that that's the best environment, the best way to do this. And again, part of it is also a transport issue. And I reached out to our sheriffs and asked them what the problems, why can't they transport? And it seems that a lot of these incidents are happening later at night. And so the part-time, what we call it per diem deputies, those guys, they've already worked eight, some 10 hours a day. And some of them also work part-time so that they've worked another job or they have to get up at 3 o'clock in the morning. And then the state-paid deputies, they are your straight eight hours a day. And they can do it if they want, but they also, I guess they're the sheriffs, they're allowed to say no because they've already worked their eight hours. So you're not getting transported. I'll be really honest here. What really worries me is that this other location that is being discussed, my understanding is it's probably a year off before they get all the permits and before they get all the things done. Now, I may be wrong, and of course, Commissioner will know better. But until then, we are playing with fire. There's just no way from what I have seen happening in just five or six cases that to me had potential for really blowing up and to be where people could get hurt. We need to figure something out before then. And we need to find a facility that will be able to house the juveniles that we're discussing. And it's got to be a secure facility and one of those no-reject or eject type facilities. So there's really not much more I can say other than the warning lights are all there. And I just don't want to have to come back and then having questions saying, well, how could this happen when there was a tragedy? Because we're seeing the roadmap now as to how it is happening. John, do you see an increase in kids being charged who may have assaulted staff members, either staff members of DCF or staff members of group homes, that sort of thing? To be honest with you, I have to. I don't know that. I will check that out. Did you poll the state's attorneys in those districts where they have, or just every district has social work or something. But if you could poll the state's attorneys to see if they're seeing an increase in assault of behavior. And know that kids used to break furniture all the time when I worked at 204. I don't remember many assaults, but I'm hearing more and more about assaults of staff members, either in those motels you described, and even in police stations and in group homes. So I'm curious if there's been an increase in the requests for charges, which would then make somebody who is maybe seriously, mostly disturbed, would then become a delinquent. Because now they've been charged with a delinquent act. Well, let me, if I could, Senator, there was actually, there was an incident that just happened. But I'll let Commissioner Brown fill you in on that. I think he might be, it might be better for him to discuss that in a hotel situation. But I also peppers on, I see he's here. Now he may know about the case homes and whether there has been any increase in assaults there. But I don't plan to end the conversation today about juvenile justice. So perhaps you guys could hold the state's attorneys in it, if you could, and see what we can help with. OK, well, Commissioner Brown is, thank you, John, for jumping out of turn. Appreciate it. Commissioner Brown has joined us. And if you're ready, Commissioner, there is a document inside the placement report that you can find on your screen. I mean, on your, on the committee web page. Commissioner, I think you're still muted. I apologize. I thought I was unmuted there. I did the same thing this morning during the session. So a good morning for the record. Sean Brown, Commissioner for the Department for Children and Families. We have provided several documents for the committee this morning. We have a PowerPoint, which we can review. We have a residential placements PowerPoint. And then also we provided an overview of the program just that's being developed for the Woodside replacement with Beckett. And so I know we have Jeff and Jay from Beckett with us as well. And also today we have Jennifer Micah, the general counsel for the Department for Children and Families. And then also Jennifer Herbert, who is the new DCF clinical director, who's been very involved in the work and the design of the new facility in Newbury and working with Beckett and BGS and our Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators, consultants, and then also working with the Beckett treatment team and developing the program, which, you know, if there's time today, we can review with the committee. Now, following up on the conversation that you were having at the start of, Senator, I would point out that we are seeing an increase of youth on the Chin side, who are exhibiting aggressive behaviors more than we've seen in the recent past. That is certainly leading to a lot of challenges in the way we care for youth and meet their needs. And so I do want to just share that we are experiencing an uptick of youth on the Chin side. And as you aptly pointed out, it does lead to concerns that if they act out those youth on their aggression, that it could lead to them becoming involved in the juvenile justice system, which obviously we all want to prevent from happening. We all want to make sure they're receiving the treatment that they need to move forward and certainly don't want to see them becoming involved with the juvenile justice system. So all of our work really revolves around trying to stabilize them and move them forward in the providing services so that they can, you know, be maintained in the least restrictive setting. And for many of them, we want them to return to a community place as soon as possible. Getting right to the Woodside Replacement, we got to find a new name for this agenda item since Woodside no longer exists. As you will see in the PowerPoint, and we can probably start referring to it, but we have started calling the new program and new barrier that we're working to stand up the Covered Bridge Treatment Center. That was the name developed in conjunction with the Beckett team. So we can, moving forward, refer to it as the Covered Bridge Treatment Center. Right. Senator White have a question or a comment? I just had a question about given the fact that it's going to take a year or two years before this is even online. And the, we just had 12, I don't know how many kids were talking about here, but we just had 12 secure level one beds that are about to come online at the retreat. Why can't in their new beds, so why can't we use those beds instead of hotels and hospitals and police stations? And also the retreat closed a couple of their units at the behest of the state. So there are units at the retreat that are also not filled. Just a question. That is correct. It is a complicated set of circumstances and the array of services that we use for our youth Senator White. In terms of the inpatient unit that the retreat is closing down, it was really being underutilized given the level of care it provided. And to keep it open would have increased the cost exponentially for the state and all involved agreed it probably made sense to wind that program down while maintaining services for some of our younger youth in our care and custody. And so- No, no, no, no, no. I didn't mean the youth residential program. There's also another unit that they closed and I'm not talking, I'm not suggesting that it wasn't right to close those down. What I'm suggesting is that there is space and there's two places where there's space at the retreat. And we just heard John Campbell say that people are being housed at hotels on very unsafe situations and that it'll be two years before the covered bridge project is done. So I'm saying, that's all. I suggest that we need a second meeting and I hope to convene one on this issue. With Monica Hunt and Sarah Squirrel and Commissioner Brown and perhaps, you know, both Campbell and somebody from the Defender General's Office, the juvenile defender's office. Talk about how we get through this interim but also to learn more about what's available at the retreat and how kids, my experience with the retreat was the kids could check themselves out back in the day. Yeah. And it may make sense just to jump right into the Woodside Replacement PowerPoint status report. Yeah. More than happy to, I didn't know if Peggy, would you keep, Peggy, if you just keep that in mind to have that meeting perhaps and the next week or the following week to continue this discussion. And I didn't know if Peggy could pull up the PowerPoint and I can walk you kind of through that. Sure. Thank you, Peggy. Do you see it? Yes. Thank you. Yep. So if we just jump to the next page real quickly just to provide background of, you know, where we've been in the last six months, you know, a decision was made in August to stop admissions to the facility at the end of August. And then in the legislature's restatement budget, we received authorization to permanently cease operations at the facility by October 18th. We permanently closed the facility on October 17th. And then we were also required to submit a report on our long-term plan for justice-involved youth. We submitted that report at the end of October. And then moving to the next side, Peggy, and then we testified several times before the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight and Child Protection Committees who then voted unanimously to approve our proposal for justice-involved youth on November 12th with some conditions that are listed here that we work with the local authorities in the community in Newbury, that we make sure all youth in our care and custody receive treatment in the least restrictive setting, that only justice-involved youth be placed at the facility and that it be a no-eject, no-reject facility and that in the facility in Newbury that there'd be a clinical clinician with a PhD-level overseeing the treatment program there and that also that we negotiate the least in the investment to make sure that our investment is protected in that facility. And so we are working through and making sure we meet all of those conditions. Before we go to the next page, are there any questions on the background? Could you, just for me, and given our earlier conversation, justice-involved youth, would a youth who prior being placed in a program who then assaults a staff member or in a motel and assaults a staff, would that become, if they're charged, would that become a justice-involved youth then? Even though they weren't originally? If they were not originally, they could become justice-involved youth depending on the outcome a criminal charges follow a specific assault or event, but they certainly could be and that's one of our concerns is preventing any chins youth who are exhibiting aggressive behavior from entering the justice-involved system. Okay, thank you. Yep, yep. And then the Joint Fiscal Committee in November did approve the recommendation from the Joint Justice Oversight and Child Protection Committee and we've been working with our partners, Beckett, BGS, the Architects Studio Nexus and then our consult from the Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. We are very close to finalizing a design plan. We're hoping early next week that will be done and then we will seek involvement with the community in Newberry and seek their approval. Beckett has been in contact with the leadership in Newberry of the Select Board, the Development Review Board and the Zoning Board and they are plans underway as once we have a final design and program description in place that they will meet with the community and hold community forums to share the information, the design and the program that will be run in that facility. And we are working very closely, DCF with BGS, with Beckett and negotiating the terms of the lease and then also on moving forward with the renovations for the facility once the design is moved forward. I would point out that we do have additional funds earmarked in the Budget Adjustment Act to help pay for those renovations. Our base budget from the restatement had approximately $1.2 million set aside for the renovations and with the work with the Architects and Beckett, those are looking like they'll be closer to 3.2 to 3.4 and we have $2 million in the budget adjustment request to pay for the renovations in that facility on the front end instead of having them incorporated into the lease and paid over a period of time which then would have added interest and profit on top of that for Beckett. And so it's gonna be more cost effective for the state to make that investment on the front end as well. Also our clinical director, Jennifer Herbert along with Penny Samson who's a consultant from the Council for Juvenile Justice Administrators and the executive director of the Beckett's Vermont Permanency Initiative, Alore Baker have been working very closely and regularly to develop the clinical treatment program that will be delivered and the assessments that will be used and that is one of the documents, the current draft of that work we've provided to the committee today and if there's time and interest we could certainly pull that up and have Beckett and our team walk you through that. In terms of next steps and a timeframe, we're hoping as I indicated to finalize the floor plan and completing the schematic design. I guess I wonder if you could move us to the next page of the next steps page a little further down. Yep, right here. And then in February, the site plan complete the site plan with the civil engineer to generate the construction design documents and specifications in February and to March submit for zoning permits during that same timeframe and then any building permits we need from the state and then go out to bid in late April and then in May start construction. Our hope is as timeframe is that we would be open by this time next year in operating the program. So that would be winter 2022. Yes, we're hoping by the end of December of this year that we will be operational. We had hoped to be operational in the fall but it's looking like based on the current timeframe that Apple we're looking towards the end of December. So a little round a year from now is our goal. So one of the, and that would be six beds, correct? Six beds, yes, for secure residential services for justice involved youth. And only justice involved youth. Correct. Including a DOC youth as well. Good, thank you. In terms of, yep. Okay, no, I messed, I broke into your, I had another question. Sure, go ahead Senator. I guess my question is in the interim between now and next January. Let's say it's January. What is the plan for justice involved youth? How are they being dealt with? We heard John Campbell talk about kids in motels, talked about needing transport to 204 and we have 204 here. That's sort of thing. I'm sure for females, the Beckett School in Bennington, the Vermont School for Girls, I should know it's in my neighborhood. Keep referring to it as the Bennington School but it's not. They keep changing the name of it but I actually have three buildings in my neighborhood. Sure, so we have developed a wide variety of programming for youth justice-involved youth. For those requiring the highest level of need, we have a contract with the Sununu facility in New Hampshire. We have utilized that once at the end of last summer into September for one youth since mid-September, we have not had any youth placed in the Sununu Center. We also have been utilizing the Turtle Rock crisis beds that we've developed with Washington County Mental Health between July 1st and now. We have placed 11 youth in those crisis beds. Of those three were justice-involved youth, the other eight were Chin's youth. Also, we worked with the SEAL Depot program down in your area, Senator, to create three crisis beds and then also a fourth bed for youth that come in during the weekend or evening hours. We certainly have had a history at DCF of when a youth has come in to keep them sometimes in a police station. It made more sense there. And so we've stopped that practice in under only very limited circumstances. And so that bed would be utilized for youth that come in at the last minute in juvenile justice-involved and that we would utilize that one crisis bed we've developed with the SEAL program down in Bennington. Also, we have three other beds that we've contracted with them in addition to their regular 14 bed program as well. We provided them a rate increase to help them meet the needs. Certainly we've been seeing, it's more on the Chin side as we started to talk about. We're seeing youth on the Chin side with some really challenging behaviors as a result of their need for services. And so we certainly wanna provide services in the least restrictive environment and get them back to their community placements as soon as possible. But some of them end up in the crisis beds at Turtle Rock but also we've been utilizing those three crisis beds as well in the depot program down in Bennington. We're certainly seeing challenges overall from the pandemic on staffing. They've had a few outbreaks amongst their staff down there which has certainly been a challenge and we're seeing in that other areas as well. So the pandemic itself is putting stress on the system just in terms of staffing and whatnot. In terms of justice involved youth as you will see from another PowerPoint that we'll put up that's really a small sliver of the number of youth that we're serving right now through our residential programs. Most of them are on the Chin side. And so that's why we've had very little utilization of the Sinunew program. We certainly recently came close to looking to place one youth in Sinunew but we were able to deescalate that situation and maintain them in state. There has been some discussion regarding a recent incident with a youth in a motel that was not a justice involved youth. I just want to be clear about that. That was a youth we were stepping down from another program who'd been stable for some time. I'm looking to move them into a high-end foster placement. And while we were waiting for that to be available we needed to place that youth in a motel with FSD support, staff support. And unfortunately that youth did assault one of our staff members and it was a very traumatic experience for that staff person but it was not a justice involved youth at the time that occurred. I guess that leads to several questions but in full disclosure I did get a call from someone through the VSEA last night after I spent with you on the phone who was concerned about the safety of the staff and whether or not putting, and I don't know who, I mean, I don't want to know the names of the staff obviously but were they case workers? Were they former Woodside staff? What level of experience do they have in caring for somebody in that situation? These were our frontline social workers who work our Chin's caseload, which this youth was. I will indicate that we have made it clear that we will no longer allow the placement of youth in motels and that I have asked our family services leadership team to quickly develop some community alternatives that we can quickly stand up and staff with not using motels and not using our staff on nights and weekends to care for youth in that way. We certainly understand the difficulty of using our staff after hours in this way and certainly it's a practice that has occurred for a long period of time even when other programs were open just based on the circumstances but moving forward we'll not be using motels for the placement of youth nor do we want them staying in police stations overnight pending a court appearance or a placement the next day. If you can prepare a report on problems with transports for me, I'm gonna be working on that as part of my work in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Really concerned about transports statewide, not just for DCF kids. Yes, certainly we're happy to provide you some information regarding that. I would like that for me to get to that issue of budget area. Is it, I keep calling Senator Campbell because he was a Senator for so long. John mentioned problems with getting transport deputies and that was a reason to leave kids in a police station rather than bringing them to Bennington or wherever the program might be. Does that continue problem for you? We did experience some issues regarding transport several months ago. We worked with the Sheriff's Department particularly Sheriff Mark who to set up an after hour system to make sure that we can have access to transport when needed for our youth. And I think we're gonna have some further follow up conversations with the Sheriff Mark who and our security consultant to make sure that those transports are available 24-7. As I said, I'm really would like to work with you as well as the state's attorneys and Sheriff's Department on this issue of transports. I've heard good things about Sheriff Mark who and Sheriff to Anderson in Wyndham County, Senator White. They're both stepping up on transports for others kind of stepping down. Yeah, I would say one of the things we're seeing and this is just from the broader DCF and Agency of Human Services perspective. You know, we've been relying on the Sheriff's Departments across the state and contracting to provide a level of security given the large number of households where housing and motels and we've seen some issues and so we're putting tremendous pressure on the staffing levels in response to the pandemic. And I think, you know, we're seeing the impacts of the pandemic in many areas of our systems of care. And I think we're seeing that in the transport realm as well. Final question for me and then maybe others too. Do you have a backup plan if the community says absolutely not to the Covered Bridge Treatment Center? You know, we are working through contingency plans. We were having conversations with other providers at the time and so those conversations have been left on hold but there are certainly been interests from other providers to work with us. But we felt like Beckett was the best program and the best facility but there have been other conversations so that we would be able to move in a different direction if there are issues with the placement of this treatment program in that community. Other questions for Commissioner Brown from the committee? Did you have any of your other staff or would like to make comments, Commissioner? I would, before we move on, just pull up the placement sheet just for the committee's information to understand the wide variety of programs we use for the placement of youth, whether they are chins or juvenile justice involved. I think it would be helpful to provide some perspective on the number of youth that we're serving and the different programs we utilize to meet their needs in-state and out-of-state. So Peggy... Can you pull that up, Peggy or Sean? Thank you. Yep, so we currently have, so the top part of this sheet are programs that we utilize in-state and the number of youth and the focus for the treatment of that program where we place youth, and that's in the light blue above. If you look down below, you'll see our out-of-state placement for youth and again, a quick summary of the type of program that that center provides. As you'll see, overall we have 148 youth placed in residential placements, in-state and out-of-state. Of those, 117 are chins cases and 31 are delinquent or justice-involved youth. A little more than half of those are in-state and then less than half are out-of-state. And as you can see, the programs we contract with the out-of-state are really provide a higher level of service for some of our youth with unique needs that we just don't have the ability to provide that level given the small number of youth needing that level of care in-state. Commissioner, is that the correct date? May 20th, 2020? I think that date did not get updated when they, this is a sheet we maintain, so I apologize. Okay, you know what, this is fairly current then. Yes, yes. Okay, good. I just want to turn it off. Yes, I apologize. I missed that when we were sending it to the committee. So, this is a sheet that we use regularly to kind of track our youth in the different programs. Oh, okay. And it gets, and so I think we've just missed updating that date. Okay, so that means that out of the 15 delinquents seven, five were in Seahawk, two were in Windsor, one in Turtle Rock, one in Leroa, one in Allenbrook, would you have enough to fill six beds at Covered Bridge Treatment? Yeah, I mean, the Covered Bridge Treatment program is really designed not to be a long-term, but a short-term, and so there would be youth coming in and being stabilized. So we would certainly be utilizing between three and six at any time as youth experience crisis or whatnot. So we believe six beds is the right size. Before we closed Woodside last summer, we had five youth at Woodside. And so I think, and that was a high number for the last year or so, but we think it's important to make sure we have capacity because youth come into crisis for a variety of reasons at any time, and we need to be prepared to meet their needs. And so, and our goal is not to keep youth there long-term, but to stabilize them, get them into a treatment program, and then move them to a less restrictive setting as quickly as possible when it's appropriate so that they can continue their progress in the least restrictive setting, whether that's a lower-level residential program in-state or whether it might be a higher-level therapeutic foster home-type situation if they're not able to return home to their biological household. Thank you. Other questions for the commissioner? This has been helpful to me anyway. Yeah. Getting a picture of where we're at. Why don't we, the next person on the agenda is Jim Henry from CR Inc. or as I refer to it, 204 Dupro Street. Good morning, everybody. So I'm James Henry, CR Inc., which is a 204, 206 Dupro Street programs, as well as GAP and Horizon programs. I would agree with the earlier conversation in regards to the chins being a little more on the aggressive side, which definitely makes it a little more difficult to work with those youth, especially with where to go, if they're not fitting in with us and what we can do with them, especially if they're not charged based on some of their behaviors. But we're basically two months in to the 206 delinquent program, the 206 house. We currently have three. And I think so far, knock on wood, things are going okay. Not that we haven't had our moments, but I think we're doing okay. Definitely run into some staffing issues. We had hired 46 staff last year and we lost 50. So we definitely struggle in the staffing departments. We're actually working on putting together a report to see where we're losing all these people too. Are they being terminated? Are they resigning? But overall, definitely struggling in the staff aspect of it, which can lead to some burnout, especially when we do have some of the difficult kids between the 204 and the 206 house. So just for, I guess a little background, 204 is generally the house for most of the chins with the delinquent labeled youth would be at 206. Yeah, I'm struck by the staff problem. I would be personally, obviously I'm interested personally, but I'm curious if salary is a problem in terms of keeping them. I know you just out of the grapevine, I know you've lost a few staff to DCF. So is salary a problem? That's one question. And is the aggressive nature of many of these youth becoming a problem, increased need to restrain, et cetera? I mean, is that a reason for the people leaving? I'm sure there's always, anytime you have turnover, there's something's going on. But well, to touch on the salary aspect, we had a pretty significant salary increase, I wanna say it was two years ago, where we basically start at $15 an hour for somebody coming in without any experience. And we all seem to think our little team here seem to think that it's not necessarily the money, you know, in a sense, I think the hours are difficult, you know, where you have to require some of the weekend hours, second shift hours, as such benefits may have been a little tricky on in some aspects, you know, having a limited, well, having our budgeted amount for a full-time staff. So, you know, rely on the part timers that don't get the benefits. And I believe it was about a year or so ago, up until that point, we were able to pay 100% of the insurance for an individual. And based on the increased number, I believe we have 79 staff now, probably 70 of that would be designated DCF, you know, in the programs and not administration. So our numbers have definitely increased, so we were not able to afford to, you know, keep paying the insurance on the staff. So I guess in some cases, it might have looked like that employees may even have lost a little money, even with a $15 start, you know, per hour, but then have to pay their own insurance. But we are trying to put together a little report and by all means, we can send it out to you once we get it, you know, finalized to look at where we lose the staff. Certainly, I think salary wise, I would not, I think that we need to do better given the kids that you're being asked to deal with. Yeah, we basically have like a $15 to $19 pay scale dependent on the experience and, you know, education that and, you know, kind of fit people into that aspect. The aggressive, let's see, the second question towards the aggressive side. We've had some assaults, residents assaulting staff and that's not included where it might be at restraint. This would be a physical assault where a resident had attacked a staff member, one of them was our program manager and we do struggle with sometimes getting them charged, which would then allow us to get them removed, you know, in a sense, because then they would have the delinquency aspect to it, but basically, you know, unless it's a real difficult situation, we hang on to these guys and, you know, guys and gals. We've had two recent issues with some very difficult staff where we were able to remove them. I believe one went to Turtle Rock. You mean difficult kids, such that. Yeah, significant residents that we removed, couple of thousand dollars worth of property damage and he basically was a 15-year-old struggling with a father who is stage four cancer and dying. The mother is not in the picture, so he really doesn't care what happens to him and his behavior dictates that. So we struggle with, you know, the behaviors that he's done, you know, the possible restraints with that individual, but we were able to remove him and I believe he was the one that went to Turtle Rock. The other youth, we were able to keep working with him through some of the difficulties of his aggressive behaviors, mostly property damage. And I believe he ended up going to maybe Tennessee last Monday or so, but that's basically where we would struggle with, you know, if we had the, you know, the wood side in place where we would be able to remove some of these youths based on these difficult behaviors. Questions for Jim? Thank you. No question. Thanks Jim, I appreciate it, but look forward to hearing a little bit more about staff and why they've left, that's a huge turn. All right, thanks for the advice. Thank you. Jay Walter is the Executive Director or Chief Administrative Officer of the Beckett School. Jay, thanks for joining us. You're still muted, sir. Thank you for joining us, Jay, and I appreciate it. We were hoping to get an update both on, you know, you also have the Beckett School as well as, which has, I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but there was a size of a number of Vermont kids in New Hampshire, which is close to Vermont, as well as the Bennington School for Girls, or the Vermont School for Girls. So any, you know, you're in both places here, you're starting a new program, and then you've got Vermont kids and two of your other programs. Sure, I mean, just, you know, briefly, you know, I think I'll certainly echo a lot of Jim's comments relative to the youth. I also have Jeff Caron and Lorraine Colburn available. Lorraine oversees the program in Vermont under Jeff's tutelage, the Vermont School for Girls, as well as our New England School for Girls program, which serves primarily out-of-state children. Jeff broadly oversees our children's services as the president of Mount Prospect Academy, which I know the lingo gets confusing, but Mount Prospect Academy really is the company that oversees most of our children's residential services. Jeff is the president of that company, and he can speak much better than I, sort of an administrative person, relative to any questions you have along the lines of Jim's testimony. I certainly, in terms of the project, I'm not sure, you know, how much to add beyond what Sean has already very capably articulated. I know one of the concerns is to make sure that we vet this locally. I am in regular contact with Alma from the select board. We went through and analyzed how procedurally to proceed and our own agreement that we wish to vet this through a process at the select board level, not the DRB, which is the developmental review board level. That process will be kept more focused on the site plan and the physical plan and be more traditional zoning kind of dialogue. I think that that process is likely to convince in the next couple of weeks at the select board level. Alma and I had dialogue by email this week. We're trying to sort out the best way to present right now with COVID and whether we're into a webinar, which is kind of a foreign concept to me. And so we're gonna need a little bit of support from our IT team to kind of put that kind of thing together so that the community can interface in a way that's better than Zoom. So there's some technological issues we're dealing with due to the pandemic. I would comment on Jim's stuff just from a business standpoint, kind of a cost standpoint that we certainly in terms of this program design have sought to address some of those issues. But the industry in general, I think it's starting to face some issues beyond just the classic pay benefit issues due to the pandemic that I think people should begin to be aware of. The big unemployment support that we've provided the population is country appropriately. So those have a trickle down effect. Vermont unemployment insurance rates are extraordinarily high. We actually self insure through a nonprofit mechanism that has significantly reduced our costs versus if we were just in the pool. But due to the unemployment significant unemployment claims, a lot of those opportunities are being lost or resulting in significantly higher rates. So all the success we had in running to that program is for us thousands and thousands of dollars is being lost. The impact on insurance and workers comp rates to these aggression issues are also things that were being pushed significantly by the insurance companies these days relative to risk. There's only one or two carriers for social services agencies in the country right now who are willing to take on the kind of liabilities. Being handover in Philadelphia are the two primaries and we're getting a lot of feedback that they are very nervous about litigation and liabilities associated with staff being hurt as well as claims by children of abuse and neglect. And really the evolving expectations of trying to balance when to hold a child, when to isolate a child and maintain community safety and individual safety and how that's being interpreted. And so there's some trends in the industry that I guess you're asking questions about the business and I thought we're apropos to the discussion that it's a rapidly, rapidly evolving environment with more and more stakeholders engaged in the dialogue and people like Jim and Jeff and LeRae face just a lot of challenges in terms of getting everybody across the spectrum from the legislatures on down to the advocacy group to the parents, to the communities all on the same page. It's quite interesting to see this. And it's all gonna play out in this particular project, perhaps more so than even more experienced. I hold disclosure since you don't know me. Before, up until 2006, I was the executive director of COA and I ran the program from 1971 to 2006. The industry using that term has changed dramatically in those 14 years, I must say. And I hearing, I know Jim fairly well and hearing some of the issues they're facing but you described another one which is even getting insurance to cover the liabilities. So also workers comp is increasing cost to you all as well as other issues. Maybe Jeff can speak a little bit too. I know you've had a salt of kids as well and kids programs, I know in Bennington in any way. As I said, three of your buildings are in my neighborhood. I live on Madison Road, you have two buildings on Madison Road and you have one on College Road which is right behind me. Now, I'll be the first to say we, the neighbors have not had problems from your programs. Once in a while, the runaway, that would see the police out looking or something like that. I must say that the years that your programs have been in this neighborhood would have not seen problems. That speaks volumes for the type of facilities you both on, both in Depot as well in Bennington School for Girls and other programs. Thank you, Senator. Would you like me to, If you could talk a little bit about some of the challenges you're facing, trying to make it from here to the opening of the Covered Bridge Treatment Facility. Well, I believe we can staff the facility relatively easy. I'm not concerned about staffing the facility. To discuss a little bit about what Jay was referring to when we're talking about risk management for any program, James program in Bennington, Lorraine's program in Bennington. When you have a risk manager on the insurance level coming in and you're presenting him with how many assaulted faculty you've had and that number doesn't decrease. It usually stays the same. It takes them several, several go-arounds to understand what kind of students you have. So for risk management, that's always a factor, but that was a factor back in your day, I'm sure as well. And it takes very committed human beings to work with our kids, despite the abuse our faculty suffer on a daily basis but we just encourage them that that abuse leaves in a while for every child. They kind of go through a cycle and they get upset at you and then once they trust you and connect with you then you make a bond. And so if you can keep a faculty member there for half a year to a year, they generally understand and get an intrinsic value from connecting with our kids. And for us on the New Hampshire end in the Vermont and Vermont does a wonderful job of retaining staff and we can spend an hour on why that is. And in New Hampshire, I think like James, I have some programs that are more geared towards more of our intensive violent assault of kids. That's up in the 40% aisle for faculty leaving turnover rate and our more assessment programs geared towards kids coming in, get them stabilized and assessing them, we have zero turnover rate in those programs for faculty. So just like anyone here would just guess the more violent the child, the more turnover you're gonna get. And that's because we have a wide variety of citizens that work with us from 65 years of age, male and female all the way down to 24 right out of college. And so although probably you and I, Senator, we took a lot of punches in the day. Some folks just, they weren't domesticated that way. They just don't understand why they should be assaulted at work. So generally take somebody like Lorraine with a good sense of humor, just to expect it a little bit and James. So, but again, as we moving forward I have the privilege of having Jay worry about risk management and the insurance couriers of which we only have two. So we really can't be that bad or we're gonna get dropped. So that puts pressure on me operationally to make sure that we run the safest programs we can. And from what I'm told by insurance carriers, we do a good job. And so I expect to put forth the same, if not more stringent risk management strategies in the covered bridge program. And again, it's a six bed program. It's incredibly intimate because it's so small, which is awesome. And the site is wonderful. And we appreciate and respect the amount of resources going into that building. Jay and I certainly aren't used to that. We usually fix up a building as we kind of go and move kids out of bedrooms and refix the bedrooms and kind of go at that rate. But so this is a luxury to have a certain amount of time with some engineers to respectfully engineer some space that these children can receive a good intake, have a treatment team analyze what their major issues are and then work on the major ones, decrease the aggression and get them to a lesser restrictive facility in the shortest amount of time. And that's fun for us. So we, that's been our model for forever. So. I wonder if there's any questions for either you or Laurie, Senator White. Oh, no, I had a question for Mr. Wolter and the commissioner. So. Go ahead. Oh, so I should have thought of this before, but I was surprised when you talked about meeting with the community people because I'm in my other life, I've worked on a number of projects like this that are to be cited in a community. And I think that I heard that you are hoping to start construction in May. And this is February. So you have February, March and April and you have to go out for bids and the community has not even been, they haven't been involved up to this point, is my understanding. So how on earth are you gonna go out to start construction on May? Because going out to bid takes a couple of months in itself and this is February. So I'm concerned about what would happen because I have seen projects like this be completely turned down by a community. And I'm a little bit nervous about your timeframe. So I'll jump in here and then Jay jump in as well. You know, Beckett, this isn't, in terms of the use we're anticipating for this facility in Newberry, Beckett has owned this property for several years and they have run several different types of residential programs there as already. The most recent iteration was an assessment center for some younger youth, but before that, they also ran some other type of residential programming. So for the community, this has already been this type of program, the anticipated use now will be smaller than those prior uses and Jay, please feel free to jump in here. So the community has experience working with Beckett in Newberry and their running programs. And so it'll be more of educating them on the switch of the use and the decrease in the capacity that's gonna be served in that program. And then just given, you know, I think for us, we wanna make sure they're comfortable with the renovations we're proposing and won't look much different from the outside than it does now. There'll be some structural changes to the facility, but I'll kind of let Jay weigh in on his relationship with the community over time and their running of programs there. So this is a new concept for the community. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would comment. I mean, I would echo Sean's comments. I think that they accurately present a lot of the facts. The reality is, I think, you know, one thing we as a company have done notwithstanding being a nonprofit, you know, we've always paid property taxes. We've always fought with the funding agencies for funding to do so, or if we didn't get the funding, we paid them anyway because we wanted to respect that issue and the community. That's gone a long way in towns like Newbury where we've already been in towards sort of putting to rest and creating some trust because that issue is so big in New England, in particular in Vermont and New Hampshire. You know, because we've had programs there and because I think we select sites that we try to minimize community impact, we try to create open space. I think that people in this neighborhood, and I think, Dick, you've seen it down in Brattleboro, in Bennington, you know, we try to improve the properties. We try to make the places better than we got them. And I think there's a general understanding of that. And we really haven't had a lot of issues in that community. And we have been behind the scenes talking to people and there doesn't appear to be a great deal of angst in the community, although there are people asking questions. My approach has been, let's get the site plan and the project plan nailed down because I know one thing in my experience would work on community people. I don't like being told one thing and then seeing another thing. They feel like a bait and switch and we want to avoid at all costs, sort of that approach. The actual legal zoning issues here are actually fairly minor because we have a permit for this particular use already. It's really, we are already are cited as a 12-bed residential treatment facility, which is exactly how this program's gonna be licensed. So it's really an amendment of the license. And I've spoken to both DRB and the zoning board about how they'd like us to proceed. And I think we're pretty comfortable that that's not gonna be the hold up. Now, if there's opposition that arises, it's gonna arise and I think the legal processes in that community will advise us as to how to proceed and ultimately make a decision. I'm very confident that this will go through, but I'm not positive. Thank you. There will always be opposition to anything, but, and I guess I missed somewhere along the line the fact that you'd already had programming there before. And so I was thinking of this as a new concept to the community. So thank you. You always have neighborhood concerns and you try to address them as best you can. As I said, I'm a neighbor of your programs and our concern is always various things. You live with that. In 1971, it was a lot different opening a program in downtown Bennington than it is today and it was kind of unheard of. Any other questions for the group before we go to Marshall Paul, that you've now looked under? Oh, I do wanna continue this conversation. I am especially concerned about the aggressive. I guess we're using the term aggressive. I think it's much more than that. I think we have some extremely seriously emotionally disturbed kids in the system who are being asked to be dealt with by DCF, who if not treated and don't make changes are gonna be in our adult corrections system. And I wanna continue that discussion in the near future regarding the role of DMH, DCF and Department of Aging and Independent Living. Just as DOC is the institutional last resort, I'm getting a feeling that DCF has become an institutional last resort and maybe it's not always appropriate. The help from all of you at Beckett and Seawall, you are on the front lines, you see it, you know who you're dealing with. We really don't. And so any information you can give us about the types of kids you're being asked to deal with. And I will add that Senator Nicke has long experience in the juvenile system. She is a social worker, she's worked for various groups over the years. I've been at Beckett's program in New Hampshire. It's quite a long time ago, but did a nice job. Marshall, welcome. Thank you, Senator. So by the way of introduction, I'm Marshall Paul. I'm the Deputy Defender General and Chief Juvenile Defender. And I'll start by saying what I've said the last few times I've testified, which is that we are very happy to generally support the direction that this project has been going in. And we're supportive of the effort to close Woodside, to move on to a facility that is sized better and designed better for the population of kids that it is serving. And so with that said, we certainly have been cautious in our support. We've been reviewing the proposals that DCF has put forward, their plans, their intentions going forward. And honestly, while we certainly share some of the small concerns that are outlined in the Disability Rights Vermont testimony that's on the website, we don't see those as major hurdles. What those are to our mind, sort of small disagreements as to approach. So my point by sort of highlighting that is to say that we're looking at this carefully and we're cautious and we have certain aspects of this that we're waiting to see how it develops and that we have questions about, but we're actually extraordinarily pleased with the direction that this has gone so far. That said, I'll touch on a few of the issues that have been raised today. And I think the primary one is the distinction between the Chin's population and the juvenile justice population and how those two fit into our sort of constellation of residential placements. And honestly, some of this, I've got to share, before I was defending a juvenile defender, before I went to law school, I was a behavioral interventionist at the Howard Center, working mostly with what we would consider to be the Chin's population. And even going back then, which was sort of mid to early 2000s, you were talking about a population of kids who were really deeply traumatized, really deeply affected and have a lot of problems in their life that they're gonna have to overcome. And that led to them being, honestly, a far more difficult group of kids and honestly, a far more physically aggressive group of kids than the older, slightly more sophisticated justice-involved youth that we were seeing when I started as a lawyer visiting Woodside and working with kids at Woodside and working with other justice-involved kids in other settings. It's natural when you consider sort of how people wind up in these various placements. Those kids that are coming through the Chin system, those are especially the ones who are in that sort of early adolescent or pre-adolescent age, those are kids who in order for them to wind up in custody and in a residential facility, they are almost all of them have really suffered tremendous trauma, have really suffered tremendous harm, have really suffered tremendous hurt and they lash out in a way that's entirely predictable when you keep that in mind. I remember when I was doing my training at the Howard Center, we had a week-long training in de-escalation and restraint and appropriate uses of restraint and appropriate uses of seclusion and ways to de-escalate situations so that you never even wind up in that situation. And I asked the question, I asked, they were describing all of the ways to block punches and restrain kids safely. And I asked the question of people who were training, should I be expecting that I'm gonna get punched here? Is that why you're teaching me this? And they stopped everything and said, yeah, of course that's why we're teaching you this. Why the heck do you think we're teaching out of block punches if we don't expect that you are gonna be dealing with physically aggressive kids who are gonna get physically aggressive with you and that's gonna be something that's part of your job to deal with and that is wherever these kids are, whether they're at the retreat, whether they find themselves and find their way into the justice system and wind up at Woodside, whether they remain in the Chin system and are in specialized treatment programs that really are focused on the trauma and therapy that those kids need, they're going to be aggressive, there are going to be assaults, there are going to be physically aggressive situations that fall somewhere short of an assault. And honestly, that's the work, that's the work that the people who are there supervising, treating and administering these programs do and it's not like there's any silver bullet, like you would create some program that will eliminate that aggressiveness or eliminate those problems. It's more a question of how do you deal with it and it happens that I was on a phone call yesterday afternoon, I do a monthly phone call with sort of my counterparts in New England, chief juvenile defenders in all the other New England states and the topic came up about placement stability and how the various states were dealing with placement issues. And honestly, during the pandemic, nobody is having an easy go of it, all over New England, all the other juvenile defenders were reporting the same kind of stuff that's been discussed here, that there's been staffing problems at programs due to the pandemic and due to some of the collateral issues that surround the pandemic, that's led to some programs, not necessarily discharging people but refusing new admissions, that's led to programs refusing the admission of kids who were particularly high in need but who they might have accepted in the past but due to their staffing levels and due to the difficulties in finding staff at this moment, they would not accept those kids. So to the extent that what we're seeing is sort of some real pandemic related challenges to our ability to place kids in appropriate programs, that's not just a problem in Vermont, that's a problem that's being experienced certainly region wide and I wouldn't doubt that it's a problem that's being experienced nationwide. Can I just break in Marshall? I can't hold my thoughts any longer. Think what's missing from your discussion is accountability. How do we hold these kids accountable for that behavior? It's fine, yes, we expect that some kids are gonna act out aggressively but it seems that programs are having difficulty holding those kids accountable. And when you have assaulted behavior like what occurred with the, what Michena Brown just described, when you have other behaviors, if you can't hold kids accountable, what is to prevent that from continuing? And I guess I'm sounding old fashioned but we used to have a thing called sitting in the dining room. I know it wasn't isolation because everybody had to walk through the dining room but I started that in 1971 because I couldn't have them go out back and dig a six foot wide and six foot deep like we did at the Lakeside Center where we basically had sand and Burlington but there has to be something to hold kids accountable and I'm hearing from those that are working in the industry that's one of the frustrations. I think there's two answers to that question, Senator and that is that there's certainly those situations that cross the line from the sort of expected and even therapeutically appropriate aggressiveness and resistance that sometimes manifests itself physically but is really part of the overall sort of progress of treatment of some of these kids versus the more escalated the stuff like that attack that's been described with the child who was in the motel and assaulted a DCF staff member. There's a point where absolutely a kid might engage in behavior that is the only appropriate way to handle it is to charge them and for them to be dealt with through the justice system but I think that what the other flip side of that and I don't think that this is any, I think certainly Senator Sears this wouldn't be news to you nor to anyone else who's worked in this field is that in a lot of cases the accountability is actually it's best not to be removing kids from these programs, plunking them into the category of justice involved youth because in a lot of cases that physical aggressiveness and the response to it is actually part of therapeutic progress that it's important to address the harm that kids cause in a residential program in the actual milieu of that program and to provide that accountability in that program honestly you gave an example of it with the time out in the sitting in the dining room that may be one very appropriate in certain circumstances way to de-escalate a aggressive situation remove a kid from one physical place to a different physical place or maybe they won't be affected by the same stimulus and start to process with that kid what they actually went through why they engage in the behavior they engaged in what strategies can be used to prevent that in the future if the response is always oh the moment a kid becomes physical we remove them from the program and put them in some sort of an escalated or more restrictive environment like taking a kid from a residential program that's really suited to their therapeutic needs and moving them into a justice-involved youth program that's really about containment and safety you're actually doing more harm than good because you are essentially stopping that kid's therapeutic progress or at least interrupting it because it certainly and I'm sure everyone who's in the meeting who's been involved in this work can tell you it's not a short process to develop a therapeutic relationship with a kid and so if a kid gets moved from program to program to program every time that they display any aggression you're essentially ensuring that no program is ever gonna develop a therapeutic relationship with that kid and that kid is never going to make the progress that they need to make and so I think the it's not a new approach to say we try to keep these kids in these programs deal with their behaviors within the programs as best we can use those behaviors as actually opportunities to make therapeutic progress and to make really positive change that's not a new concept that's been certainly how these types of programs have worked since I first interacted with them in the early 2000s and it continues to be how they work today so to me the short answer is that we need to keep dealing with it the way it's always been dealt with which is draw a line and when kids cross that line and it becomes inappropriate and unsafe for them to be anywhere besides a secure justice involved youth facility then okay that makes sense and up to that line we gotta keep trying to work with these kids in the programs they're in as long as those programs remain appropriate and trying to keep making the progress that we can make with those kids so that they can step down and step back into the community and not wind up sort of escalating through the juvenile justice system into the criminal justice system and I think the most important part of that is having a system of residential care that actually provides everything that we need so that we have placements that have the specialized treatment available for all the kids that we need to place because that's, I mean, I can tell you my experience with the kids both kids at Woodside, Justice Involved Youth and other programs and kids coming out of the Chinn system abused and neglected youth is that we see the most aggressive behavior and the most problems in a residential program when kids are placed inappropriately it's the kind of stuff that you see when kids have remained in a program too long and are really no longer making therapeutic progress or when they're initially first placed in a program that turns out to really not suit that kid's needs that's where we start to see the aggression and sometimes the aggression really comes in a way that's therapeutically appropriate I can't count the number of times I've had clinicians talk to me as a kid's lawyer and say, look, just to warn you we expect as we start to dig into this kid's trauma history that there's going to be aggressive behavior and you're gonna hear about that as the kid's lawyer and we want you to understand that that's expected in certain circumstances because that's the very nature of trying to address trauma that's been experienced but never processed and never treated for years and years and years as long as it gets treated as long as it gets treated and the longest I'm an old glass or tight person who believes in accepting responsibility anyhow, Marshall, thank you so much it's always interesting to have that conversation. I am concerned about the future getting from step A to step B which step A was closing which side step B is opening something else I'll have to get the covered bridge down properly in the lexicon, but how we get from there in the next year or whatever it takes to open it and how many kids, you know, placed tonight my understanding is that some of the problems are transportation problems and you're right, the COVID certainly has exasperated a lot of these problems for these programs and we have people who are working front lines either a 204, I'm gonna use, I'll keep calling it 204 I'll see y'all in a moment and the Bennington School for Girls are working on the front lines and watching other people collecting huge unemployment checks and I don't grudge those folks getting those unemployment checks but when you're paying 15 bucks to 16 bucks or 17 bucks an hour, you add that up and compare that with a $600 bonus to whatever unemployment was paid and you're sitting there taking abuse from those kids as difficult as that is I have to have sympathy for those workers and that's why I'm hoping that I really think you need to do much better at least temporarily than that's 15 or 16 or is that whatever you pay at the Bennington School for Girls, we need to do much better because these folks are particularly those that have hung around there for the whole year with this pandemic put in some amazing work so Commissioner, I hope you'll take that to heart as well as when you see that kind of turnover if you're getting that it's concerning and it may not be just pay but I know people look at that issue Jay brought up the unemployment I think that's an important factor in trying to keep people in your programs if you wanted to comment on that Jay or Jeff or Laura anybody who wants to comment on that? If I could just jump in Senator, your point is well taken and I can't emphasize enough at the partnership with the CL program and Beckett with the remote school for girls in the program they run in New Hampshire that serves many of our youth and their programs and their staff really have stepped up during the pandemic been on the front lines and I'm happy to look at if there's a way that we can try to recognize that work of their staff over the last year just as we have in some of the other programs we've administered in terms of a stabilization or incentive pay and I'm certainly willing to have those conversations for sure. I hope you will and as the next round of cares fund comes and we look at groups I don't think I would be really appreciated as we look at this especially trying to get from here to there hopefully this will be over and by next January and the new covered bridge would have been easier if it was the Silk Road Bridge or something that's the one just down from that's how they get from the two campuses they go over the Silk Road Bridge in Bennington that Bennington school for girls by the way that's what I'm talking about. So thank you. Judge Berson, final witness. Yes. Commissioner, thank you. Please do look into that and we can talk about it the next time we're together on this issue in a couple of weeks. Absolutely, I'm happy to. Thank you, Senator and thanks to the committee for inviting me for the record, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge. Yeah, my comments will be brief but I'm certainly encouraged by the timeframe timetable that has been discussed for having this facility available as this committee knows probably better than any other committee with the expansion of juvenile jurisdiction over the last few years and it will continue the importance of having this facility can't be understated. But a couple of things, Senator Sears that you mentioned, you mentioned more than once about transportation issues. And I think this is a good a time as any to the committee and Commissioner Brown and Mr. Walter to consider as they're putting up this new facility. If there's one thing and I'll call it a silver lining that has come out of the pandemic, everyone knows how much that has impacted the operation of the courts as well as all the other institutions but a significant impact on the courts operations. But what we have done and continue to try to do is expand our ability to conduct remote hearings and conduct them in a way that Marshall and his attorneys as well as the state's attorneys are able to communicate with each other and communicate certainly in Marshall's case with their clients effectively with a new facility going up. Even when this pandemic is over, we expect that the ability to conduct some hearings or even partial hearings remotely is going to continue to be important. And when you think about where Newberry is as beautiful as that setting is over there to get to other parts of the state, obviously involves a significant transportation issue. And I can certainly remember before the pandemic hit and talking about the youth that are served by this facility, this type of facility as well as Woodside. There were times when we would transport somebody from Woodside to another part of the state and let's face it, there's an element of trauma involved in those transports. Usually they were put into restraints for that transport. Sometimes I can think of at least one courthouse where in order to access the courtroom, they had to come up through a public elevator in restraints. And what I think is important to remember is if we can find a way within this new facility to accommodate video capability, I think it's important in that structure to at least have that as an option. Sometimes those hearings, they would be transporting somebody from Woodside for two hours or 15 minute hearing. And I think with everything we've learned in this process during the pandemic of remote hearings, there will be a place for it. And I would just ask the commissioner as well as Mr. Walter to consider that in their plans for this new facility. That's a great comment, Judge. One day I was touring 204 with Jim and then commissioner Schatz and I noticed that kids were actually visiting with their parents remotely because of COVID the parents couldn't come down to Bennington from Brattleboro. I mean, from Newport, but then I thought back to my own experience, it was very rare that parents drove down to Bennington from Newport to visit a kid. How much easier it is if we are able to provide that remote access. And I certainly think the ability and the quality of the technology that is out there now. As important as it is for court proceedings, what you just mentioned, Senator Sears is even more important because of the geographic issues relating to living in Vermont. Sometimes it's just impossible weather-wise or economic-wise for families to have that contact. So I'm glad to answer any questions, but I know the time is short and I just wanted to take the opportunity to make sure that that issue was considered. You've seen an increase in CHIN's kids being charged as adults as a result of assaulted behavior. I can't say that I have Senator, but that's because we're still pulling together our year-end data and I don't have that at hand. So as soon as that information data is available, I'll obviously make it available to the committees. I missed John Campbell's earlier testimony, so I can't say that I have, but... There was a recent incident and I think that has people's minds attuned to the aggressive behavior, but I do know there's been a number of those. Well, it's clear from what we're seeing, again, going back to the remote hearings, it isn't just youth that are impacted by the stress related to COVID and the pandemic. We're seeing it in hearings. A general lack of civility is more pronounced when you can see it on the screen. And so if we're seeing that in adults, it certainly doesn't surprise me that we're seeing it in youth that are under significant other pressures. Let me ask one more question. I thought one of the most important things Marshall said to us, he probably didn't think I was listening, but I was. And we need the appropriate program for that kid. And trying to put the kid in an inappropriate program is counterproductive and can harm the kid. And others within that program too, by the way. I thought that was a key comment. Do you feel right now, and the judges feel in general that they have appropriate questions? You know, Senator, we obviously in that context have to rely on the information that comes to us from BCF. So we can only look to the resources that are available. And I know that one of the most difficult decisions or any judge to make is when the only, seemingly the only available treatment or program is out of state, because we know what that means, not only to the child, but to the child's family, which is their primary source of support. So that's why we're looking forward to having this program within Vermont. That's where I think you would see that the judge's frustration is that it's those most, I'll say it, the most difficult children that we're working with, that the fewer options we have is what we're sensing. And that decision to send someone out of state is extremely difficult. Senator White has a comment or question. Well, I was just gonna say that we need to remember that the states in New England are pretty small. And if we're talking about out-of-state Keen or Lebanon or Concord, that's much closer to Brattleboro and Bennington than Newport and Newbury. So whichever town, I can't remember which one it was, but so I think that if you're talking about out-of-state in Tennessee, that's very different. But if you're talking out-of-state in New Hampshire or upstate New York or even Northern Massachusetts, that's all relative. No, I understand. I couldn't agree more. It's sometimes when we are sending them way beyond the New England states. Yeah. That's where it's, and that's where some of the programming is, the only available programming. But it still makes it a difficult decision even if it's New Hampshire or New York. We've reached that hour of noontime where we need to adjourn, but I want to thank everybody for being here today and for the excellent presentations and hopefully we continue this conversation in the near future and hopefully, Peggy, we can add disability rights to the conversation. And there is a document on our webpage from Disability Rights with suggestions for the building itself and coverage treatment. Senator Sears, before we go, can I just make a comment? I thought that Judge Greerson was right on when he talked about making sure that there was video capability in there. And I would challenge Senator Benning as chair of Senate institutions to make sure that anytime now that there's a new building that's going to be constructed or rehabbed that there be video conferencing capabilities. Senator Benning has been listening. A lot of the witnesses on the screen should know they're gonna be invited to an institutions committee meeting and not too distant future. Good. I could just add that need. And so we've had several conversations with Beckett to make sure that we have most up-to-date technology and space for kids for video teleconferencing. And so if Senator Benning are you planning to take testimony on the concerns expressed by Vermont Disability Rights regarding the facility? I have not seen that document yet, but I'll take a look. If you take a look at it, let us know. We usually don't get involved in buildings here. Right. Okay. Again, thank you all very much. We've got some follow-up stuff and Peggy will be in touch when we hold our next hearing on this issue of it.