State officials urge pause on April 1 expansion to include 19‑year‑olds, citing staffing and capacity gaps

Vermont Legislature’s Judiciary Committee — Department of Public Safety and Department for Children and Families officials told the committee on Jan. 21 they recommend pausing or delaying the planned April 1 expansion of delinquency jurisdiction to include 19‑year‑olds, citing staff shortages, limited secure placement capacity and mixed evidence on whether such expansions reduce future offending.

Tucker Jones, assistant general counsel at the Vermont Department of Public Safety, framed the committee’s decision as a “go/no‑go” call about whether to implement the April 1 deadline. Jones said he had collected testimony from prosecutors, DCF social workers and outside research and told lawmakers the on‑the‑ground feedback was concerning. “It’s going to double all the problems I have now with 18 year olds,” Jones said, quoting frontline prosecutors and social workers who described workforce strain and rising needs among youth.

The department’s warning rested on three types of “weather reports,” Jones said: (1) testimony from DCF workers and union representatives who told lawmakers the system was strained; (2) written comments from state’s attorneys and sheriffs to the joint legislative justice oversight body; and (3) academic literature. Jones read excerpts from a 2022 Massachusetts study by Charles Loeffler that, he said, found “Contrary to expectations ... Raise the Age did not lead to reductions in recidivism for affected 17 year olds. Instead, recidivism for this group actually increased by between 4% and 5% over the 5 years that followed the implementation.” Jones said the study recommends a cautious approach to future expansions until benefits can be confirmed.

Department for Children and Families officials described operational limits that they said undercut a smooth expansion. Erica Radke, deputy commissioner of DCF’s Family Services Division, said the agency “does believe that there needs to be some reforms made to youthful offender statutes to better serve our youth and also a repeal of raise the age for 19 year olds, really to ensure accountability.” Radke and other DCF witnesses told the committee they have learned lessons from the first phase of juvenile jurisdiction expansion and are concerned about an “accountability gap” for older youth who can decline services and, in some cases, age out of supervision without completing court‑ordered conditions.

Frontline DCF supervisors and program directors gave the committee numbers and program constraints. Nikki Duran, family services supervisor in Burlington, said the Burlington juvenile services team has five identified juvenile services workers carrying a combined 108 cases, “which averages about 25 cases per worker” and that workers often must triage work across child protection, at‑risk and delinquency caseloads. Duran said intensive casework — helping youth with housing referrals, treatment engagement and employment supports — requires time many workers cannot provide consistently.

Tyler Allen, DCF’s high‑end system‑of‑care director, clarified program limits: Red Clover Treatment Program’s contract permits placement of youth only up to their 18th birthday and cannot accept 18‑ or 19‑year‑olds. Lindy Boudreaux, adolescent services director, said DCF lacks a secure facility that will house 18‑ to 19‑year‑olds as delinquent youth and that the closure of Woodside reduced secure‑placement options. DCF officials said two programs that can serve 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds are Return House and a program in Bennington known to staff as “208.”

Officials described operational consequences that concern them if the expansion proceeds without added capacity: longer court delays that reduce the window for effective supervision, limited programming for specific needs (for example, trauma‑informed treatment for sexualized behaviors and services for youth with firearm‑related risks), and turnover in DCF staff that reduces continuity of supervision. Duran said violations of probation can be filed when youth do not engage, but in delinquency docket cases filing violations often does not create additional enforceable sanctions that would ensure successful completion; in some cases the youth’s case closes with an “unsatisfactory discharge.”

Committee members pressed for data. Jones and DCF witnesses said Vermont lacks comprehensive, long‑term recidivism studies for the exact population at issue and that available state data are limited; Jones cited the Massachusetts study as an example of mixed findings in other jurisdictions and encouraged the committee to compare implementation contexts before extending Vermont’s program.

Several lawmakers voiced concern that, while serious violent offenses already would begin in criminal court under current filing rules, the proposed expansion would mostly affect misdemeanors and non‑“big 14” felony practice and could thereby alter where lower‑level offenses are handled.

The hearing closed with committee members asking DCF to submit written testimony and additional caseload and program data. No formal vote or committee decision on the April 1 implementation was recorded during the session.

What happens next: Committee members said they would receive the written materials the witnesses referenced, including the Loeffler study and DCF caseload details, and follow up with additional hearings. The committee did not adopt any new statutory language or take a formal vote at the Jan. 21 hearing.