Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Services And Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers question capacity gaps: out‑of‑state placements, restorative services and staff caseloads
Summary
Committee members pressed the department about residential treatment availability, out‑of‑state placements (Florida, Tennessee), gaps in restorative‑justice provider capacity (Barge) and high juvenile casework intensity compared with ideal caseload targets.
Lawmakers used the hearing to press DCF and DOC witnesses about where Vermont sends youth who need specialized treatment, the availability of community‑based alternatives, and the workload on social workers who supervise justice‑involved youth.
Mindy Bugereau described Balanced Restorative Justice Services (Barge), a DCF‑funded contract that provides prevention, diversion screening (YASI prescreens in many districts), restorative circles, case management and victim‑related restorative work across the state. Bugereau said Barge covers most counties but cannot meet all current demand: “Some counties there’s a wait list. Some counties they don’t accept referrals. So that’s how they manage it,” she told lawmakers, adding that Barge could expand with additional funding.
Committee members also questioned where Vermont places youth who require higher levels of care. Witnesses confirmed Vermont uses some out‑of‑state residential providers and named Florida and Tennessee among states where placements have been used; witnesses said the state is pursuing an in‑state psychiatric residential treatment facility to reduce long‑distance placements.
Multiple lawmakers raised availability concerns for assessments and treatment — wait lists and uneven geographic coverage — and asked DCF to supply county‑by‑county data on how many youth are placed in‑state versus out‑of‑state and the per‑night cost and provider ownership type (nonprofit/for‑profit). DCF agreed to attempt to produce the cost and placement location data.
Staffing and caseloads were a consistent concern. Witnesses and lawmakers referenced an “ideal” juvenile justice caseload of 12 clients per worker, while describing real‑world caseload ranges that vary by district: social‑work caseloads for justice involvement were described in discussion as commonly in the “15 to 30” range depending on staffing and district size. Department of Corrections staff said an adult risk‑management statutory cap is 45 and a juvenile cap for certain positions is 25, but field realities vary.
Officials also described monthly face‑to‑face visit requirements for supervised youth, the need for monthly in‑person visits for youth placed out of state, and the workload implications of frequent travel and court work for social workers overseeing higher‑acuity youth.
Ending: Lawmakers asked the department to supply additional data (out‑of‑state placement counties and states, per‑night costs, nonprofit/for‑profit provider categorization, and wait‑list detail) and signaled that capacity and workforce constraints will figure centrally in upcoming deliberations on juvenile‑justice policy.
