Chair Stevens Questions Close to Home Facility Expansion

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 uh nine-bed non-secure placement facility for close 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 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.

Um, the history is that um we reduce close-to-home capacity as part of the RFP.

Um, 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 gonna 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 set on record, and it needs to be set because there's 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 gonna go full circle to now where we're at with the savings and prevent it preventive care.