Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Cuts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DCF budget presents cuts to prevention and some post‑adoption services; Reach First program slated for elimination
Summary
In the FY27 presentation DCF proposed eliminating the Reach First diversion program, reducing the Nurturing Parent Program by 50%, and removing underutilized post‑adoption consortium funding; staff said some cuts reflect services not delivered because of system or revenue constraints.
Department officials told the Senate Recommendations Committee that balancing the fiscal 2027 request required difficult program choices, including several reductions and eliminations affecting prevention, post‑adoption supports and small grant lines.
Key reductions and their justification - Reach First elimination: DCF proposed ending the Reach First program, which provided short‑term diversion supports and served about 15 households per month for an average of four months. Staff said they believe Reachup can absorb those costs within the Reachup budget. - Nurturing Parent Program: funding would be cut by 50%. The program, administered by Prevent Child Abuse Vermont (transcript reference: "French child abuse Vermont"), provides parenting classes to eligible households. - Post‑permanence and post‑adoption consortium cuts: DCF proposed reducing post‑permanence funding and eliminating a $200,000 line that had recorded only about $2,000 in spending last year; staff cited underutilization as the reason for removal. - FFPSA aftercare funding: DCF proposed removing funding for aftercare services tied to the Family First Prevention Services Act, stating the department cannot claim more than a limited amount of 4E revenue for residential placements without a comprehensive child welfare information system (CCIS). Staff said because the services were not being delivered (CCIS gaps), removing the spending authority would not cut active services.
Program impacts and data Staff emphasized some of these cuts do not correspond to immediate service losses: for example, the post‑adoption consortium line had minimal drawdown last year. For FFPSA aftercare, staff cited systems and revenue constraints as the barrier to providing the service. The department flagged that some savings reflect duplication removal where similar supports exist elsewhere in DCF.
Questions from the committee Committee members asked whether reductions would lead to unmet needs and pressed for follow‑up data; staff offered to return with more detail in the budget book and in a future session.
Closing note Committee members asked DCF to return with more detailed housing initiative and program‑level explanations; staff said the budget book contains a dedicated housing initiative section.
