 Good morning. This is the Vermont House Human Services Committee and it is Wednesday, February 10th. And this morning, the committee is focused on receiving testimony on H171, our bill with a few co-sponsors, 90 I believe, around 95, okay, around the importance of childcare and moving forward. This morning we're gonna be taking testimony from Let's Grow Kids, an organization that really helps set the framework for this. And then from the Department of Children and Families, the commissioner of DCF and to wrap up this, and others, and to wrap up this morning, we will then hear from Morgan Grossman, who is principal of Building Bright Futures, the public-private partnership established by state statute to provide policy recommendations. And with that, sorry, Morgan, I called you something rather than Crossman, I apologize. Allie, if you would start. My pleasure, thank you so much. Allie Richards, CEO of Let's Grow Kids for the record, and it is really such a moment to be here with you all today with a bill and a bill number H171. I'm joined by Sarah Kenney, Chief Policy Officer at Let's Grow Kids, and we are gonna tag team in your request to discuss our support of this proposal as well as how it relates to the governor's proposals. So I just need to start with my sincere gratitude to every single one of you for being co-sponsors among the 95, as the chair mentioned, of this legislation of this first big step towards high quality affordable care for all who need it in Vermont. And I'm going to just hand it over to Sarah to begin walking through the specific elements of the bill. I'll come back and tag team at the end. And I just need to also say not only have you all co-sponsored this bill, but so many of you have laid the foundation for years. To get us to this point through working communities, work with coalitions, constituent, listening to your constituents. And that laid the foundation to just get us in this moment, a bill with 95 co-sponsors that takes this very significant step towards high quality affordable childcare for the state, the first state in the country to get this done. So Sarah, please take us through some of the details. We're also here to answer any questions you have, of course, and I'm excited to have the conversation. Thanks, Allie, and good morning all. I'm so happy to be here with you all talking about this. It's a long time coming. So thanks to all of you for all of your work on this issue over the past several years. As you know, when kids have access to culturally, linguistically and needs responsive, high quality early childhood education, it can close or eliminate achievement gaps that are caused by generational poverty, structural racism, social inequity, and a lot of the issues that I know you all have been grappling with. And over the past several years, Vermonters and all of you have come together to develop recommendations and the context of this bill is really built on all of that work over several years. We know that many Vermont children, families, early childhood educators, employers, and communities will be positively impacted by the changes that are set in motion by H171 and we're so happy to support this bill. And we would also be very happy to support the committee to hear the voices of some of those who would be most directly impacted. I know you all have been talking about over the past couple of days. So we are here to support you with that in whatever way that we can and to support those witnesses being able. So we thought we would just go through sort of the highlights of the bill residue and also discuss as we do that what's in the governor's proposed budget and what is not. I know you all have been digging into this a little bit already. So the first section, well, the first section is all the sponsors, which is great. And then some very powerful findings and I think really critically some very important legislative intent. And then focusing on the child care financial assistance program, which this committee has been working with over a number of years and set in motion a five year redesign plan two years ago now, I guess in 2019. Although that feels like a lot longer ago than just two years. So the first section is expanding the program's focus to be not only on parent or guardian participation in the workforce, but also on the healthy development of Vermont's children. And this is really sort of the first step in signaling this notion of moving away from the child care financial assistance program being sort of principally driven to get people back to work. That's still an important component of it, but really expanding it to think about we're supporting all children in the state with access to high quality affordable child care regardless of if your family is working part-time or in training programs or in substance abuse treatment and inpatient treatment, mental health supports anything that your family needs that we're supporting kids to be able to access child care. So H171 also includes language that's very similar to the administration's proposed changes to the child care financial assistance program in this coming year three of the five year redesign plan. We fully support the administration's proposal to align the federal poverty guidelines in CCFAP with the 2021 federal poverty guidelines. That's actually something that you all required to happen every year in legislation two years ago. We also support the expansion of eligibility for CCFAP from 300% of the federal poverty level 350% of the federal poverty level. That's the next step also that have been laid out in the five year plan that we've all been discussing and it's an important next step of expansion toward a place which is also laid out in this bill where no family is paying more than 10% of their income for child care. The H171 also as you heard from Katie yesterday moves up the level at which families received 100% of their financial assistance from the state to access child care. Currently that's set at if you're at 100% of the federal poverty level. This bill moves that up to 150% of the federal poverty levels where we would be still supporting families with 100% of the rate for their care. That's also an important step towards moving the sliding scale up continually. So we definitely support those pieces. And the five year redesign plan and administration's proposal also importantly changes how family contributions are structured from a per child payment to a family payment. And we definitely support that as well. Again, as we're moving towards this future state. So H171 goes a little further than what the administration's proposal is on child care financial assistance program and making two other changes. And those are aligning CCFAP payments to the early childhood program with the actual cost of providing high quality care as opposed to the market rate survey that is currently used. So the administration is proposing to move switch rates to the 50th percentile of the 2019 market rate survey findings. And we are proposing that they actually shift over the course of the next year away from using the market rate survey, which we know is a survey that is what programs we're charging, which is an artificially reduced cost because families can't afford more. That means that programs are underpaying staff and I'm not able to do the things that they would like to do. So moving toward a place where we're setting what is the cost of care? And eventually setting that cost of care as we've discussed previously on the level of quality which the primary indicator of is the person in that classroom, right? So moving toward a place where there are minimum compensation standards so that we know that early childhood educators are being fairly compensated and have access to higher wages and critically to benefits like health insurance. It's astonishing how many early childhood educators who've been working on the front lines of the pandemic almost a third of them since the start of the pandemic who don't have access to health insurance benefit. So that's a key element of this movement. Sarah, I apologize for interrupting you and we did have the walkthrough of the bill but something you just said confused me. You said the person in the classroom referring to the workforce. And I have to say, maybe my age but I'm having a little difficulty thinking of the six month old who needs childcare being in a classroom. That actually took some getting used to for me when my child went to a high quality child care center. We're very lucky, Robin's Nest. Shout out to Robin's Nest childcare. They, when my, you know, when he was little and he was in like the two year old classroom it took me some getting used to as well. And what I've learned through the course of my work here and through the course of conversations that are happening in the field through some work called advancing as a profession. That's really a field driven conversation around what do we call early childhood educators? You know, we've moved from daycare to thinking about it as childcare because as this committee has discussed before we're not taking care of days, right? And really thinking about, yes there is high quality care being provided to young children but it's also early childhood education. And you all know that the first five years of life are the period of the highest growth of brain development in our lives, right? And so those five years set us on the course for the rest of our lives. So we're really thinking about as we look at the critical work that this early childhood education field does talking about it as both care and education. And we all saw, so over the course of this past year that our K through 12 system is also providing education and care, right? As somebody whose kid hasn't really been in school for a loopy or very limited. You know, we've all seen firsthand that both the early childhood and the K through 12 system are really providing education to our kids. So we're sort of evolving the conversation. It's a great question for you and I don't mean it. And so that's why I have heard people talk about the six month old as a student. That is what Heather from the department of ed that was the language she used. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Ali, I don't know if you had anything to add to that. Only that this is a great conversation on both sides. I stand by everything Sarah said this is a evolution of the field of profession. And as you're saying chair, Pia, we all need to make sure we do not go down the road and no one in Vermont that I've talked to wants to go down this road of bubble tests and desks and getting rid of play. I think that a broader understanding which you all have for example, and having that permeate into the public of what exactly this looks like and is, which is its play base, its nurturing is that care and learning together is gonna really strengthen this work. We all need to, we've had lots of really good conversations recently with the public and the field about how these are core pillars, dual pillars, care and education, the whole family and the child. So I just really appreciate you bringing up that point. So as we're talking about the work that's being done currently by childcare programs, early childhood educators all across the country actually in Vermont is one of the states that's sort of in the lead on this work of convening folks all across the state in this field to talk about what do we call ourselves? What are the expectations for us as we move toward being a profession? A huge part of that conversation is wages, right? And benefits and access to compensation. You all have heard, I know from childcare programs all across the state who have been really struggling for years, but especially in the past year with recruitment and retention of employees. And I heard Representative McFawn discussing this specifically yesterday that we have a huge problem being able to retain people in this field and a big part of that is the wages that are paid to folks and being able to afford all the rest of your life on the level of wages that you're getting doing early childhood work. So that's why we're proposing to move toward a place where in three years from now, in five years from now ultimately, we are paying through the Child Care Financial Assistance Program, every family has access to support based on a percentage of their income to access childcare and the people working in those programs are being paid a minimum compensation standard allows them to be paid on par with their peers and other similar professions such as public education system. So we're no longer losing all of our early childhood educators to public schools or really any other profession where they could make more money. So the next- Except social work. Sorry. Yes, there are a handful. Although we do know that nationally, early childhood education bachelors degrees are the lowest paid bachelors degrees in any profession in the nation. And that is something that we really, really have to change considering the critically important work that they do that benefits kids, but benefits all of us ultimately. And our communities, our employers, everybody benefits kids in that high-quality early education. So we're talking about, when we talk about the cost of care methodology as opposed to market rates, it seems like a sort of very particular detail, but it's really underlying all of this conversation. We need to be able to switch to a place where we're setting the reimbursement rates that the state pays to programs on what it actually costs to provide that work and what it costs to pay people well to be able to do that work. So this is why we're talking about shifting to a cost of care methodology for setting those rates. So we're no longer dependent on figuring out how to pay people based on what they're currently charging, which is what families can afford, which is not enough to do what programs wanna be able to do. I hope that makes sense to folks. This one took me a little while to be able to wrap my brain around it. Sarah, I've started, I started the avalanche representative. Fromstead has a question. I think it's, sorry, I think it's great. I would be very happy to answer questions as we go because I know this is complicated and I talk fast and I wanna make sure you understand each other. Thank you. Yeah, you're not one of the people you can put the video on two times and still understand me when I talk. Sometimes I thought it's because I watched so many YouTube videos at one and a half speed now that it's speeded up the way I talk. That's right. I'm curious about this cost and I thought about it when you were talking earlier as well. For example, I hate that I always use this as a comparison but in healthcare they have a way that they figure out that's very known by the field, how to come up with what is the cost of care but how do you do that? How are you proposing that we do that in this field because there hasn't, I don't think there's been a lot of work around that but I'm curious. There hasn't yet and that's work that needs to be done. So we'll get later on in the bill, Ali will talk about some of the studies that are recommended by H171, which is really important work. So over the course of the next year, H171 was set in motion, some analyses. So bringing together folks in the field to talk about with experts to think about what actually should the cost of care be? What do those minimum compensation standards look like? So that's a conversation that we need to engage in over the course of the next year of what does the, what do those other professions make? What would it look like? It's so hard to contemplate right now about what it would look like because wages are so low right now. So what would fair compensation standards look like that would allow folks to have wages and access to benefits like health? So to me, that's two questions. There is the cost of providing childcare in a certain environment. And then there's minimum compensation. And I know that they bump up against each other, but some of it is about what does it cost to have a center and to have the books you need and to have the tables and the, you know, I mean, that's why. So I just, I mean, sure that we don't confuse the cost conversation with the compensation. Yeah, I don't think that they're confused or bumping up. I think that they're totally layered, right? So the compensation standards sit within the conversation about the overall cost. You're right that that compensation standards aren't the obviously the only costs of running a program, but they are the vast majority of the costs of fare is the staffing of those programs. So it's looking at what are the different levels of workers in those programs? What are fair compensation standards compared to like people who are sort of on par in terms of credential levels and other professions? And then layer, so starting with that and then layering on top of that, all those other things that you're talking about nutritious meals for kids, you know, safe spaces, high quality environments, all of those other components. Right, right. You dialed into the heart of the question, which is like this, these two things are layered within each other. And I'm just not sure we've ever even done that in schools. You know, what is the true cost of care in our schools, but anyhow, hard conversation. This thing is really, oh, sorry. Oh, the planes are going over. Hope you can hear me here soon. If Ali, after after you comment, Representative Wood has a question or comment, and I want to welcome former committee member, representative Nicole and who is here from commerce and is pleased to ask questions and be a member of the committee as we hear this. That's wonderful. Welcome, and thanks for all your work on this too. Just a really quick comment. I just wanted to mention how it's a really important Representative Brumsted, the reason I would say we are really emphasizing together the compensation because I don't think folks are truly understanding, you know, ubiquitously that the quality, quality starts with the workforce. It's a new way of sort of thinking through this and it's the largest cost driver, as Sarah said. So it's really, I think it's being pulled out for emphasis that the two big cost drivers, affordability for families and the wage for the early educator and quality really starts with that. So yes, it is layered, it's all one cost, et cetera. There's lots of complicated factors there, but I think it's being called out for very specific reasons as this very important component of the cost and of the quality. And access actually is well because it's what's stopping folks from opening new classrooms because they cannot find or afford early educators. So I just want to make that point that it's really being flagged for very important reason. And the cost of care methodology is a new, it's not new, but it's newly adopted in other states. So there are models for us to look to about how other places have done this. Representative Wood. Thank you, Madam Chair. So one of the things that strikes me about the whole sort of benchmarking of the cost of care and the quality of staff and ability to pay them and benefits and all of that discussion is that we are not dealing with a public system, we're dealing with private providers, they're independent businesses, they have, they govern themselves, the nonprofits have their own boards of directors, the private entrepreneurs run their own businesses. I'm just trying to understand what you envision even in public schools, where we have certain standards that we like to see, they govern what they pay, each school district governs what they pay, their staff and their teachers. So I'm just trying to understand how you envision there being some sort of standard set for private businesses. Yeah, it's a great question. You're, yes, no surprise that you understand the dynamics here of a private marketplace and trying to figure this out. The good news is that, and this is why we've proposed or structuring all of this through the Child Care Financial Assistance Program, so we already have this mechanism in place in the state whereby when you as a child care program agree to take kids who are supported by the state program to be able to access your services, you agree to do certain things, right? You agree to a certain level of stars, so you're already making agreements with the state. So the principle here is that we're expanding the Child Care Financial Assistance Program to cover many, many more families, which means that many, many more programs are, even more programs are incentivized to be participating in the Child Care Financial Assistance Program. We're paying rates through that program that allow programs to do what they want to be able to do, which is pay their staff well, do these other pieces. So the idea is that when you, as an early childhood education program, participate in CCFAP, that you are agreeing to also pay your staff at least this much. So, and it's not saying you have to pay them exactly this much, right? It's setting minimum compensation standards. So you're agreeing that you are paying staff at these different levels, at least this much for their work. So that's your, so you envision the state telling businesses what to pay. Not what to pay, but to pay at least this much. So, I mean, my follow-up question is that, well, I was just gonna, sorry, Madam Chair, go ahead. Oh, go ahead. So my follow-up question to that is around, you know, I think that we all envision a high quality, continual quality improvements essentially on, you know, in a system that's serving our youngest citizens. And so part of what I struggle with is knowing that as we implemented the STAR system, you know, back several years ago, we lost providers as a result of, or some would say as a result of that, you know, probably other people would disagree with that it was a cause and effect. But so I guess one of the things that, you know, sends off a little bit of a red flag for me is, you know, to what extent sort of the, you know, potential for overreach, you know, by state government in terms of, in terms of, you know, what's proposed here. It's just, I'm not necessarily expecting a response. It's just a cautionary thing that I think about because we're trying to improve access at the same time as we're trying to improve quality. And we know that those are balanced. And, you know, frankly, I'm not a person in favor of, you know, only center-based childcare. You know, I believe that we need options for people. And I have, you know, a little bit of worries about how this impacts different types of providers that we have out there. Thank you. Yes, please, Allie. I just want to share a percent of what it's, the balance is so important. And I'm so, this is exactly what we all need to be paying close attention to unintended consequences. We have had thousands of conversations with folks in the field and now through Vermont AYC that is really in the forefront of organizing the field from within on this issue. It's the money. It's the money. And so all of the discussions in years past about stars and other pieces, there has not been any funding to allow for that growth that has constantly been, even the discussion about closures of different types of programs. It's really been about the money. What's different here is if we address the X factor being funds to actually support, if we put the money in programs' hands to pay a minimum floor, it changes the conversation. And it doesn't adversely affect home-based providers in that way. So I appreciate that. And just, this is sort of a thing for everybody. We have some new folks and we have people who haven't been in the conversation before. So the acronyms, you just referenced one Ali if you could say what that is. Thank you so much. I know I fear, honestly, repeating myself to you. So that's a very good reminder generally. Vermont Association of the Education of Young Children. It's the Vermont affiliate of the national chapter and it is the professional organization for early educators. And actually, thank you for that prompt because the other thing that I'd like to add to this is everything in this discussion has the eye towards bridges. So what I love about the advance in the profession work is there's leadership in the field driving it with an eye to the on-the-ground implications of a lot of this representative would and everything they talk about are bridges, bridges, bridges. Let's be honest, this is a significant change in government's relation to this. This is a public-private partnership. This is a regulated private market. And so there's a lot of interesting components of that. And when done well, it is the model of limiting bureaucracy, efficiency, and improving efficiency and quality. And so I think that's why it's really important we'll get to some of the data studies and other things we can do to ensure everything is on track and we're doing course corrections along the way. But everything is with an eye to transition. There will be a transition period. This is a big change. And so a lot of the advance in the profession work says we build a bridge, we respect experience, we know this is a sea change and it has to happen over time without a lot of disruption. We have two questions. One from Representative McFawn and Ron from then following that Representative Rosenquist. And I think what for us as a committee to one ask questions and put out some of our things that we will need to also discuss as a committee and for folks who are testifying to know what some of the issues are going to be. Representative McFawn. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanna bring that conversation that we're in now a little bit further. The standard for payment. I'm just wondering, because what was mentioned was a minimum floor and then we also have a fair market compensation. And I'm wondering the funds that we would be putting into this, I think somehow that's gonna have to be defined so that we know where we are. We do that in the school system and with the per pupil cost. So anyway, that's a conversation, Madam Chair, that I think as we go through our committee it's gonna have to come out with some kind of an answer. So we know how we're gonna fund this thing. Thank you, Representative McFawn. You're welcome. Representative Rosenquist. Thank you, somewhat following up on that same question. I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference between a registered and a licensed home provider that would a registered but not a licensed provider be obligated to do the same thing as far as the floor level for staff or not. It would seem that that would be a distinction between those two, but can you answer that for me? Yes, Representative Rosenquist, you can tell that you're from an area that relies very heavily on registered and licensed home programs, which is true in a lot of the rural parts of the state, which is why Representative Wood, we totally agree that we need to compete the mix of programs, which is why we are talking about this sort of expanded system as applying to all programs, both registered and licensed homes and center-based nonprofit for profit, sort of the whole universe of childcare programs in the state. And Representative Rosenquist, one of the key differences between registered and licensed homes is that registered homes are sole proprietorship, right? So there typically aren't any staff there. So it would mean that if you as a registered childcare home were participating in the childcare financial assistance program, which you would definitely want to do because it would mean the state supporting families to access your services at a rate that reflects what you ought to be paid to do that work, then you would be essentially required to pay yourself in accordance with those minimum compensation standards. But that compensation standard would be what you should be making to do that really important work and the state would be helping you to be able to receive enough money for providing that service to be able to actually pay yourself that level. Thank you, Sarah. And I really appreciate the questions and knowing that this is a place where we should do more work together over time and I appreciate that. I would just say a key factor here is the brain drain that happens in this field because literally what's happening is folks leave early and after they've been trained, this is their passion, this is their life's work to be kindergarten teachers because they have similar credentials and their peers in kindergarten are getting paid double. And so this is a really important, it's about, you're talking about the free market, a lot of it is about competition. So if you did open it up purely to the free market, the wages would go up if there was truly money. And I think this is really getting to why this doesn't drive, for example, a home-based provider out of business is because the funding follows the minimum standard. It's not an unfunded mandate. It's a really important point and it gets to why the business model of childcare is the money model I'll say is broken today because you couldn't raise the minimum wage standard for early educators today without funding because parents, parents are paying more than they can afford and early educators are not able to then pay themselves, take benefits and do all of the services they know their families need. So we actually have a depressed and artificially depressed market rate because there's not enough money in the system. And that's why this is different. We're saying, let's break out of an artificially depressed rate and look at the true cost of care and funded appropriately to really give these programs what they need to support their children and families. So it's a really good way of getting at the business model about what's not working today and how this proposal moves it to a just totally different place. So I appreciate this and we will note this as a key part to continue to dive into the details with you all. Thank you, Allie. Thank you, Sarah. Well, and this is, it's all such an important conversation. And so we're talking sort of at the really, the highest level framing, right? When we're talking about minimum compensation standards and these pieces are where we're headed, right? So that's the goal that we wanna get to and H171 sort of sets some of these goals and then makes some more very practical interim steps to move us for that place. Some of which are some of the studies that we'll be diving into all of these questions that you all are talking about right now. And then to circle back to the changes that are made in H171 now in terms of the Child Care Financial Assistance Program pieces. So another component of what's in 171 is, and not in the governor's budget proposal as far as we know anyway, is changing the way that payments are made to programs so that you're paying based on enrollment as opposed to attendance. And we've talked a little bit with you all before about this. And this is something that the department shifted to during the early months of the pandemic when a lot of programs were closed. CDD switched to paying programs based on all the kids who were enrolled in their program even though they weren't attending because the program maybe was closed or they were only providing care to essential workers. So that model paying based on enrollment is a national best practice. It's how we provide per people compensation in public schools. And now more than ever, these programs need a predictable source of funding. And now more than ever, we have kids sort of going in and out of care. And what that practically means on some level is that families with means can keep paying for that slot and holding it open. And families who are receiving support from the state are not able to do that, right? They have a certain number of absences they're allowed and then they have to appeal to the state. And it's set up an inequitable system right now. And the department to their credit have tried to figure out how to do the sort of attendance-based model in the most generous way. But what we hear from programs is that it still means that families who are receiving CCFAP are essentially losing slots and that they are trying to support families and figuring out like what code would I use to not have my kid there this week or this day? And how would I, how do I do the paperwork to do that and tracking down families to get them to sign letters to then submit to the state only to have it rejected? And I think one of the big challenges for the state and switching to enrollment-based system, and I think you all heard this from Melissa Riegel-Garrett in the budget adjustment conversation, well, is that they have to do it by hand because of the IT system. So, and the great news is that the governor's budget proposal and this bill both include the funding to finally modernize the Bright Futures Information System. So when we get to that place this fall, where there's a new CCFAP module for the Bright Futures Information System and it becomes easier for the department to do this, we strongly support the language in H171 that would have the department shift to paying based on enrollment as opposed to attendance. So that's another piece that's in H171 but not in the governor's budget. Sarah, you were talking, and I appreciate that we're going back and forth between the goals that the language of the bill is moving us forward to. And I think it's important that we have both those conversations in case there's some negotiation around the goals. So I've heard you say to set a floor for compensation and to base on enrollment versus attendance is there in the broad goal anything about required number of hours open or required numbers of days or as a profession are the early childhood educators going to keep a public school schedule of 183 days and face to face, not that they don't work. As a university professor, I'll tell you not that they don't work 24 hours a day but face to face with in the school building it is 730 to three, give or take. So is that part of the goal in the professionalization or in the set of expectations or will there be different expectations? I don't think the proposal that we have put forward and that's contained in H171 does not speak to that. We know that families need childcare for a full day and that's why there's a whole after school program that is supporting care for kids, care and education for kids outside of the traditional case for 12 hours. No, childcare programs operate on much longer days. So we're talking about full work days, full work weeks and an important part of the conversation that's gonna need to happen over the next couple of years also is actually extended hours. So we've just started talking to the National Guard because there are many guard families that really struggle with childcare because they need non-traditional hours of care like weekend care, evening care and then think about all the families on third shift and other, there are many families who are essentially left out of our system right now. Unless, and this is again, where those registered family childcare homes can pick up some of this lack because those are the only programs that can actually be flexible and sort of keep kids overnight or do other structures. So that we are not talking about limiting the number of hours that programs are closed. I think if anything we would be talking about how do we support programs to be meeting the needs of their communities in a broader way? And again, this is that balance at a private marketplace, right? So programs will be open to meet the demand in their communities. And we're talking about how do we make sure that they have the resources they need to be able to do that. Representative McFawn has a question. Madam Chair, just following up on your statement there about the following the school outline. I think I know the answer to this, but we're not talking about 185 days. We're talking about year-round childcare, correct? Yes. Yeah, in the summer and every year. Yeah, right, that's what I thought. And I would just reiterate a piece of that because a lot of this conversation has revolved around this public-private interplay and it is sophisticated and it can be powerful. This is a piece of this private side that is powerful because providers know best what their families need and they work to really give those families what they need. Today they're doing that without any sort of pay or support so often they'll keep their classrooms open or they'll hire a social worker and take it out of their own salaries or something, right? So we're talking about fixing the market drivers and the funding flow to support that, but that's a beauty of the private side of the system is that it will meet, they'll continue to meet their customers, their families' needs in that way and Sarah brings up a great point. I think to your point too, Madam Chair, what the government then role can play with that public-private market is creating incentives. For example, we really do need to all continue to focus on equity and targeted services, make sure this is really accessible to everyone and that's a really key part of this. And so a great example is you could provide an incentive such as an increased reimbursement if you're doing non-standard hour care. As Sarah mentioned, many guard members need that non-standard hour care, many essential professions do need that and so it's a private market. A lot of folks are already springing up to meet that need because they know their local families need that, but if the government supported for example an increased reimbursement rate, those are the sort of incentives that could be through a policy lens to ensure the equity is flowing and there's targeted supports like that in a private public market. I have to say I'm getting a little confused with the public-private. The only public part of this is the early care and education of the 10 hours a week of pre-K. Otherwise what we're talking about is public dollars going into a private for-profit or a private non-profit. So in that way it is nothing on some, it's not really different than what happens with community mail health centers or with parent child centers, which is the state is providing financing. To do some work, but the state, the only public part of this really is the 10 hours a week of universal child care. The universal pre-K. It's a great point. I suppose it's slightly semantics. I think when we say private, Madam Chair, it's because of exactly what you said. It's beyond the pre-K. It's actually because the public dollars are subsidizing the system and regulating the system and it can come along with some policy guardrails to ensure equity and quality. So it's that the funding along with those guardrails is why it's a regulated, I guess there's another way of maybe perhaps saying it that might make more clear sense is a regulated private market. But those comparisons actually are beautiful to those other industries. Cause this is not new. We do do this in healthcare and other things as well. Representative Wood and then Representative Rosenquist. I just want to, I guess make sure I understand the point that you were making, Sarah, a few minutes ago regarding enrollment-based payment than attendance-based payment. And sort of what I took away from your comments there was that attendance-based model really disadvantages lower income families in terms of access to child care. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is that part of what you were saying? That's what I'm hearing from programs that serve high numbers of kids receiving CCFAP. And I want to be clear that I don't think it's intentional on the part of the department, right? I think that they are being more generous with an attendance-based policy than many other places are. And I think that they shifted to enrollment-based during the early days of the pandemic, which was a great idea. And I think it was a burden for the department to do that. And so I appreciate that they were able to make that work. I think that the, yes, I think what we hear from programs is that paying based on attendance means that it's harder for families who are reliant on that income stream and ultimately means that some families lose their slots because they have to be gone for a period of time. And then the program can't, they can't afford to hold open a slot that they're not getting any income for, right? So it helps families, it also helps programs, especially programs that are serving high numbers of kids with needs, with financial assistance support, because that means a steady income stream for that slot, for that program, so that they can know that they don't have to give it away if the child is unable to attend for a period. Right, right. Well, and I mean, I think you probably also could appreciate that if there were a switch to an enrollment-based payment system, there would still have to be to use your term card rails around that. I mean, it's not an open checkbook forever, kind of, you know, whether a child and family take advantage of it one day out of a month or something like, you know, there would have to be some parameters around that. Yeah, yeah, of course, yep. I don't think it's that programs would not take attendance any longer, right? It's that they are, they're not submitting the attendance in order to get paid for that day. I recommend that you talk to the parent child centers and others on this. And again, we can certainly support other programs for testimony. And it's really that you're absolutely right. It's a delicate balance. You don't want to just pay to have kids not in the program. They do need, you know, you're doing that interplay. But what we have heard directly from folks some pretty powerful stories of, it's back to this like very personal relationship. Programs really understand some of their families need some times. And they said, I could just hold, I know this family needs this more than anything. There's domestic abuse happening. And there's gonna be a lot of absences right now and we help this family work through this time. I can hold this open knowing I have the money. And when I don't, literally it's a family that has a thousand bucks to hold the spot. And I have to do that as a program because my business model doesn't work otherwise. So it's again, the business model crunch is forcing perverse incentives and sometimes causing programs to, you know, not help families at most in need. And those are the stories we've been hearing that are really quite powerful. But you're right, Representative Wood, there's a balance, of course. And that's where the policy of guardrails come in. Okay. Okay, Sarah, please continue. And Theresa, I'll just one more. Could you raise your hands folks to, that's all right, go ahead, Jessica. I was just gonna say that we talked with parent child centers as part of the budget process. And this topic came out in bright neon lights that there's families. I mean, because the folks who can pay can take their child and go to grandma's for a week and they have to pay. They have to pay to keep their slot. So they are already on an enrollment system and they're able to handle it to some degree. And but the other, but families who are struggling are losing their spots when they have to leave because of abuse and exactly what Allie said was surprising to me. Cause I was thinking, well, what if somebody leaves for four weeks and how do we really know what the vacancies are out there and those sorts of things. But wow, there's a lot of really, a lot of stories. Thank you. Thank you. I, Madam chair, I'll just have it. Don't get your hands not up now, Carl, Representative Rosenfist, but go ahead. Thank you. Somebody took it down. But anyway, just a question of have, have we considered the pressure, the market pressure and the possibility that people will become unregistered outside of the system because that they think that their business model would be more flexible than within the registered system. I mean, right now we know we have a number of people that are outside the system that provide daycare or early education, but we'll say take care. And are you concerned that this would create a greater pressure for people to become unregistered and continue daycare facilities? Sarah, do you want me to take that? It's a great question. I think we've actually talked to other sort of municipalities or regions who have done sort of similar things like this. And the real key is you put the money in the parents' hands. It's affordable for them all of a sudden and they have choices all of a sudden and they really want to be in a place where they can afford. So this new construct really does put the incentives towards being part of the system for all involved, the early educator and the parent because there's funding to support wages, there's funding to support that affordability and might be very difficult knowing the business model as we do to actually make it very affordable for families outside of the system. And then the choice piece. We hear from so many families saying, if we had choices, we would go to a place where we knew we were getting support for the child, the family, et cetera and we had these comprehensive services as needed. So it's again, part of the private market interplay but the incentives should be in place that, again, it is voluntary. Let's be clear, it's voluntary. This is a different construct in K through 12 but the incentive structure would be no longer perverse and in a place that would drive, we believe from talking to families and others who have done this folks into this direction. Thank you. I think it's a great question representative Rosenquist and to be candid as we've been talking about this sort of future vision and the steps to get us there with folks who are currently in the field, either like early childhood educators or families, it takes a while to be able to sort of wrap our heads around what it could be like because the system has been so resource-starved for so long that it and it's really exciting when people, when we say, no, what we're talking about here is that the state is supporting families to be able to pay you what you actually need to be able to give your staff higher salaries, to be able to afford the tools that you need for your classroom, to be able to provide snack, nutritious snacks and meals to kids in your program. Like it's a little hard because we've been operating in this scarcity mindset for so long to think about what that could actually look like. And I think representative Rosenquist, when you're talking about programs that have chosen to become unregistered because they just can't manage essentially all of the pieces that are involved in being part of the regulated system, it almost always comes down to resources because they have not been able to afford to do all of the pieces that are necessary to be able to be in the system. So we're talking about sort of as I was saying, completely shifting the way that we do this so that we are fully incentivizing people. It really won't make sense to be outside of the system because families will be getting support to be able to, you know, many more families at different income levels will be getting support to be able to pay programs, what they actually need to be able to run the programs that they wanna be able to be providing to communities. So Sarah and Ally, I just wanna check in with you on time. We have, you know, about five to seven minutes for you folks to wrap up your testimony today. I'm sure that we will hear from you again during the course of this, but and then we're gonna take a brief break. Great, thank you for the time check. So related to a lot of what we've just been talking about, I did just wanna share with you all a story, some parents submitted written testimony to the House Appropriations Committee this week. And I just wanted to read you one of the letters that was submitted, because I think it highlights so much of what we're talking about here. So this was a single mom named Allison who wrote to the Appropriations Committee. I'm a single parent of a two-year-old and a five-year-old. My children attend the Garland School and we love its emphasis on imaginative play, nature and community. I also love it because I know my children are getting healthy snacks and meals made and served on site. The problem is I spend anywhere from one half to one third of my income on childcare even after assistance from CCFAC. It was challenging to find and pay for childcare before the pandemic. I made just barely too much money to receive help and because nursing shifts are 12 hours long, I had to pay for traditional daytime childcare and an after hours babysitter in addition to relying on my parents and in-laws for help with pickup and drop off. Since the pandemic, I can't rely on my parents or in-laws for help because they are vulnerable to COVID-19. I had to change jobs, decreasing work hours and taking a pay cut so that I could afford and be available during non-childcare hours, but still a third of my income is going down. So these are the kind of families who were talking about being able to better support. And H171 supports the administration's proposal for year three of the CCFAP redesign and lays the foundation for transforming CCFAP into this future system where no family is paying more than 10% and families like Allison's can find the care that they need, can afford it, don't have to refuse increased salary increases or take pay cuts or find other jobs. So the ACLIN71, the bill that you're looking at takes really important first steps on that road. It also has a lot of supports for Vermont's early childhood educators and we've talked a fair bit already about sort of the minimum compensation standards that we want to be moving towards. The interim pieces that are set in place in H171 are really important for stopping the brain drain Ali was referencing earlier and the loss of early childhood educators to other professions. So the bill contains two scholarship programs and a loan repayment support program. And I'm not sure if your committee is gonna be doing these components of this or the Commerce and Economic Development Committee but we will be happy to come back or have other folks help you find other folks to come in and talk more deeply about the scholarships and loan repayment pieces. These are all. I suspect we both will be looking at them. I don't know, Representative Nicole, if you have any feedback from Commerce around this, these workforce pieces of the bill. I'm sorry, she's just decided that she wants to talk. That's okay, we have sound effects, it's good. She's got a good sense of timing. She does, she knows that she's on camera. Yeah, no feedback really, I don't, you know, I know my chair asked me to be here today because in case you guys did get into that. And in general, I think we're gonna be, I mean, I know we're gonna be taking a close look. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative Nicole. That's okay, we love it. I know those things make me happy. So yes, I mean, we will be wanting to, this committee took quite a bit of testimony two years ago. And as you know, the bill that passed out of our committee included a scholarship and a loan repayment program for this workforce and didn't make it through the Senate, but times are different two years later. So hopefully something will materialize there. Let me just ask you in the last couple of minutes to speak a little bit to the studies that are bill and the advisory, I don't know if it's called a committee or, and I would like you to speak specifically to how you envisioned that group being different from building Bright Futures. Great, thank you, yes. I'll just round us out in the last few minutes here. And so basically we spent a lot of our time on CCFAP and I think that's absolutely right. We also, right, talked about the goals of the bill. Then I just went to the high level goals, affordability and comp. Then there's also just a quick nod to capacity. It's not in this bill, but we are continuing to work on capacity. There is money in the governor's budget. So a quick component of that, we will obviously spend more time together on the workforce supports. The final pieces then are these two studies. And one is the governance administration accountability of early education system. So just a quick nod, we've already talked about it. You all well know this, but upgrading the FIS is the foundational component of that. The happy news is it's in the bill, it's in the governor's budget. Quick note that was reflected down from 4.7 million to 4.5 in the budget, believing that that's the new estimate because other monies have been found. So I think we're very much aligned on getting that foundational aspect then beyond the IT system. There is this study of Vermont's early childhood education governance administration accountability structure systems and partners. And we support this part of the bill. And the good news is, since we only have a minute or two left, Morgan Crossman from Building Bright Futures is here and we defer to her to give you the details and talk you through this piece, Representative Wood, because our collective hope is that Building Bright Futures manages this. So they are set up as the public private governance structure here for Vermont. They are set up to do exactly this and to staff this. So what I will quickly just say is, it is an eye towards data, accountability, evaluating existing structures and bringing in stakeholder voice. It also is a vehicle by which we can discuss the governor's proposal of moving parts of the child development division into other parts of state government. So that's another component of it. And I just will say we fully support Building Bright Futures' recommendation that they actually are funded to do this work. Otherwise, it just can't move. This is not in the governor's budget, but we support the money in the $150,000 that's in this bill to do this, which is not in the governor's budget. And it actually a slight increase with a realistic reflection of what this will cost that you'll hear directly from Morgan on. And we support Morgan's testimony on this. The other piece is the creation of an interim Early Care and Education Advisory Committee. And that's sort of, as we study the governance, can we be looking in this year as we move forward on H171 together with a diverse group of parents and caregivers, early educators, coordinated service providers? How can we really ensure their voice is there? Another amazing role for Building Bright Futures because they already do this. So I'll let Morgan speak to that as well. And we support a modest $25,000 for Building Bright Futures to do that really important interim work as we study the long-term governance and set up of the system. Finally, we talked about money a lot today. So in this bill, it doesn't press go on a big green button, but it puts us on a path to do so to really, really kick the tires through a long-term funding mechanism, sort of feasibility study, to actually say we can't go home without money to support the system moving forward. And so this is, while just one note about this, while philanthropic monies are absolutely acceptable to do something like this, it would send a very clear message and ensure that this work moves forward if there was an appropriation of at least $100,000 to staff a true feasibility study with experts to dig in and answer some of these final questions. What is the cost and how do we fund this in a way that is equitable, broad-based and really meets the needs? So this is not in the governor's budget as well. So thank you very, very much. That's a bullet version of study, study, study, interim group. And I just want to say again, as Sarah started, we fully support this bill. We're proud to support this bill, looking forward to working with you all in the details and just really excited for Vermont's future to get this done. Really appreciate you all. Thank you. I just want to ask one clarifying question as we wrap up, Sarah. So in section 14, the Early Care and Education Governance and Administration Advisory Committee, you're envisioning building bright futures as being that committee, staffing that committee. Okay. All right. I guess we will ask some follow-up questions to Morgan about that. Because I think we have some questions about that. And Sarah, you have any last words you'd like to... I was just going to note that two sort of budget related pieces. One, there is an appropriation for the Child Care Financial Assistance Program in H171. I would say it's not accurate for what actually wound up in the bill. I think it was CDD's best estimate based on sort of the information that Ledge Council was able to give them. I think the estimate that's in the governor's budget is for $5.59 million for the CCFAP components this year. That's probably closer to the actual cost. And it doesn't though include the switch to enrollment based payments for the foster care methodology. So there likely needs to be sort of an updated estimate on that from the department. And the last thing I'll note is that we submitted some written testimony. And at the end of it, we put together just a very basic sort of grid of what's in H171 for appropriations and what's in the governor's budget. That's helpful for me. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Thank you everyone. We're going to take, it is five after 10. We're going to now take a 10-minute break instead of a 15-minute break. We'll be back at 10.15