Vermont DCF backs H.2 raising juvenile minimum age to 12, warns workforce and program shortfalls may limit implementation

Montpelier — The Department for Children and Families told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 19 that it supports H.2, the bill that would raise the minimum age for delinquency proceedings from 10 to 12, but warned the state’s child welfare and juvenile services system lacks the current staffing and program capacity to absorb additional cases without delay or further resources.

Erica Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division at the Department for Children and Families, said, “The department is definitely in support of H.2 in its current form. Raising the minimum age for delinquency from age 10 to 12 is really in alignment with our focus and our values as a division.” Radke added that the bill’s reporting requirements would allow the Legislature to track readiness over time.

The department backed the bill while urging caution about the timetable for full implementation. Lindy Boudreau, licensed services director at DCF, told the committee that some prior statutory expansions of juvenile jurisdiction have produced cumulative workload increases and that DCF’s existing staff carry mixed caseloads that include delinquency, youth described by staff as “at risk,” truancy and child-protection work.

“We felt it’s important to include this information,” Boudreau said, explaining DCF’s caseload charts are intended to show the staff who would directly take on additional raise-the-age cases. She told the committee that earlier jurisdictional changes increased filings from roughly 334 in one year to about 504 the next year after an expansion, and that those filings produce additional court-reporting workload even when cases are later diverted.

Tyler Allen, director of the high-end system of care at DCF, said program capacity outside the state has declined and that short-term crisis programs such as Red Clover cannot, by design, substitute for long-term treatment beds. “Red Clover is wonderful... but it is a small program and it is designed primarily as a crisis stabilization program,” Allen said, noting the department’s push for longer-term placements, including the proposed Green Mountain Youth Campus.

Committee members pressed DCF on why funds could not be shifted within state systems to create more juvenile-focused caseworkers. Radke and Allen said hiring is difficult, the work requires specialized skills and new employees require months of training; DCF also reported that contracting for quality vendor-provided programs is uneven and can take time.

DCF officials described efforts underway: targeted hiring outreach, adjustments to recruitment channels, the recent stand-up of the Red Clover secure facility and the creation of a new position for a high-end system-of-care peer director. They said those steps helped but do not yet yield the broad capacity the division says would be required for a rapid expansion in juvenile jurisdiction.

Committee members also asked about cost savings tied to diverting youth from adult corrections. DCF described the long-term research rationale that juvenile treatment can reduce later offending but said the immediate fiscal savings to the Department of Corrections are limited because relatively few youths from the raise-the-age cohort are entering state incarceration; DCF also said some cases remain front‑loaded to the department because of court reporting requirements even when supervision later moves to other agencies.

Radke, Boudreau and Allen told senators the department supports the delay mechanism included in H.2 and emphasized the value of the bill’s reporting requirements as a way for the Legislature to monitor staffing, program capacity and outcomes during the implementation window.

The committee asked DCF to consider providing direct testimony from front-line supervisors and caseworkers about day-to-day caseloads and operational needs; DCF said it could arrange worker testimony or written submissions to provide that perspective.

Votes or formal committee actions on H.2 were not recorded during the session covered by this transcript. The testimony on March 19 focused on DCF’s support for the policy change alongside caution about whether the system can be made ready within the proposed timeframes.