Chair Stevens questions close-to-home facility expansion after right-sizing

Another thing in the testimony that was kind of glaring to me and was like,

something that I think is also connected to even the savings.

I see now that some of this money is going to be around securing a nine-bed non-secure placement facility for closed-to-homes.

This is also super glaring and frustrating to me because when we did the RFP, we were right-sizing this program.

And I remember providers screaming from the top of their lungs that we are not right-sizing and that these numbers are going up and we shouldn't be closing any of them.

And they also said that it was going to be really hard, like once they close, that they would now have to say to get a facility back up and running, it takes a lot.

And we know that it's not something that can be done overnight.

So this is frustrating that now we're building another facility.

And this is a case where we should be listening to providers.

And I get it.

Yes, we have to have savings, but it cannot be in areas that young people are impacted.

And so I need to understand how.

How do we get back to a place if we were right-sizing now having to build a new facility?

I want to just say, first of all, you are correct.

The history is that we reduced close-to-home capacity as part of the RFP.

I do want to mention that it's not building a new facility.

It's a current six-bed non-secure detention that we're going to turn into a nine-bed non-secure placement.

So it's already a site part of our juvenile justice continuum.

Okay, I just wanted to say again that the...

I know that doesn't get to the heart of your matter.

Yeah, it doesn't.

But, you know, I just have to say the things, and it needs to be said on record, and it needs to be said because this was something in a place where providers said, hey, don't do this because we're going to need it.

And I feel like I'm going to go full circle to now where we're at with the savings and prevent it.