Senate Judiciary hears debate on H.2 to delay Raise-the-Age rollout; advocates urge immediate implementation

The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 18 heard hours of testimony on H.2, the House measure that would repeal the imminent April 1 effect of Raise‑the‑Age Phase 2 and re‑enact it with a delayed effective date, change minimum and maximum ages for juvenile jurisdiction, extend certain delinquency jurisdiction periods and add reporting requirements for the Agency of Human Services.

Supporters of H.2, including a representative from the administration identified in committee as Jay, told the panel the bill should move quickly. “I would urge you … we definitely support passing this bill as soon as possible,” Jay said, emphasizing the time sensitivity tied to an April 1 effective date in the current law.

Advocates for youth and several court and child welfare witnesses opposed delaying Raise‑the‑Age. Matthew Bernstein, Youth and Family Advocate for the state of Vermont, told the committee, “If you’re asking us up, down today on H.2, we are opposed to that,” and said the bill “does too little and does too much” — delaying phase 2 while adding requirements that would place more work on the Department for Children and Families (DCF).

Why it matters

The core dispute is whether to allow the second phase of Raise‑the‑Age — which would add 19‑year‑olds to family‑division (juvenile) jurisdiction for many non‑serious offenses — to go into effect April 1, or to delay it until July 1, 2027, as H.2 would. Witnesses also discussed separate but related proposals in H.2: raising the lower age of delinquency jurisdiction from 10 to 12 and lengthening the family‑division’s jurisdiction in some cases from two to three years.

What witnesses told the committee

Administration testimony: Jay from the administration summarized H.2’s provisions and said sections repealing the impending April 1 change are “essential for passage” if the committee wants the bill enacted with the later effective date. The administration witness described resource constraints in DCF, including the lack of an appropriate facility for older youth, and raised concerns about moving legally adult 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds into a juvenile system that, the witness argued, cannot compel participation in treatment the way adult criminal courts can.

Advocates and child welfare: Matthew Bernstein and Lauren Hape, Deputy Advocate with the Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate, urged the committee not to delay phase 2. Bernstein said the proposal would delay needed accountability and services for older youth and that H.2 “does not generate meaningful data” nor fund the community services that would support implementation. The advocates said available data show only a “handful” of new DCF caseload entries per month would result from fully implementing Raise‑the‑Age, and that DCF family services caseloads are currently lower than in prior years.

Policy detail and clarifications

- Effective dates: H.2 would repeal the April 1, 2025 effective step for adding 19‑year‑olds and re‑enact that step with a July 1, 2027 effective date (testimony described the change as a two‑year delay). - Minimum age: The bill would raise the minimum age for delinquency jurisdiction from 10 to 12 for most cases (10‑ and 11‑year‑olds would no longer be brought into juvenile delinquency proceedings except for narrow homicide exceptions). - Jurisdiction length: H.2 moves the family‑division jurisdiction window in some circumstances from two years to three years (witnesses described this as an optional extension that courts may request to allow more time for services). - Reporting: The bill adds or preserves reporting requirements for the Agency of Human Services (AHS), including some new lines meant to track utilization of the Red Clover Treatment Facility. Bernstein and other witnesses supported stronger, disaggregated data reporting as a condition for any delay. - Facilities: Witnesses noted Vermont currently operates the Red Clover Treatment Facility, a locked juvenile treatment facility described in testimony as a four‑bed program; advocates said available evidence does not justify building a large new locked facility and urged tracking of utilization before funding a new center.

Points of contention

Advocates said delaying phase 2 would increase “ping‑pong” between adult criminal court and family court for certain cases, reduce the use of juvenile‑focused diversion that lowers recidivism, and worsen racial‑justice concerns that accompanied initial Raise‑the‑Age debates. Administration testimony focused on implementation challenges, DCF capacity limits and the legal and practical differences between treating 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds as adults versus juveniles.

What the committee did and next steps

No formal committee vote was recorded in the hearing transcript. Committee members scheduled additional testimony and indicated they would hear more witnesses later in the week, including DCF deputy commissioner witnesses. Several senators and committee members asked for additional, disaggregated data from DCF and AHS before making a decision.

Ending

Witnesses urged the committee to prioritize clearer data and funding for community services over an extended delay. Bernstein said the committee should either allow phase 2 to take effect or, if members insist on delay, require narrowly targeted changes: a one‑year delay instead of two, clearer disaggregated reporting, and removal of misdemeanor‑level changes that could be handled separately. The committee left the record open for additional testimony and follow‑up from state agencies.