Judiciary officials tell Appropriations panel federal grants support treatment courts and juvenile services; Title IV‑D is largest single federal transfer

Terry Corson, State Court Administrator, told the House Appropriations Committee on April 10 that federal grants provide critical funding for treatment courts, juvenile-court improvements and related services and that loss of those funds would force program reductions.

Corson said the federal grants “are critical to the operation of those programs,” and Greg Mosley, Chief of Finance and Administration for the Judiciary, identified the largest federal transfer as Title IV‑D child support funding, which the Judiciary receives as a subrecipient and which is budgeted at $2,000,000 a year.

The grants discussed include multiple treatment‑court awards (adult drug treatment courts in Rutland County, Chittenden County and Washington County; a Windsor DUI treatment docket with a drug‑treatment track; and a Chittenden family treatment docket), a court improvement grant for juvenile matters and a Byrne‑related behavioral‑health grant that funds a project director and an administrative position. Mosley said the Judiciary’s direct federal grants total about $1,500,000 annually; when the Title IV‑D interdepartmental transfer is included, federal funding rises from roughly 2% to about 4% of the Judiciary’s overall budget.

Committee members asked how many people receive services through those programs. Scott Griffith, chief of planning and court services, said the statewide census reported monthly for adult treatment programs is slightly higher than “about 100” active participants at a given time. He said the Chittenden family treatment docket runs about 10 to 12 adults at a time; because participating adults have children, the docket’s services affect more people than the adult count alone. Officials also reported 1,214 juvenile cases currently pending statewide, including 467 CHINS (children in need of supervision) matters and 747 delinquency matters.

Officials told the committee that most of the treatment‑court grants are competitive and that the Judiciary relies on state match requirements (commonly 25%) that are often met with in‑kind salary commitments from permanent, general‑fund positions. Corson said, “we would have a very limited ability to — I mean, operationally, it would be maybe salaries for some of the personnel. But otherwise, for the providers, they’d have to seek it elsewhere.” Mosley added that many direct service roles are limited‑service positions or contracted providers who would likely be cut if federal funding ended.

The committee and Judiciary staff also discussed smaller and related federal awards listed in the Judiciary’s submissions. Mosley identified an ADAP/drug‑court grant at about $190,000 and a line item listed as $125,000 for a Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) subrecipient allocation. Judiciary staff said the statewide VAWA award to Vermont is about $900,000 and that courts are allocated 5% of that award; the grants are managed through the Agency of Human Services and the Center for Crime Victim Services.

On timing and continuity, Griffith said the family treatment grant is scheduled to expire in September 2025. The Judiciary has requested an extension from the awarding agency because it has surplus funds, but officials said they had not received confirmation. Griffith said the solicitation for the next round of family treatment funding had not been released yet and that the Judiciary intended to apply when it is issued. Mosley and Corson said national and interagency contacts (including the National Center for State Courts and Department of Justice counterparts) were seeking clarity but that there remained uncertainty about federal guidance and solicitations.

Committee members asked about subrecipients and service providers; Mosley said the Judiciary has contracts with community providers such as the Howard Center in Chittenden County and with contract attorneys for some services. The Judiciary also reported to the committee that the court improvement grant supports guardians ad litem and other juvenile‑court resources.

The committee asked for updates and named a liaison (Trevor) to receive future information from Judiciary staff. Officials said they would provide additional case counts and other specifics upon request.

While no formal committee actions or votes on Judiciary funding occurred during the hearing excerpt, the discussion identified the programs, dollar amounts and risks that the Appropriations Committee said it would consider when assessing potential backfill priorities if federal funds are reduced.

Ending: Committee members scheduled a later bill vote and thanked the Judiciary attendees for their briefing.