Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Raise The Age topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates tell Judiciary Committee Raise the Age data gaps hinder planning
Summary
The state's child-and-family advocate and deputy advocate urged the Judiciary Committee to rely on improved, disaggregated data to assess Raise the Age impacts and said existing counts of filings, custody and probation are incomplete or inconsistently presented.
Matthew Bernstein, child, youth and family advocate for the state of Vermont, told the committee his independent office — created two years earlier — was charged with systemic advocacy and with examining how Act 201 (Raise the Age) is being implemented. "We're about 2 years old, Independent state office that engages in systemic advocacy on behalf of children served by DCF," he said, and urged the committee to separate concerns about the broader juvenile system from the narrow change taking effect April 1, 2025.
Bernstein said statewide data presentation has been inconsistent and at times blending different categories (for example, delinquencies across ages and categories), complicating an accurate assessment of whether phase 2 of Raise the Age will increase DCF or court workload. "It has been really frustrating in all of the conversation about raise the age to see the lack of clear data," he said. Bernstein and other presenters noted available statistics use different reporting periods (calendar year, state fiscal year, federal fiscal year), hindering comparisons.
The advocates supplied examples the committee can refine. They cited a snapshot from a Columbia Justice Lab compilation showing roughly 1,009 juvenile justice filings in state fiscal 2023, with about 700 delinquencies and 215 youthful-offender charges, and said updated data for 2023–25 is needed. Bernstein pointed to a separate panel of judiciary data that showed similar monthly volumes for delinquencies among 18-year-olds and misdemeanor filings for 19-year-olds, which he said could be used to estimate the expected monthly impact when phase 2 adds 19-year-olds on April 1, 2025.
Committee members asked for more granular counts — such as age breakdowns, the disposition of filings (diversion, dismissal, probation, custody), and how many youths on probation also have child-welfare involvement — to avoid an inflated picture based on filings alone. Bernstein said the office had requested more detailed disposition-level data from the judiciary and DCF and expected to return with updated numbers. He noted that some reporting is obtainable via existing systems but may require focused queries and improvements in DCF and court information systems.
Lawmakers also raised IT limitations in state systems. A legislator said that, historically, DCF's case-management system was outdated and an RFP to replace it had failed; presenters recommended a phased, modular approach rather than a single large contract. Bernstein said federal funds and waivers present potential revenue sources for both services and data-system work but that implementing those programs is administratively complex and requires dedicated expertise.
The advocates concluded that better assessment tools and consistent reporting are essential to tailor services to youth needs and to measure whether the Raise the Age change will require additional resources or changes in operation.
