Welcome back folks. This is Wednesday, April 28th and we are continuing our conversation with Commissioner Baker, Department of Corrections, and we're shifting gears to what we were thinking and I'm going to phrase it as transitional housing 101. And when we set up the schedule last week, we thought it would be really good seeing that we have a new committee here with new members to really talk about what's in play now for our transitional housing for folks who are re-entering from an incarcerated facility and I know the terminology may be changing over time into looking at more supportive housing versus transitional housing. There's a variety of ways that corrections works with sometimes our community partners for housing opportunities or beds for folks who are re-entering and and DOC I know goes out to contract or RFP for proposals for that. So as and right now we may be involved in a little changing world based a lot on where justice reinvestment has been doing their work and where they particularly last fall and then through November, December, beginning of January really finding gaps in our re-entry housing where we really need to be fuff our community partners be that DAIL, ADAP, DMH, our designated agencies, our recovery centers and you know our partners within the agency of human services because what tends to happen is people just say well that's DOC's problem, DOC takes care of it, it's DOC's budget, they deal with it. We don't want to deal with their folks and justice reinvestment, the council state governments really saw gaps there within our supportive system in the community for folks who are re-entering. So there may be a shift happening within DOC from our way of providing transitional housing beds to a new model. So one thing that we need to know for the committees how many beds do we have out there now what were the beds maybe five, ten years ago so that the committee members can see that over time we have increased our transitional housing beds and yes we may have numbers of beds but what do those numbers reflect and what are the support mechanisms around those beds and that may be where we need our discussion. So I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Baker to give us an overview and then we have some folks here from DOC that deal directly with the housing situation. So Commissioner welcome back. Thank you for the record for this recording. I'm Jim Baker the interim commissioner of corrections and I appreciate the opportunity to come in and talk about our housing program. Well let me start I thought what I would do is do an overview because if it was two weeks ago the conversation probably would look a little bit different. Some of you have reached out for me because of some changes we're making around our housing program. And I think I just kind of want to give an overview of that change, because moving forward as of January, or yes, July 1, excuse me, it will look different. And I thought it would be good for us to kind of talk about how we got there. And then I'm going to ask Emily and Derek to talk about where we're where we are, and where we're moving forward, but also kind of give an overview of the theory of change that we went through to get to where we are. So with that said, let me just let me quickly do an overview because I want to get the record straight. There's a lot of conversations going on. Probably since I've been commissioner I have gotten more contact from individuals on this issue in the last five days and any other issue. And I just, I think I want to take the opportunity to get this record set straight. The historic justice unit of the Vermont Department of Corrections has been supplying housing or reentry into the community from facilities since 2005. And that that does consistent of partnerships with about 18 community providers. And we've had a capacity of about 250 beds slash apartment statewide. The goals, you know, the goals are, are that we want to provide stable housing for individuals returning to the community, supervise and support individuals in the least restrictive environment we can, and provide opportunities for reintegration and connections to the communities and services. So I think that housing is one of the basic needs of any human being and coming back into a to a community from a facility. Housing can be a real challenge. And so over the years corrections has worked on that. Now justice reinvestment to the chair talked about this is really given us some guidance inside corrections about a thought process of where we need to go. And that was directed to take a look at how could we find a new model of housing that addresses the issues that were brought up by the council state governments, particularly around the issue of technical violations and us reincarcerating individuals who were in the community that that violated technical parts of their supervision, be it parole for low probation and those conditions. And so some examples of that is a lot of our housing has been sober living housing.  And in the past, that could, and in a lot of cases did lead to people being reincarcerated, and we got criticized that that our programs were not flexible enough. So in the summer of 2020. Staff started on a course of theory of change to take a look at how we would reinvest our transitional housing dollars. We engaged experts from the agency of human services to participate in that to include the director of performance improvement within a just to find out how we can improve what we do. I think at this point I also want to mention that we spend in Derek or Emily can correct me but I believe we spend somewhere around $6 million a year on house. Yeah. And it's a blend of funds. Some of its Medicaid dollars and some of its general fund dollars and some of it comes from other sources, but at the end of the day the bottom line is about $6 million. Prior to the theory of change, the request for proposal that went out, the bidding conference that we held the screening process that we went through, we had 250 beds. So that theory of changes put together. And like I said, some of this was taking a look at and we, we did some self reflection as well. And we grappled with this high rate of reincarceration, looking at statistics from 2017 to 2019. And we realized that a lot of people were being reincarcerated because of these technical violations that were being driven by the rules of the housing that they were in. And based on a detailed need assessment and data analysis done by us. It became clear that we needed to move to a different, a different request for proposals, and that we put out in the past. So in 2021, we put out request for proposals early in the year. Based on that theory of change, trying to find programming ensuring that people are not addicted because of program violations that would lead to recidivism homelessness and other negative outcomes. So, we also wanted to interrupt in those services, interject and wrap around excuse me, in those services harm reduction models, harm reduction intervention, formal connections to other housing interventions. And key in doing this is really shifting our mindset from what I said earlier in the prior testimony about the term traditional housing to we believe stabilized housing is what we'd like to refer to this, because, you know, transitional You know, when staff talks to me about transitional housing. I think of young adults that I dealt with my law enforcement career and they were couchsurfing and they're living in a room with three bag, you know, three garbage bags hold their, their life in those backs, just not the way to transition someone back. So in March of 2021 based on that RFP that went out. We received 25 applications, and we had a cross agency team assembled to review those and score the applications. And they, this process took over four weeks and 10 hours of meetings to, to go through these proposals, looking for the key elements that we were looking for based on our theory of change. And you're going to get a presentation in a minute to understand where we are with housing about what we went through to get to that point. And then before we finished our decisions, those were stored using a rubric that included the bidders experience program characteristics and the alignment with the theory of change, which is really what we were getting for direction from all the legislature involved in justice reinvestment and from the council of state governments, what the costs were, and what's the connection, which is key about was the smallest element of the percentage. What's the connection to permanent housing. And then before we made our decisions we had a depth conversations with some of the bidders probation for all offices. We are who are primarily the users of of the process. And then on the 26 we made final decisions. And in essence what we're moving to is 265 beds up from where we were at a similar cost. We are moving away from Congress housing to more, because it gives us the opportunity to get people into more permanent housing. We also believe that the research is clear that if you've got five people living in a kind of setting that all five of them to manage their risk, because that's what we do. We manage risk for the individual to manage their risk looks different for five different folks. So when you have house rules that are for example, you need to be in by 10 o'clock that may not apply risk wise to everyone. And if someone reuses the risk may be higher for one than the other. And so part of the theory of changes around this and I'm probably covering some of the area that you're going to rehear again from from Derek and Emily. And we came to the conclusion and awarded contracts as a result of that. One of the things that our reviewer could be hearing from constituents or stakeholders or advocates is that there are some traditional partners that we made the decision to no longer fund. And done, you know, we didn't do that lightly, because we're moving to a new format, a new concept, the new theory of change, based upon the work that's been done in justice reinvestment to. My staff won't say this, but I will. Some of the folks didn't sharpen their pencils. They just didn't do it. And they came in with proposals that didn't line up with didn't line up with what we put out for requests for proposals. And I think we did a great job due diligence wise. And some of the partners in. I can't get into specifics here because we still have to work through contracts with the new providers. And those contracts aren't signed yet. So, you know, legally, I should not be talking about specifics about certain providers. We're also discovering that some of the beds that we walked away from, we believe other folks can maybe use those beds. So we're already in one situation we partner with Commissioner Brown at DCF and they're picking up some beds from that provider. And I think there's at least one other situation in the state that we are gonna have similar conversations with DCF. So I'm gonna leave it there. I wanted to lay that groundwork because since Thursday of last week there's been a lot of phone calls, a lot of misinformation floating around. And it's not easy when someone gets the news that we're deciding to go somewhere else. But I wanna end this by saying that this wasn't some type of knee jerk reaction that the process, and I was briefed three or four times on this, the process that was put in place was methodical. It was scientific. It was based on research and based on what we think is the best future for our housing program. So with that, I'm gonna stop that chair. So I just want to be clear that when the RFPs went out and they went out in January, the RFPs were very clear that there was a change in terms of the model of providing secure housing. So the folks who submitted their bids were very, were clear that there was, the lay of the land had shifted. I'm gonna let Derek or Emily answer that. But from where I said there should have been, and if anybody's read the request for proposals, I believe it was pretty clear. Okay, just because that was a question that has been circulating around. I can address that if you'd like. Could you just identify yourself for the record please? Of course. This is Emily Higgins and I'm the Corrections Housing Administrator in the Department of Corrections. So I'm in the Community and Restorative Justice Unit overseeing our housing grants for transitional housing. And what I can say is that the theory of change was shared broadly in the community with all existing partners, with agency staff across the Agency of Human Services in the fall of 2020. So there was plenty of time before we even issued the RFP in January to sort of digest and understand the direction that we were taking. And then we did have a bitters conference as the commissioner mentioned where we walked through the RFP, we answered questions. The theory of change was in fact incorporated into the RFP in its entirety. And as you'll see when I run through it, it very clearly lays out the direction that we were heading in. So I think it's fair to say it was very, we informed people in advance, we saw input into the theory of change before we finalized it. And it was not a surprise to any existing providers. Thank you. So we do have a question, Michael. Yes, commissioner Baker. I obviously, I went back and forth on email a little bit from a constituent question that I forwarded to you and this, I believe 100% answers what I need to get back to my constituent. So thank you for that dialogue. And basically the bottom line and I'm just going to report back to her is that just what both you and Emily just stated is, in fact, we've added beds. It's just that we lost some of our former partners because they didn't meet the constraints or the model that we're looking for today. So I think it's pretty straightforward. And I thank you for that input and that will take care of that. I appreciate it. And I'm sorry I couldn't catch up with your representative. The one thing I'll add to this is that, there is room for some other conversations about creating other opportunities for bed space in state government. Sure. So how that plays out is still yet to be played out, but understood. Yeah, no, but that takes care. Thank you very much. We've made our decisions and we're moving on. Sure, no, it makes perfect sense to me. Thank you. So we have another question, Michelle. Yeah, yeah, commissioner Baker. I'm just wondering, you mentioned that it's going to be expanded to 265 beds. How is that geographically distributed? Like is there going to be a transitional housing option in every region, in every county? Like how far is somebody going to have to go from their home in order to access one of these beds? Representative, that's a great question. And my staff should have pinged me to remind me to say this. One of the other advantages of what we think are many advantages is that for example, in the women's housing options, they're pretty much based and housed in Chittenden County. Right? So our theory of change is now spreading more evenly across the state. So we have options, for example, for women, not just in Chittenden County, but other places in the state as well. To get them closer to their home, closer to support networks, et cetera, instead of you're from Bennington County, your housing bed is in Chittenden and your support system is two and a half hours away. So thank you for asking that and I should have brought that up earlier. Karen? Yes, thank you Commissioner for this overview. This is very helpful in getting information out to folks in the community that have questions. One of the other questions that has come up is around just this transition. Cause I think there are folks that are like very excited where this new direction is going, but also realizing like, are these beds set? Are they guaranteed? Folks who are going to congregate sites, do we know they're gonna have a place to go? And I don't know if Derek and Emily are gonna be getting into that, but that would be helpful to know what the status is of that. Yeah, I'll let Emily answer that question because as you and I spoke representative, there is a plan, we're not shutting down and just leaving people on street corners. I mean, that'd be your response for us, but I'll let Emily answer that. Yes, absolutely. We're working closely with providers. We've verbally notified all partners and had conversations about transition planning and we're gonna engage with the local probation and parole offices to ensure that existing residents of programs that are no longer gonna operate are stably housed in another location. No one is going to be re-incarcerated due to lack of housing because of this transition. That's, we've been very clear about that. And we're very invested in making sure that people have a smooth and untraumatic transition due through this process. So we have a couple more questions. And I'm just wondering if some of these questions might be answered when we shift over to Derek. So I don't wanna stop the questions, but if they're more applicable to Commissioner Baker, yes, if it's more some of the nuances we might wanna wait until we hear from Derek. Scott. Yeah, I'm not sure if I should wait for Derek. Commissioner Baker, you mentioned, you received 25 proposals, I think, to the RFP and you're moving away from a congregate housing. So I guess I'm wondering, can you say how many proposals you're accepting or not how much detail you can get into? I'll let Emily answer that because I don't have the exact number, but I know Emily does. Well, here's a more general question, and that is if we're moving away from congregate housing, then are the providers that we're now proposing to deal with owners of smaller units around the state? Is that sort of how it's gonna go? Okay, well, maybe I'll wait for Emily to talk then. Thanks. I can just briefly say that we'll have 15 providers statewide in the next state fiscal year, and most of the housing will be scattered side apartments where there's more flexibility and dignity for folks re-entering the community. So then typically a provider would own apartments around the state? Or at least around an area, perhaps. Yes, and we'll be in every district, we're actually expanding into Orange County and Lemoyle County where we've never had transitional housing before for DOC. Great, okay, thank you. So, Kurt, you had your hand up and went down. Is it more intricate in terms of what Derek might get into, or is it broader for the commissioner? Oh, it can wait for Derek, I think. Okay, so this may be a good transition. So, Derek, why don't you introduce yourself for the record, and I know you have a document that was submitted and it's posted on our webpage, so I don't know if you're gonna be working through that document. Yes, so, greetings and thank you for the opportunity. My name is Derek, Neo-Devnic. I use he, him pronouns, especially with my last name, it may be just easier to stick with that. I am the Community and Restorative Justice Executive with Vermont Department of Corrections, and it's been a privilege to engage in this opportunity, which I think has been a great example of how the executive branch strives to function. I think the couple of features that I would just like to either reiterate, because I think the commissioner did a fantastic job, really touching on many of the points at a level of detail for which I don't want to be redundant. But a couple of features that I would like to point out before we walk you through, again, this theory of change document, and I'll speak a little bit to like what, if that language is unfamiliar to folks, like what are you talking about when we talk about a theory of change? So first, I just want to state that Chair Emond, in your opening comments, I believe I heard a request on behalf of your committee to understand also a little of the historical context, and Commissioner Baker touched on this, but I'd like to just add a little bit and compliment what he provided. The transitional housing portfolio, if you will, from the Department of Corrections really grew out of a specific time and context in which we were experiencing overcrowding, excuse me, in our Vermont facilities, and we had yet to engage in the mechanisms whereby we put you out of state beds. And so we were looking to, are there other ways that the Department of Corrections could partner with our own communities and support the programs that would, in fact, represent the mechanism by which folks who had hit their minimum sentence and were eligible for a release. But the primary barrier to their release was lack of approved housing. If we could create a mechanism through which we could alleviate that part of the burden on the system at the time. And at that time, so now I'm going back over 15 years and of course, Chair Emond, you're well aware of this history, but for the benefit of some other committee members who may not be as aware. This was a big pressure on corrections for many, many years. It was what we used to call sort of the B-1 list because the code that signified that the primary thing that was keeping somebody in prison was lack of housing, approved housing was just called B-1. And that was an expansive list. It was bloomed well into the 250s for a state our size. That's a significant portion of our, that could have been over 10% of our incarcerated population at times. So we began to, as resources were provided, iterate this portfolio. And I'd say that there was a really clear value proposition which was we have people who can be out but they don't have housing. So we were very happy and rightly so to begin to procure programs as the community would provide and that's how over time we developed this kind of diverse portfolio. We kind of curated as resources and proposals came in. And I think that they were in the service of what we wanted at that time, a mechanism by which to get people who could be released but lacked approved housing into the community. And we continued to diversify that portfolio over time. I'd say what that portfolio as time evolved began to lack was an overarching hypothesis about how does this account for behavior change? How does this mechanism that corrections is trying to support to get people out port into a broader evidence-based understanding of how people gain self-sufficiency? And of course, consistent with this time period between 2005 and now is a changing face of the population of who's incarcerated. That population becomes more affected by substance use disorder, opioid use disorder in particular, a higher rate of co-occurring disorders. We increasingly become more judicious with the use of incarcerated beds. In other words, we expand our capacity to reserve prison for the most complex and potentially dangerous and we still manage to fill our facilities. So that speaks to the changing nature of our population. So these are some driving forces that I think are important to mention and hopefully provide some context to how we arrived in 2020 where of course, because of justice reinvestment as well, we took a step back and we asked ourselves like what would the hypothesis that undergirds all of these housing investments be? And frankly, it was hard to find an elegant one because I don't think it grew out of a behavior change hypothesis. It grew out of a system relief valve need. And so that's an important thing I think from an executive branch administrator to explain to the legislative branch that we were in the service of a different goal 15 years ago than I believe and understand us to be now. So we asked ourselves, what are we trying to accomplish as the department of corrections in our housing investments? And that ported back to our overarching goal and mission of the department, which is to partner with the community in the research and treatment of criminal behavior and to be valued by the citizens of Vermont as that partner. And we took that further and said what are the conditions that best promote dignity, self-sufficiency of the individual and community safety. And from that, we began to back out to a set of what I would call operant conditions. What are the characteristics, the dominant characteristics of environments that promote those values? And some of those characteristics include maximum ability to make choices. None of us particularly like having choices made for us as adults. I will offer that as a universal statement and if anybody would like to challenge that, I'm happy to be in dialogue. When we have programs as the commissioner got into that have to manage a milieu and then also try within that primary goal to address the nuances of the individual, the needs of the milieu win out. And congregate settings, unfortunately, just don't allow the degree of responsivity, which is a core correctional principle. So we started creating this theory of change inductively. What do I mean by that? We looked at the values and the conditions and began to put them together, stand back and say the optimal conditions that we believe based on the literature from SAMHSA, based on the literature from the US Interagency Council on homelessness, based on all the trauma informed care and policy within the agency of services, these are the building blocks of the environments that we believe would best support self-sufficiency, stability and integration, consistent with the preexisting mission of corrections and the imperative of JRI to keep people in the community. And from that, we then began the process of articulating that, citing the research that's based on and ultimately rolling this into the RFP that Emily is going to walk you through that theory in a moment. So I just wanna sort of set that stage and I think one or two quick other things to mention, because I understand that for some longstanding organizational partners, this has a very sudden feel to it. And I hear that feedback coming through and I'm sensitive to it. The procurement process is in fact the executive branch, in this case, articulating a hypothesis, which I firmly believe is a core component of what the executive branch should do. We should tell the people of Vermont why it is that we're gonna spend the money in this way. And then our job is to put that opportunity out to the community and really see what the market of ideas provides. So no singular bidder was precluded from the start in potentially being awarded grants through this RFP because we didn't know again what the marketplace of service provision would allow for. That is the nature of a competitive bidding process. We were in the business of articulating a literature and evidence-based theory as to what we believe best serves the people of Vermont, not only the people coming out of prisons, but our communities. How are we promoting community safety through the stability of people that we know have historically presented risks? And then we had to see what came in and that was that whole scoring process. So all of this was predicated on this theory of change. A theory of change is basically just a making explicit a belief system, a set of inputs, a set of intended outcomes and an explanation that bridges those two pieces. And in government, in the executive branch, we're constantly doing things. We're not necessarily always standing back and saying, what's the overarching theory and how are we evaluating it? So the theory of change, which both applied on the individual behavior level and on the systemic level says, these are the overall values that we're gonna be guided by. These are our North stars and that's dignity, that's safety, that's stability. These are the observable conditions that we understand to be most illustrative of those values. And when these conditions are most in place, these are what the outcomes we expect. So that when we talk about theory of change, I just wanted to make that clear. It's just a surfacing, a making explicit of what frankly is often implicit, invisible, not packaged in a way that the public can understand. So I'm grateful for this opportunity to make clear and transparent to Vermonters why it is that we moved in this direction. And with that, unless you have more questions from me, which probably given the number of words I use, I'm guessing you don't, I'd like to turn it over to Emily who can succinctly and elegantly take us through that theory of change. Thank you for bearing with me. Thank you, Derek. So Emily, you're up next. So just walk us through. Or, and just logistics-wise, you all have access to the presentation of the theory of change. Will that be visually shared during this presentation? Are you each looking at it individually? We have it on our webpage so we can pull it up individually and for folks who are on YouTube, go to the House Corrections and Institutions webpage and click on today's date and it is there. Great. So thank you. Thank you. And it is also listed on the Department of Corrections webpage under our transitional housing section. So as Derek really clearly laid out, this was our process of creating a vision for the transitional housing offered by the Department of Corrections. And that vision we stated explicitly is that all Vermonters under supervision have the housing resources and relationships they need to thrive and keep themselves and communities safe. So the outcomes we're trying to reach are dignity for the people that we're serving, stability, relationships that help increase their social health and the people in the communities and the folks re-entering the communities themselves are safe from harm. And the conditions needed to have that happen are that people feel that they have value, that they contribute meaningfully to their community, that there's trust, people experience consistency, equity and transparency in the way that they're treated and that they have choice.  And it's very important to recognize that this is not only the job of the Department of Corrections to take care of this, but the job of the community to help folks re-enter. It's a shared responsibility. And so based on our research, we stated that these interventions, these housing options need to be trauma informed. They need to be personally meaningful and engaging for people. And people's basic life needs must be met before they can spend energy working toward their goals and priorities. And what we know is that housing is foundational to successful re-entry. And it's very difficult to move out of addiction, to maintain stability without knowing where you're gonna sleep every night. So our primary goal in this transitional housing is to provide people with that stability. And then we also want to help people build their capabilities and strengths so that they reduce their risk of re-offending, that the housing is person-led, supportive, and that there's programming available and services and support to increase their resilience and to move toward a thriving life. So our approach to do this was to shift our housing model to really focus on transitioning people into stable permanent housing that meets their needs. That's local, that's flexible, that's supported. And we wanna make sure that people are not committing new crimes, that people feel an increased sense of hopefulness and that they're connected to supportive relationships that help them thrive. So we walked through exactly what we were looking for in terms of the re-entry and case management model and the housing model and who the partners were in the Department of Corrections as well as in re-entry programs throughout the state. And I'm now on the third page where we very explicitly laid out how the program will be different. So in the past, we had sort of tiered transitional housing that were based on offender risk profile and risk management. We had sober housing that was zero tolerance and very strict program rules that resulted in re-incarceration if someone relapsed in many cases. And as Derek said, we sort of lacked an overarching housing philosophy that connected all of our program investments. And the program milios of these congregate sites were not always trauma-informed in terms of practice and daily life. Referrals to these programs were sometimes inconsistent or discretionary. And what we're really moving toward very intentionally is that the investments are targeted to programs that meet a range of DOC needs or the needs of people re-entering the community. So housing for sex offenders has traditionally been really difficult. So we were clear that we wanted to offer as much of that as possible and to focus on stable housing as the top priority and facilitate access through that housing to support services. And we also wanna focus on offender strengths and skill building, tenancy education, no really setting them up for success in the future and engaging the community and supporting that re-entry and integrating all of our housing work with the broader continuum of care around serving vulnerable Vermonters. We're also in a process of engaging more fully with the community justice centers to address any conflicts that might come up in transitional housing in a proactive way. So our process has been to implement this theory of change with new partnerships and new providers. We're gonna continue to learn about this theory and make sure that it actually is playing out the way we expect. We're gonna enter into new grant agreements that will take effect July one and we'll offer ongoing training and support to implement best practices through our provider network. And then the final part of the theory of change at the bottom, what to expect lays out sort of a timeline of the steps involved. DOC engaged staff, we engaged partners, we drafted and issued the RFP, we received proposals, we've determined awardees and then our next steps are to co-design the evaluation and learning from this theory of change, facilitate the training and technical assistance needed and co-present with partners and staff around that training and launch into our new grants grant agreements and continue learning and evaluating as we go and adjust as needed. So that's, that is our theory of change. It's great Emily and I think I really appreciate this PowerPoint, this presentation, the way it's laid out. It really does make a lot of it's very clear in the process and very clear where we were in terms of what the program was and how it's being changed. That's why I really appreciate this presentation and the document, thank you. So we have some questions, Sarah and then Scott. Thank you, this is terrific to have you here. And I just wanted to say the commissioner has heard me say this before my local community justice center back in December, shared this with me and I've complimented the commissioner. So I want to make sure that you all knew like it really, you know, it's this theory of change and how you've presented here is really impressive. And I want to thank you for your work. And so I just have a couple of questions because it's out like by the, I hear the way that you've laid this out like how the program will be different. It doesn't necessarily mean that congregate housing is completely off the table. If I'm understanding it, it's that you're asking your partners to kind of deliver some clear services to go along with that congregate housing. Is that, am I understanding that correctly? Well, we have shifted substantially away from congregate housing in the, we're through this change, we're no longer funding about 90 beds of congregate sober living and we're instead investing in scattered site apartments that offer more flexibility and responsibility. So it's not that we're eliminating congregate housing, we are still funding some congregate housing, but it's, we're definitely shifting the emphasis to scattered site. Yeah, well that's, and I think I was on the committee last biennium, so we did hear from some of those kinds of providers and I've heard from through meetings that I've had with constituents and through our community justice center, how, so it was some of the challenges around congregate housing for people. So I very much aligns with what I've been hearing. So one of my questions is, I'm hoping that once you land and have all your conversations with your partners, you might be able to clearly address, show us where some of the geographic locations are, you know, one of the concerns that I hear about and that we've been hearing about, I think a few of us, is about that there's gonna be fewer beds for women and that is coming out. And I'd like to hear you talk about that because that was an issue before the theory of change. And I just wanna hear what your process and what you're finding and how you're gonna address that because that's important I think. No, that's a very important question and thank you for the opportunity to address it directly. We have historically had limited congregate sites specifically designated for women in the state up to three different sites at a time. But as was mentioned earlier, that's very limiting in terms of location, in terms of being able to be near their communities. So with the scattered site apartments, we can serve women in every county of the state and we can serve them in their local community and they can get intensive services in that scattered site apartment which allow them to succeed. So it's not that we're reducing beds for women, we're really actually dramatically increasing the opportunity for supported transitional apartments for women throughout the state. That's very helpful. Sometimes we have this assumption because the women's facility is in Burlington and that a lot of the related services are located there, that there can be an assumption that all the women that we incarcerated are from that community. But what I'm hearing from you, that that's not true. And I'm from the Southern part of the state and I know that for us, for women in our community who might be in this situation, being up in Burlington is far away. So what I'm hearing you say is that this might come as a big surprise to some of those providers though. I mean, this is a transition and we know that those kinds of transitions can be hard. Okay, I know others have questions but this is very helpful, thank you. And if I may just add to that. So yeah, that's an important recognition. When we discuss the potential directions that we were going with the local district managers and in this case, the Burlington district manager, he was quick to say, well, this will have less of an impact on Shitting County because most of the women served in that those programs are not actually from that area. The other piece I just wanted to mention is that while we are definitely optimizing for what we call scattered site. And again, just to make sure that we're not using precious terminology, congregate sites, those are houses with different bedrooms and multiple people in it, right? Scattered site are apartments that are privately owned as the question was asked. Sometimes they might be owned by the grantee. We've got grantees that actually own the stock. We have other grantees that will master lease those apartments. So the organization has the legal agreement with the landlord. And then we have other grantees who use the funds that corrections provides, use the relationships to establish the confidence and the connection and the landlord relationships. But then the resident who's under correction supervision is the direct tenant and the leases in their name. So I just want to break that down and add that while we are optimizing for our scattered site, we also recognize that this theory of change is, and I heard Representative Dolan's question earlier about this, like, well, wait a minute, these congregate beds, we know those beds are there. In the scattered site model, we are placing faith and trust in providers to secure some of this stock. So if I heard that correctly, Representative Dolan, we recognize that. So one of the things we intentionally did was not charge 100% into the scattered site and do away with all congregate. We kept some in strategic locations and to the issue of housing for women, we actually are going to be entering into a new opportunity to house women in the Rutland area in a new congregate program too. So in that case, wanting to make sure that we're also attending to all the dimensions of this, we actually sort of ran slightly counter to the general direction and procured a fixed capacity in a congregate setting in the Rutland community. So I just wanted to add that, thank you.  So we have a few more questions here. So we have Scott, Karen, and Mary. Yes, thank you. Just as regards housing for women, supportive housing for women, it seems like the scattered site, of course, will give you a lot more flexibility to place women. Marjorie, I think you're unmuted there. I'm talking to my husband. So that would be a real advantage to moving to the scattered site. And my other thought, this theory of change is really exciting to see. My other thought is maybe more programming related instead of housing related, but I've had some interesting conversations with my neighbor, John Perry, whose name some of you may probably know, about, well, one of the things that he said that really stuck with me was that a mechanism for human society, I guess you would say, is this idea of reciprocity. I do something for you, you do something for me. And that's how we build social connections. That's how we build social capital. So how do we foster that in support of housing? As I said, I guess it's probably more of a programming question than a housing question, but it seems like something that's so important that it ought to be mentioned explicitly in the theory of change document here. So we're doing something for the offender by giving them housing. How do we get them to do something for us, for us society, or how do we get them to ask for help? How do we ask them for help? Things like that. So anyway, I just wanted to put that up there. Thanks. I'm happy to just quickly sort of speak to that. I don't know if you were looking for a particular response, but I can't pass up the opportunity to chime in because John Perry is really sort of founding architect of the broader kind of restorative landscape along with his colleagues, Commissioner John Gorsuch and some other real thought leaders from the Department of Corrections and he's a mentor to me. And so I think both embedded in that theory of change and if you look at it again, you'll see dignity, that's a top line piece. So what are the preconditions that people need to fully contribute, right? To be focused, I think dignity really keys off of that. The ability to add value, right? So not just to be a receiver and a consumer of social services, but to recognize that one has important value both in the most basic way that when people wake up and hopefully are gainfully employed, they can civically participate at the base level of paying taxes and that's important. I mean, like that's an important way of fulfilling one's civic reciprocal responsibility in our version of democracy, right? And then engage in positive relationships that have all of those informal reinforcements. And so again, it's our belief that the conditions that best get people to be whole in their selves so that they can add that kind of value so that their lives are not completely a function of the deficits that they represent to the society and how we're trying to avoid the risk that they may or may not represent, but rather how in fact they can be assets within the context of their own personal relationships, professional relationships and broader community. One of the ways we've also done this and this didn't get flagged was within the RFP, which I encourage everybody to spend some time with, this theory of change was an attachment to the RFP. The RFP goes into much more depth. One of the domains that we asked programs to reflect on was how they integrate individuals who themselves have lived experience in the criminal justice system into their programs. So many of these programs have folks who either on a policy level have helped guide it or on a staffing level as appropriate themselves bring direct experience, lived experience with the criminal justice and are now in that generative space of adding the credibility and that value back into these services. So all of that I hold very dearly and I just appreciate you bringing in that notion of reciprocity, social capital, because ultimately there's a limit to what professionalized services can do. They're critical, they're important. We need clinical and professionalized services, but again, I think we have a really elegant vision that we have to be a partner with the community and the pieces I hear you speaking to come from the informal connections developed through community relationships.  I guess, if I may, the congregate sites that we've had and the people who work in them have been incredibly heartfelt, incredibly dedicated and I've had the pleasure of working with these individuals and these are not like decisions. This is more about structural advantages to giving people maximum choice and flexibility. Thank you for hearing that. Yes, thank you. It's really, it's a person-to-person thing that is informal and can I borrow a cup of sugar? Can I lend you a cup of sugar, that kind of thing, right? Great, thank you. Karen and then Mary. Yes, thank you. This is very helpful and it's helpful to see how this theory of change and the housing plan fits into justice reinvestment because I think it aligns really well and just putting it all together, it's just great. And so Derek, I think you actually answered some of my questions, it was helpful to hear that there was the intentional understanding like there is a little bit of leap of faith in the housing stock and I think, so that's helpful to know that that was part of the process. Another question I had was specifically around with the loss of Northern Lights and knowing that that was in place, it was gender responsive housing. And I think you just said the Rutland piece so I'm hoping that that is a substituter that's replacing that, so that is one question. Another question I have and I think I've shared before that I work for Community Justice Center so I have that in the back of my mind. It sounds like some community justice centers are the recipient of these, but CJCs across the state might also be partnering with that and I'm curious how that is it being formalized? Is that, how is that being tracked? Cause I know that community justice centers are funded through DOC, so would be curious about that. And then the other one I just wanna throw out there and I'm putting a lot out is really looking forward to the data and evaluation piece of it. Cause I think this is huge, this is a new direction and it'll be really interesting to see in a year from now which types of sites really worked well. What were the factors that made them work well? I feel like this is a really big launching off point and I would just encourage you to collect as much data as you can so we know what's working and why. Yeah, maybe I'll speak real quickly and I'll hand it over to Emily for finer points and I'll take those in reverse order on the data piece and Emily mentioned this in terms of the next steps in that theory of change. We try to apply what maybe referred to as a responsive regulation. Responsive regulation is basically taking the principles of restorative justice of doing with and applying that to regulatory relationships. So, the state can and sometimes does award money and then tell people what they need to do with it and come and evaluate it and grade them and that's one model. Another model is that you're co-creating, you're actually investing in the expertise of the people who are doing the work and you're saying, what do you value? How do you know you're doing your best work? What are quality measures and better off measures that you think the state should be in the business of asking you to provide? So, that's our next step in terms of creating and we've done this, our existing programs. So, we literally involve our providers in populating our data metrics. It's not singularly the state determining. We have things that we're gonna need to know that the legislature should be asking us for and we're excited to provide but there are other relational dimensions of how we will develop that. And we're also on the precipice of actually having a transition within our unit and bringing on a new person who will be spearheading our data analysis and collection. So, it's a wonderful just coincidental opportunity to use this to set a really clean and clear direction. And then on the CJC piece, and again, I'll turn it over to Emily after. Yeah, there was a piece on the RFP again. This was a detailed document that asked providers to actually break down for us. How will you resolve conflicts in the house? What processes will you use? How will you have the skills to do transform conflict? And many of those providers spoke explicitly to partnering with the community justice centers who are essentially localized subject matter experts on conflict and harm from a relational process. And some actually have subcontracts. So some of the awardees have written into their budgets. We are gonna spend a couple of thousand dollars to have ongoing circle facilitation training from our local justice center where we've contracted for them to come in five times a year and actually conduct harm circles if there's a particular situation. So I'll leave it at that in case Emily wants and has more to it, but I'm glad you asked because both of the community justice centers and the housing of course is all administered through the community and restorative justice unit. So we're looking to optimize for synergies there. Yeah, Emily? Emily doesn't have anything to say. You said it all, Derek. Okay, my apologies. So we have a few more questions here. We have Mary and then Kerr. Yes, my question and thank you. I was originally going to ask how this was different within the communities. And then you did bring up and first of all, let me be clear and transparent. I've been on my restorative justice program here in Bennington for a very long time for close to 30 years. And I believe in the restorative justice. I believe in very good programming and transitional types of things that will help folks get out of our corrections facilities and actually do very well. And so I'm definitely for it. But as the conversation was going on, how is this different? And it probably brought to mind and chairman, chair of Emmons knows the case, unfortunately. How is this different or what have you improved since the time of and you happened to bring up commissioner Gorchak as well as John Perry? And I know them very well. We had housing down here in Bennington. Probably when that program started with the furlough program and the safety nets were not there where we were the apartments were put. They would at times only get supervision possibly if a parole officer was going by once a week, possibly two if you were lucky. At one point I had, I was in Montpelier in the legislature and getting from this one area calls from like all of the neighbors like what was going on. The police department was not aware that in this one particular place there was over eight or 10 people that were put in one building with no really person in the building that somewhat helped and supervised or was a mentor or whatever were wanting to. So how is it different from those times? Because it ended up also the way some of these programs are being placed on the other end of this particular street. There was also one of Vermont's worst and I say it that way because that's how it was written in the newspapers at that time was that one of the worst sex offenders in Vermont was housed or was allowed to be housed up the street which was by a small daycare center and everything else with no one being notified or that. We wanna welcome people back into the community and support and do the right things we need to do but how is your programs different from what it was back then?  Unfortunately, well, you know, somewhat I will say somewhat unfortunately but there were not some of the safety nets or the kind of overview for folks to actually be helping the folks coming back and to successfully transitioning back into the community. So how are your programs different? Can you answer that? Derek? I'm happy to, but I also don't want to supersede any of my colleagues. So if Emily or the commissioner, if he's still with us wants to address that by all means, if not, I'm certainly happy to and I do have thoughts on that. Yeah, you know, I'll take that representative Marcy. I think from where we are now from what you've described, first of all, in general, dealing with individuals convicted of sexual crimes, it's difficult at best to place them because of the appearance or fear of a sex offender. And I think I'm going to be correct when I say this and I'll stand to be correct if I'm wrong, but our experience, because we manage individuals based on risk. We don't manage them based on crimes. It's based upon their risk to re-offend and whatever their conditions are to be supervised. Sex offenders probably have some of the lowest rates of recidivism, I believe, is accurate. So some of it's community, but I think the difference between what we're talking about now and what we talked about before is that in the 30th change in the request for proposals, we made it really clear, we made it really clear that we needed supports wrapped around them. And I'm not trying to belittle what went on before, but it was pretty much before, hey, here's an apartment, live in the apartment, with some services that you represented, maybe those safety nets were not there. I think the theory of change is really focused around how to better manage with ACOSA or the CJC or restorative justice. And we're really, when we wrap this up, I want to tie this back to our conversation this morning on the new facility. But I think the difference now is that we recognize, you heard me talk earlier today about, we're test betting another theory of change, which is continuing chronicle care model that's used in the medical field as we transition people out. And I think the difference is now that we recognize that we have to have that in place in order for people to be accepted successful and feel like they're part of the community. And something I've learned since I've been at Corrections is this, is that a lot of times the influence of the negativity put on the individual when they come to the community plays directly into their inability to be successful. And that makes sense. I hope that helps represent it. You know, somewhat, but I think sometimes, and maybe I'm wrong and maybe things have changed. And like I said, I want folks to come back. I want them to be welcomed back into the community to be successful in every way that they possibly can with not having that kind of over their head. However, I do think at times, and that's why Kerr and I have talked often about there needs to be strong programming in the community or initiatives that can help this. And sometimes I'm not always sure we hear about all of these community-based programs to help these folks. And quite often, sometimes it's seriously lacking. And so I would want to definitely know that those pieces are in place to successfully, not hinder, really support and get folks back in. Just like one of the issues at one point or has been at times, and my understanding some of that is corrected very well, is that you'd have people getting a job and then they'd get a job, but then they would have to meet with their person, either at our like UCS, our United Counseling here in Bennington to do a program in the middle of their work day. Well, you and I probably both know that an employer is probably not going to be able to deal with that for too long. So we end up setting up some of the failures for these folks right out of the gate. So I want us to be honest and realistic, which I think you probably all are, but I want to make sure we've got the network of programming that folks need in the community to make this honestly work. Because I think when we don't, that's when the problems have them. Then everyone looks as though, oh my God, we're against all these people trying to transition back in and we're not. We want them to be a success. So can you possibly answer me that as to how you go about assessing in a community what the resources actually are to make the success stories that we need to have and want to have for these folks? Representative, I appreciate exactly what you're saying because I've talked about this a lot in front of this committee and other committees about the need for services and communities that deal with folks that have complicated backgrounds. Now, with that said, I think a major difference here is that some of these services are baked into the contract with the housing folks. The expectation is baked into the contracts. And we have to depend on what some of the... But you're saying the expectation, is it the reality or is it an expectation and is it succeeding? That's really where I'm going. We can have expectations that don't always make it. So... I understand that, but we're starting something new and we don't know if it is gonna succeed, correct? I mean, that's my point of making. It's a movement away from what we've done in the past and I can't predict how successful it will be, but that's the reason why it's part of the theory of change in part of the process is an evaluation of that, so we'll know. And what we're doing right now is following the science best we can. Back to your other point. Again, we do the best we can with what the services are, but part of what we asked for in these proposals was to have services as part of the housing. That's part of what we asked for. Yes. If I may, what I'm hearing goes beyond the housing piece and I think is exactly what JRI is about. How through all of these things are we defraying costs associated with incarceration and reinvesting those resources into the community programs? And we are at the leading edge of the JRI value proposition right now. So I think exactly what you're speaking to is what we're all trying to achieve with starting by reducing re-logins. And I would just add one point to reinforce what the commissioner was saying is that every single agreement that we're funding doesn't just fund housing, it funds staff to support, intensively support the folks in that housing and to ensure that they have service coordination for all the things that they need to help them succeed. So it's an integral part of every single agreement that we're gonna have. I am certainly hoping for the best in that it is a successful model because that's what we do need. And with a little bit of that supervision, especially in the earlier days to really make sure folks get their feet on the ground and are able to manage through to become successful. And that's all I want truly. So I'll look forward to, I guess, watching the process, but I hope folks will look very closely at what we're promising in communities with actual on the ground, boots on the ground to be able to really support folks through this process. Matt Morrissey, thank you for your volunteer service at your local community justice center. That's just the best to hear. So just want to acknowledge that. And I think Mary brings up a good point and I was involved with this when there was the situation there down in Bennington, it was in the late 90s and it was unsupervised apartments and a block just a building. So I think what we have as a perception is that if there is a congregate housing situation, the perception to our communities is there are support services that are being offered there. And when folks are spread out into individual apartments they're on their own and there is no support. And I think that's the perception that's out there. And I hope that the new model going forward for DOC is successful that people can see. And I think we as legislators need to see this as well that yes, folks can live in their own apartments or housing units if there's support services or with those support services in a wraparound service instead of just plunking them in an apartment or a room and say, okay, it's up to you. And I think in the past I go back to what Derek said housing re-entry was a relief valve from our overcrowded incarcerated facilities. That was the goal. Now we have a very, very different goal. We want the person to succeed and contribute back to the community. And we realized that our partners within the agency of human services within our different departments within our different designated agencies back home within our recovery centers within our department of mental health folks back home also need to be invested in this as well, not just DOC. So let's hope that this model works and it's different than what we've experienced in the past with people being within their own apartments because that did not work. So we have another question here, Kurt. Yeah, this looks really good. I like it, I'm impressed. And it's certainly well organized. Of particular interest to me is the training that will be done on your second page. You have your new actions and training and support. Well, they're actually, because I assume they'll these people will be still supervised by probation and parole. And is there going to be formal training for the probation and parole officers that will be doing that? So, yeah, yes, there is. The short answer is yes, there is. We're working closely with the council state governments and since some of the change in legislation has been going on, the education process is ongoing and we're going to be doing more training that's nationally recognized with our partners from the council state governments. Yeah, good, good. And of course, I love the flowchart at the bottom because that's from my programming history. So, and you're now at, you finished with the DOC determines the awardees or that's where you are. And the next stage is particularly interesting to me because and the way that you described it because being able to evaluate those people that you select for the contract and learning are both really important how that works. But at this point, we need a baseline in order to tell how well this is playing out over the years. And so we can look at this data and say, yes, the expected values did come about. Do you have some baseline data? For instance, I'm not sure how many people we actually a year have in transitional housing and how many of those end up maybe not recidivating because the courts are so clogged at this point, but how many of them would be recidivating if the courts were processing? Is that, are those numbers available? And if so, is there a way that we could get those? You know, it might be more refined. It may not be recidivism, it may be technical violations. Yeah, yeah, both of those are all of them. When you say recidivism, you think people are creating a new crime. The issue that the Justice Center found out more was people were being violated for technical violations. Ah, okay, yeah, that's true. I think of recidivism as being re-incarcerated. So it's probably... Yeah, recidivism is based on a new crime. Yeah, you're right. So anyway, that as well, recidivism and or, and smaller, what would be a revocation of violation of probation? Anyway, do we have that information? And is it gonna be somehow made available? Well, the technical violation pieces is in the materials that were generated by CSG and it's in the re-investment information. So that's easy enough to get. Recidivism is a little bit harder for us because you could have somebody that's no longer supervised by us that commits a new crime that could be considered reoccurring another crime and going back. So I'd have to check with staff to find out how complicated that is. But I would refer you to all the work that's been done with CSG and the re-investment because the technical violation information is pretty well documented there. Yeah, that's true. It's a little bit old. I think it was 2019. But it would be interesting to know because you have decreased specifically with the women, the number of women who are now incarcerated, it would be interesting to know how many of those that we released over the last year or so, what's happened to them? How well are they doing in the community? Because we obviously thought that they were able to go there and what problems are they having that this new approach might be able to solve. But all this sounds very good. I'm repressed and anything that we can do to move this along be certain to let us know. I do have one thing actually, if I may. And looping back again to our representative Dolan's question, because I think it's important to recognize that with this theory of change, it does shift the balance of our trust to say that housing is a public health issue and corrections housing is all the more a public health issue. And complex public problems rely on the participation of the public. They cannot be solved purely by government. And frankly, where the rubber hits the road is a housing stock. And just to name the obvious, we are a state with a tight housing market. And so I think one of the ways that all of us can actually contribute to the solution is if anyone, I mean, this is crowdsourcing. This is if you are aware of safe housing that you or a colleague or a family member has and they can rent it and they can choose if they're gonna air be and be it or rent it to a Vermonter who is trying to rebuild a life. I mean, I think we are at a moment where we have to look inward at our resources and housing is a foundational one and try to pull together the providers that we've found we have tremendous confidence in, they have stock, but they also need to develop relationships and they have the capacity and the professional experience and the tendency law and all of those professionalized skills. But at the end of the day, I think we are at a moment in Vermont where we're asking ourselves how serious are we about working with our most complex and vulnerable even though these are corrections involved people they are still vulnerable to homelessness. And so I just really wanna put in a public plug and so far as this is a public town square, if you will that if we all looked around our own networks I bet you we could be exponentialized the solutions that corrections is poised to monetize. Thank you, Derek. We do have another question here, Michelle. Sorry, I actually have a comment just in response to what Representative Taylor said if that's okay. He asked about the recidivism rate and I was just gonna say if you think back to that chart that was shared today the theory of change, one of the things that they indicate on there is that the more meaningful relationships the person can have the more integrated they are into the community the less likely or the more like they are to be successful. And as a person who worked in restorative justice at a community justice center until last November I can give you a small unscientific but accurate number that 100% of the people that I worked with did not get returned to prison who were working intensively in the COSA system. There was exactly one person I worked with who was returned to prison it was a technical violation before justice reinvestment that was related to losing housing. So my experience from my own work with people who are re-entering society and from talking to people all over the state is that those more intensive supports like COSAs like matching people up so that they can do follow-ups after the COSAs you know all those kind of supports they really really work. I mean we used to hear the number 26% of people in COSAs sorry people who had COSAs had 26% lower rate of recidivism but in my personal experience it was that would be it was 100% I mean like I worked with people who had been out of prison for between one day and five years and like I said none of them had recommitted new crimes or been sent back from new crimes there had been some relapses but that was it. And so I guess I would just like to say to this group that there are ways that we as a committee we as a state we as a department of corrections if we put our investments right into building the proper kinds of connections for our individuals when they leave prison hopefully that will be helping them to not go back. And so I'm really grateful that we're working on these issues and I'm grateful the approach that departments of corrections is taking right now because I think this is gonna help move our society in a better way. It's better for the people coming out of prison and it's gonna be better for our system if people are not reoffending hopefully they're engaging in their community in a good way. So sorry that was a little long-winded but this is an issue I care about a lot. So that's a good way to wrap up our morning and I think to get to that point of success there's some hurdles where folks did not have their RFPs renewed, their grants renewed and that's a heavy lift to get through. And that's what we'll be working through for the next few weeks for people to adjust to that and accept a new model. And that's gonna be difficult for those providers but it will also be difficult for some of our colleagues to help our colleagues understand the shift. It'll be some pressures applied for sure. I'm sure I know folks are trying to get over. I just, I wanna just respond to the last comments from the representative, right? I'm hoping people are starting to see that there is a method to our madness inside corrections that people are starting to see how we are, the housing piece is one piece. The work that's coming out of justice reinvestment is another piece. The work that we're doing at the facility in Chittenden at the end of the day, representative Bazon, you couldn't have framed up what I wanted to close with better. We have the services, I believe we have the services in most areas of the state except for the complicated population. But if we leverage wraparound services, taking this model of continuing chronic care with where we're going with housing, our success rate of keeping people out of facilities I think will go up significantly. And some of the work that we're doing inside Chittenden is like an incubator test bed of what we're doing to take the other operations around the state. So I hope you can see where the housing is tied into when I talk about the programming this morning about the facilities and why we have to really focus on what is the programming we'll make our facility look like. And I'm hoping the pieces are starting to come together. And with that, I'll stop talking so people can get the lunch. Rinaldo, that's a great way to finish. Thank you. Thank you all this morning. It's been a very informative morning and it's a good way of connecting the pieces because as a commissioner just integrated we may think of them in isolation, but they're not. It's a continuum. So thank you all. I know that we had Carrie Brown for the Women's Commission scheduled this morning. We've been working trying to see if she would be available this afternoon. And I'm not sure if that carried through. I knew she was free. So we will see if we'll be back this afternoon with that testimony.


Hi, welcome to BCH Technologies. Today I'm going to talk about the issue that's pretty interesting that your printer is going to print faded pictures. And if you're such an internet, there are lots of suggestions such as cleaning your printhead or use a new cartridge. Actually it has nothing to do with your printhead and nothing to do with your ink. Of course, your first reaction is maybe I refilled my cartridge with an inferior ink. Actually that's not the case. Let me show you what you did. Okay, this is how the problem started.  And in this case, you will just do the plan paper and standard quality. So you can see it looks like the printer has a counteract. So all the colors are faded and really pale compared to what's on the right that what you really want. So our first reaction will be like, okay, let's try to print this in a better mode. So we do a glossy paper and we're going to select the highest quality. And then we go to print again. When we print it in the highest setting, the picture looks a little bit better but still unsatisfactory. By this time, most users will conclude that there's something wrong with the ink cartridge or printhead. However, if we take a look at the picture, the picture is actually very clear. Just the color is off and pale. Therefore, the printhead is not clogged. In fact, there's no problem with ink cartridge either. So how can we print a picture as clear as this one? We soon find out that if we print a Word document, all the text and the graphics are really sharp and all the colors are faded. So let's try to insert this picture into a Word document. So we open the Word document and find this picture to insert. We'll find this picture is printed with the correct colors. So actually the problem is how we print this picture. If we right-click and print a picture, then we usually print with a default Windows picture viewer, which is known to have a problem with some printers. Therefore, if we use a different program, say Microsoft Word, Photoshop, or other photo software to print this picture, it will be printed correctly. So here's Photoshop, and this Photoshop becomes like different settings, and if we print from this one, it will print correctly. So if you do not have a commercial photo editing software, for example Photoshop, you can use a building Microsoft Paint, which is free and installed in every PC by default. You can just click start and type in the Word Paint, and I will show you next how to use the Paint. There it is. And then you can just open it and print it. So if you do not want to use the Paint because you like borderless printing, picture printing, most printers come with a photo software that can be downloaded from the manufacturer's support website. For example, Canon has Image Garden and Epson has their own thing, so you can just go to their website and download their software and use that software to print your pictures. This problem only affects pictures and it's not affecting documents because documents are printed with their own software. Okay, I hope you enjoyed this video. Thank you for watching. See you next time.