Committee flags sharp rise in secure youth-treatment costs, seeks sustainable funding for visitation and Mentor Vermont

House Human Services members pressed Department for Children and Families staff about program funding priorities for youth services and family supports during a budget briefing that followed the homelessness update.

A committee member (identified in the transcript as Anne) outlined department materials showing a large increase in operating expenditures for secure residential treatment and related services and described outstanding construction and startup needs for new facilities. The committee discussed the state’s recent openings and planned expansions of high-acuity youth beds (Red Clover and a planned Wyndham facility) and flagged the high per-bed operating cost estimates.

Anne summarized the department’s materials and said the operating total for secure-residential-care related programs had grown substantially in recent years; she noted that fiscal-year comparisons reflect one-time carryover funds and new operating commitments. She told the committee the operating total for these programs had moved from about $3.3 million in a prior year to roughly $9.6 million in the department’s current projections. Anne said construction and startup for planned capacity additions are budgeted separately and that about $1.5 million is earmarked for those costs.

The committee focused on daily and annual per-bed costs. Anne calculated the daily operating cost for a secure bed and said, “Dollars 2,800 a day. Per per bed, assuming the beds are all occupied.” The group compared those costs to lower-intensity options. Members pointed to a 12‑bed staff-secure program (the SEAL program) whose operating budget is roughly $1.2 million a year, and noted it operates at a substantially lower per-bed annual cost than locked or staff-secure high-acuity placements.

Committee members and staff raised two related concerns: (1) the state’s growing reliance on high-cost, high-acuity placements consumes a large share of child-services resources and can draw funds away from prevention and lower-intensity supports; and (2) department budget documents do not always show the full picture because some increases reflect one-time carryover or multi-year contracts already in place rather than new recurring base requests.

On supervised visitation programs, the committee said the loss of a state contribution has created an immediate shortfall. Anne said the committee identified $30,640 from tobacco settlement funds as a possible one-year backfill to preserve supervised visitation coordination while agencies and the department develop a longer-term sustainability plan. The committee agreed it wanted a report back from the Department on options to sustain supervision programs and clarify DCF’s role in funding.

Mentor Vermont, a nonprofit providing mentoring and prevention services, asked for an increase in state support. The department and committee discussed a recent increase and considered a further, smaller increase. Anne said the committee recommended a modest additional increase (an additional $100,000 on top of recently appropriated funds) and discussed whether opioid-settlement or other prevention funding might support program expansion.

A committee member asked about contracts for one-to-one staffing and whether higher secure-bed capacity would reduce the need for contract staff; department staff said some contracts are fixed multi-year agreements and that short-term savings may be limited.

Members requested additional financial details and clarity about what is currently funded through carryover, one-time appropriations and base budget lines, and asked the department to identify options for investing at lower levels of care to reduce future high-end placements.