Vermont advisers urge better juvenile-justice data, warn youthful-offender status carries risks

Judge Davenport and Karen Bastien, speaking for the Council For Equitable Youth Justice, told the Vermont House Judiciary Committee that available court and agency records show trends in juvenile filings but that the state lacks accessible, joined-up data to measure outcomes and program effectiveness.

The council—s chair, Karen Bastien, described the group as an advisory body required under federal law and attached for administrative purposes to the Department for Children and Families. "The Council For Equitable Youth Justice is Vermont's advisory group, for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention," Bastien said, noting the council manages federal juvenile-justice grant funds and supports implementation of Act 201.

The council asked the committee to prioritize three areas, Judge Davenport said: "data collection and accessibility, programming for youth in the juvenile justice system, and recidivism studies." She told lawmakers that Vermont's court filing counts show shifting volumes since FY18: delinquencies were in the 800—range in FY18 then dipped and roughly stabilized near 679 to 700 in recent years, while youthful-offender filings declined from roughly 383 to 256 in the most recent year cited.

On outcomes, the council cautioned that filings are an imperfect proxy. Davenport said court data can show whether matters were adjudicated, dismissed, diverted or sent to precharge diversion, but that DCF sometimes never sees precharge diversions. She highlighted county-by-county variation in diversion usage and that some counties report diversion at near 50 percent while others report 0 percent.

The council described two programs funded from its federal allocation: a multi-year effort to develop programming tailored to intimate-partner domestic violence among older teens, and law-enforcement restorative-justice training aimed at increasing precharge diversion. Bastien said the intimate-partner program took five years to develop and is being rolled out statewide; she added that law-enforcement training produced mixed results because officers already committed to restorative practices were likelier to participate.

On recidivism, the council cited a contracted study of 18- and 19-year-olds adjudicated in the criminal division that found "it's almost 46%" recidivism within a three-year window, with most new offenses occurring in the first six months after a prior adjudication. The presenters said a robust recidivism study is costly and requires a multi-year follow-up to be useful, and they urged the committee to agree on shared data points and a clear timeframe before commissioning further research.

Laura Carter, a data analyst with the Division of Racial Justice Statistics in the Office of Racial Equity, told the committee that Vermont—s agencies have "a lot of data" but too little of it is easily queryable or joined across systems. Carter said the division was established by Act 142 (2022) and stressed that DCF and other agencies still rely on multiple, siloed systems and spreadsheets; the lack of complete, standardized elements complicates timely analysis and policy-making.

Carter and the council called for stronger data governance, clearer mandatory data elements, improved information-sharing arrangements across agencies, and attention to whether to structure new systems as a single integrated platform or modular components. She noted an existing RFP to replace DCF's CCWIS-era data systems and urged that design choices be guided by business needs, privacy rules and long-term maintenance capacity.

Committee members and presenters also discussed the practical differences between juvenile delinquency cases and youthful-offender status. Presenters explained that youthful-offender status originates in the adult court context, can expose a young person to an "open" adult sentence if probation is revoked, and therefore tends to benefit youths who have strong community supports. By contrast, a deferred adult sentence can allow negotiated plea terms that cap exposure if conditions are violated. Speakers repeatedly emphasized that successful program and supervision outcomes depend on supports, not only on the label attached to a case.

Lawmakers asked about next steps; presenters recommended the committee convene additional sessions to define the most important data points, consider funding for a future recidivism study once COVID-era distortions have waned, and coordinate with technology and procurement committees on DCF's systems replacement.