Lawmakers Hear DCF, Advocates on 'Raise the Age' as Committee Flags Workforce, Funding and Accountability Gaps

A Judiciary Committee hearing on "Raise the Age" focused Wednesday on whether extending juvenile court jurisdiction to include 19‑year‑olds should proceed while the Department for Children and Families and community partners remain short‑staffed.

The discussion centered on capacity, accountability and the difference between juvenile delinquency jurisdiction and the "youthful offender" path into criminal court. Matthew Bernstein, the child, youth and family advocate for the state of Vermont, told the committee that the state should prioritize building services before changing jurisdictional age: "Simply, you know, accountability has many elements to it," Bernstein said, adding that incarceration can be counterproductive for many low‑level offenses.

Why it matters: Committee members and witnesses agreed the issue affects public safety, case outcomes and state budgets. Several DCF witnesses and advocates said raising the age to 19 without additional staff and community services could overload a system already reporting high caseloads and limited placement and residential capacity.

Key testimony and data

- Lindy (DCF staff) told the committee that, if Raise the Age moves forward on April 1, there are currently 152 unresolved cases that would transfer automatically to the Family Division; she said 55 of those are non‑Big‑11 felonies and 97 are misdemeanors. "Unless there's resolution, 152 cases will come to family division," Lindy said.

- Nikki (DCF staff) described front‑line capacity in Burlington: the office has five workers and "roughly 25" cases per worker — higher than the 15–16 families often cited as optimal for comparable child protective caseloads. "With my workers having 25 roughly cases each, that is above, I think what, or close to above what would be optimal," Nikki said.

- Tyler Allen, a witness, urged caution about language but agreed resources were constrained: "I would be hesitant to use the word 'reckless,' given the fact that there has been a great deal of deliberation ... I don't think I would categorize it as reckless decision making so much as being kind of self aware of where we're at as a state and what the capacity we have to do good work for the youth we serve."

- Matthew Bernstein and Lauren Higbie (deputy advocate) pressed the committee to consider research showing juvenile jurisdictions can reduce recidivism and improve long‑term outcomes; Bernstein cited a 2019 Act 21 implementation report and national evidence in urging investments in diversion, services and data rather than narrowing juvenile jurisdiction.

Capacity and service gaps

Witnesses described two linked shortages: direct DCF staff (caseworkers, supervisors and retention supports) and contracted community services (residential placements, restorative‑justice providers and transitional housing).

- Residential and contracted placements: testimony said residential providers have reduced capacity nationwide, making placements for youth with higher needs harder to find. One witness noted that providers are "defining what populations they can serve more narrowly," limiting options for youth with aggressive or high‑needs profiles.

- Workforce and retention: DCF witnesses described national recruitment and retention challenges and said the agency is piloting mentorship, wellness coordinators and stay interviews; representatives from DCF said those steps are recent and not yet sufficient to absorb a larger caseload from an expanded juvenile jurisdiction.

Costs and federal funds

Witnesses discussed drawing federal funds and possible state matches:

- Bernstein and other witnesses said Vermont already has a state match (about $7.8 million) to draw down additional federal funds for a redesigned DCF data system and related supports; they urged using federal Title IV‑E and Family First Prevention Services Act avenues to leverage federal money.

- Witnesses cited prior estimates of high per‑youth locked‑facility costs: a 2020 Justice Policy Institute figure of roughly $528,000 per youth at Woodside was referenced, and witnesses contrasted that large general‑fund cost to investments in community supports that can be partially federally matched.

Accountability and the youthful offender path

Committee members pressed witnesses on the "youthful offender" option — a path that can place cases in criminal court with the possibility of later sentencing if supervision is revoked. Several witnesses emphasized the legal and practical differences:

- Witnesses said youthful offender status can bring stronger sanctions (including incarceration) if revoked, while family‑division cases end jurisdiction at case closure without an automatic criminal‑court sentencing route.

- Bernstein said youthful offender tools exist for serious felony cases but argued that for low‑level charges the juvenile system's confidentiality and rehabilitative focus can better prevent long‑term harm and collateral consequences (for example, public arrest publicity that can hinder employment).

Committee process and next steps

Committee members asked witnesses for follow‑up materials and additional data. The chair asked witnesses to submit reports that were previously provided to the joint justice oversight committee; witnesses agreed to provide the documents. The committee said it plans to revisit accountability proposals in early February and will continue testimony the next day with additional witnesses.

Quotes from the hearing

"I just don't think that it would set the youth up to be as successful as they could be because they wouldn't have access to the supports that they need," Nikki said of current DCF capacity.

"We would not be able to make that shift universally from our caseload to theirs [restorative‑justice providers] without additional funding of at least one provider or one additional case manager in each program," Lindy said of scaling community supervision partners.

Ending

Lawmakers left Wednesday's hearing with several unresolved policy choices: whether to keep the Raise the Age expansion to 19 in place, how to fund and staff the DCF and contracted network if the expansion proceeds, and what accountability tools (including potential statutory changes or service expansions) the legislature should require. Committee members signaled they will seek more cost and caseload data and hear additional expert testimony before acting.

Votes at a glance: none (no formal motions or recorded votes on Raise the Age were taken during this hearing).