Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would tighten reporting, data collection on seclusion and restraint in DCF residential programs
Summary
A bill filed to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint on children in Department for Children and Families residential programs would require consistent data collection, clearer definitions and capacity building for providers, sponsors told the committee.
Representative Tiff Bloomley, sponsor of a bill aimed at reducing seclusion and restraint for children in Department for Children and Families residential programs, told the committee the measure focuses on improving data, defining terms and building provider capacity rather than imposing an immediate ban.
"Many states have been doing this over the last couple of years, safeguarding children from these practices because they're broadly recognized as leading to mental health, physical mental health trauma, physical injury, or in some instances, particularly in the case of prone restraint, death," Representative Tiff Bloomley said while introducing the proposal. She said existing reporting in some systems is insufficient and the bill would create consistent data collection so the department can work with providers to reduce use.
Bloomley told the committee that current reporting gaps make it hard to know how often restraint and seclusion occur. She cited a gap in reporting for the roughly 43 residential programs that house Vermont youth; committee testimony noted those programs house about 83 Vermont youth across facilities. The bill would also ask the state to integrate restraint/seclusion data into the department’s planned database overhaul and to require professional development on less‑harmful alternatives for staff at residential providers.
Anne (speaker identified as drawing on Department of Mental Health experience) told the committee that the Department of Mental Health has standards for inpatient and residential care that include training on alternatives and strict limits on when isolation may be used. She argued that residential programs should meet similar standards and that clearer statutory expectations would protect children.
Committee members asked for evidence and data; staff were asked to work with the Office of Child, Youth and Family Advocates and with DCF to gather baseline numbers and provider reporting practices. No vote was taken at the hearing; sponsors and committee members said they hope better data and reporting will reduce use of these practices even if the committee does not immediately pursue a blanket ban.
