Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Yasi Youthful Offender Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers probe YASI screening, diversion presumption and youthful-offender process as 'raise the age' work approaches
Summary
Committee members pressed DCF and Field Services staff about the YASI screening tool, the presumption of diversion for non–"big 11" offenses, youthful-offender eligibility to age 21 and process bottlenecks that can delay consideration hearings.
Committee members asked department staff detailed questions about how juvenile cases are screened and routed and how the youthful-offender process operates for older teens and young adults.
Mindy Bugereau, Adolescent Services Director, said the state uses the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) and that Vermont began using it in 2007. “The tool is designed to target our case planning efforts and reduce recidivism,” Bugereau told the committees, noting the YASI is a two‑phase, evidence‑based instrument with ten domains that include home environment, school and connections.
Bugereau explained a statutory “presumption of diversion” for youth charged with non–“big 11” offenses who score as lower‑to‑moderate risk on the YASI; that presumption may be overcome by a state’s attorney who states on the record why diversion would not meet the ends of justice. Committee members pressed whether youth are reliably notified of the opportunity to be screened. Bugereau said the statute requires youth be afforded the opportunity to take the screening and that an explicit court notification requirement exists for youthful‑offender (YO) considerations but not for delinquency cases, which can reduce early uptake of the tool.
Officials described the youthful‑offender (YO) pathway as a confidential family‑division process that can limit collateral consequences for youth if they successfully complete YO probation. Bugereau said Vermont expanded eligibility to seek youthful‑offender consideration through age 21 in a statutory change that took effect in 2018. She told the committees the expansion caused an initial spike in consideration filings — from 34 cases statewide in the year before the change to 504 cases the following year — and that DCF now writes a report for courts during the YO consideration process.
Lawmakers raised several procedural concerns: delays in courts reaching merits hearings (some merits hearings can take months), difficulty contacting youth in timeframes set by statute (YASI reports are due within 15 days of notification), and data limitations within the department’s information system that make it hard to distinguish delinquency from YO cases without county-by-county court-derived counts. One committee member asked the department to provide the number of YO petitions filed and the number granted by county; a DCF official said DOC and court records can yield the adjudicated YO counts and that the department would supply available reports.
Ending: Committee members said they will use this operational detail to inform upcoming sessions where the Judiciary Committee will dig into “raise the age” policy changes; DCF agreed to provide more precise counts of YO requests and grants and to clarify who provides notice and when screening is offered.
