Chair Stevens Questions Transition Plan for Families Affected by Closures

In those programs, in those um has there been an analysis on like where's the closest one, like if those families are not being served there, where's the closest facility or place they they would have to go?

Yes, so that was part of uh part of the uh metrics that we looked.

Uh we're making a decision uh or a recommendation because we wanted to make sure that families can have services.

That again, that was our first beginning point.

Will families continue to have services?

Not only the family that are currently in the world.

Well, I know they'll be able to still have services, but I'm trying to understand like what is like the distance, like how like especially like prime example.

You said there's three in Brooklyn, where those are in are those in the same area, and then were there other programs like nearby.

Um, because again, like the we know that these are vulnerable families.

We know that these are a lot of black and brown families.

I literally have a resolution about the harm that AC has done to black and brown families because we know of the past harm.

And so this to me is a disinvestment in those communities because we know we don't want to, you know, criminalize poverty.

And a lot of these cases are often around poverty.

And so, like, if I'm already struggling and now I have to like travel and and have a burden, like I'm trying to get an assessment of like what's the closest facility that they are gonna have to go to.

Have you guys already thought about like what that transition of plan is?

Like a lot of these families are vulnerable.

I don't I barely wanted to talk to this social worker.

Now you think I'm gonna talk to a new social worker.

I'm not doing it.

So I'm trying to get a better understanding of what that's going to look like and understanding like the bigger impact of like how like, and again, I want to be clear.

I know that no one wants to ever have programs cut, and I know that you guys don't want to have things cut, but I just need us to make sure as a city we're prioritizing different things.

And for me, prioritization is young people, and this is a place and families of like there's going whether we like to say it or not, there's going to be harm.

And for me, it's like, how are we mitigating this and how are we moving thoughtful?

And I'm not saying that you're not, but what I'm saying is this is my concern, this is why I'm focusing on this because there is no way that families who are already vulnerable, families who already don't trust the system are now going to say, all right, well, it's slots over here, so I'm gonna go.

So I just am trying to have more of a concrete of like what does this transition look like?

What is the plan, and and how how are we going to ensure that we are mitigating the harm of all these families?

I like to tell you that um unfortunately for me, I have lots of experience on ending contracts because of the end of contracts in 2020 when we transitioned the system to the no RFB.

During that time, we had about 5,000 families or so that we were transitioning and that we did so successfully.

Um I like to say that we have very carefully thought about what would it mean for each individual family.

You should know that as part of the end of contract, immediately as the uh providers are notified, we have a team specifically dedicated to reviewing each and every case family that is involved actively in prevention.

The decision about the next steps are made together with the provider ACS and the family that is that if the family decides that this is a time when a case can close and we can determine that that's an appropriate decision then we go ahead and make a case closure.

So it is not it it's it's a process that is very well thought out and one that I'm personally very proud of despite the fact that it means that we are ending a contract.