Lawmakers, advocates debate adding 19-year-olds to Vermont juvenile system amid staffing and data concerns

Lawmakers and witnesses at a Judiciary committee hearing reviewed whether Vermont should expand juvenile-jurisdiction "raise the age" provisions to include 19-year-olds, with defenders, racial-equity staff and youth-justice advocates urging more resources and clearer data before moving forward.

"We're not opposed to further delay of the expansion to age 19," said Marshall Paul, deputy defender general and chief juvenile defender, while arguing the office supports the policy but wants implementation done in a way that can work. Susana Davis, executive director of racial equity for the state of Vermont, urged lawmakers to "just say what it's going to take" to make the change sustainably and requested better data on seasonality, staffing and housing needs for older youth.

The hearing focused on several recurring concerns: which crimes must be filed in family (juvenile) division versus criminal court, how transfer hearings can delay resolution and harm victims, whether the state's attorney can direct-file a case as a youthful offender (YO) when 19-year-olds are within juvenile jurisdiction, and whether existing DCF and court staffing levels can absorb any increased caseload.

Witnesses described how statute-by-statute filing rules affect case paths. One department representative explained that offenses listed in the jurisdictional statute (referred to in testimony as "5402 a," the "big 11 plus 3") must be filed in family division; other listed misdemeanors and felonies fall outside that list and are currently handled differently. The representative warned that some felonies that fall outside the "big" list are serious and "cause massive harm" to victims.

Marshall Paul said juvenile court provides disposition tools that adult criminal court typically does not, including individualized case plans, rehabilitative supervision and routine victim impact statements for misdemeanors. He also said the family division generally moves faster than criminal court on many cases and that juvenile dispositions can offer accountability without the long prison terms available in adult sentencing. Paul warned, however, that a known "ping-pong" problem'cases moving between family division and criminal court'can prolong proceedings and harm victims and alleged offenders.

Judge David Martin, testifying for the Council for Equitable Youth Justice, said the council supports including 19-year-olds but repeated the implementation caveat: timing and resources matter. Martin cited a recidivism study showing high reoffending in this age group, and said "recidivism in this population is high. It came out at close to 47%." He gave a numerical snapshot of recent charging patterns presented to the committee for fiscal year 2024: 35 felony charges for 19-year-olds (19 of which fit the larger crime list and would be filed in criminal court), about 195 misdemeanor charges, and a cited figure of 152 pending matters that witnesses said should be disaggregated to show how many would generate new probation caseloads versus diversion or dismissal.

The Office of Racial Equity asked the committee to collect more precise operational data. Susana Davis said the office wants information on how many unique 18- and 19-year-old cases would become eligible, whether funding has been allocated to update DCF case-management systems, and whether lived experience has been included in planning. She emphasized concerns about workforce capacity and the need to consider how seasonal reporting cycles could affect apparent caseload trends.

Multiple witnesses proposed legislative or administrative fixes short of repeal. Suggestions included clarifying the statutory language that controls transfer and youthful-offender consideration so hearings could be combined or streamlined and extending the age to which juvenile supervision may continue (testimony noted Vermont currently allows some supervision to 19 1/2). Marshall Paul and other witnesses pointed out that many other states allow supervision to age 20 or older; one survey mentioned in testimony (2019) showed 34 states with an age-20 supervisory threshold and several states with higher limits.

Witnesses also noted recent system improvements: Marshall Paul praised the opening of Red Clover, a secure youth facility, saying it fills a high-need placement and that the office is "really pleased" with programming and staff. But all sides said that openings like Red Clover do not alone solve workforce, data or procedural issues that the Legislature must address before expanding jurisdiction.

The committee did not take votes at the hearing. Members asked staff to gather follow-up materials and arrange additional briefings, including deeper data on charges, outcomes and the resource implications of any expansion. Several witnesses volunteered to provide further analyses and to meet with committee staff.

The hearing closed with plans for further committee work and for additional departmental and external testimony to address the staffing, data and statutory-transfer issues raised by witnesses.