Debate Intensifies Over ‘Raise the Age’ Court Reform

In 2018, Vermont lawmakers approved a historic overhaul of the state’s juvenile justice system known as “Raise the Age.” Based on science that shows young people’s brains are still developing well into their twenties, the reform was designed to divert most 18- and 19-year-old offenders into family court, where proceedings are confidential.

But while the initial phase took effect in 2020, making Vermont the first state in the nation to treat 18-year-old defendants as juveniles, lawmakers have repeatedly postponed expanding the law to 19-year-olds — most recently until July 2027.

The delays have come at the request of Gov. Phil Scott’s administration. After initially arguing that the Department for Children and Families needed more time to prepare, state officials now want the expansion nixed altogether.

As lawmakers weigh whether to let the expanded law take effect next summer, a new study is adding pressure to move forward. It found far fewer 18-year-olds were convicted of new crimes after going through family court than before the reform.

Supporters say the results offer yet more evidence that outcomes are better for teens who break the law when their cases are handled in a system focused more on rehabilitation than punishment.

At least one key lawmaker agrees. “My inclination is to go with what the data is telling,” said House Judiciary Committee chair Martin LaLonde (D-South Burlington), who is running unopposed in next month’s election.

LaLonde said he believes lawmakers will keep the expansion on track. And, should Scott be reelected in November, LaLonde said he’d be wary of granting the administration yet another delay.

“They’re going to have to have a very good excuse,” he said.

Vermont’s Raise the Age law does not cover most serious crimes. Eighteen-year-olds accused of one of the so-called “Big 12” offenses — including murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault and certain sexual assaults — stay in adult court, where they are supervised by the Department of Corrections and face potential prison time if convicted.

In the recent study, the Crime Research Group, a Vermont nonprofit, followed 377 family court cases involving 18-year-olds since the reform took effect in 2020.

Driving offenses were the most common charge, accounting for about 43 percent of cases, followed by public disorder crimes (17 percent), assaults (16 percent), domestic assaults (8 percent) and thefts (6 percent). The study also included 10 18-year-olds accused of sexual assault and one accused of a weapon-related crime.

The study found that only 7 percent of the 377 defendants were convicted of another crime in the following year. Among the 160 who could be followed for three years, about 19 percent were convicted of new offenses.

Those recidivism rates were far lower than in the traditional court system. The same research group reviewed cases involving 18- and 19-year-olds who were convicted between 2016 and 2019. They found a one-year recidivism rate of 24 percent and a three-year rate of 46 percent.

The researchers cautioned that the two groups aren’t directly comparable because the earlier study looked only at people who had been convicted of a crime, excluding those whose cases were referred to court-diversion programs. They said the results don’t establish for a fact that family court reduces reoffending compared to adult court.

Supporters say the caveats don’t change the overall picture and note that the findings align with the conclusions researchers have long reported about young people and crime.

“There is a deep grounding in the literature that says most youth are able to desist from criminality after one incident,” said Matthew Bernstein, Vermont’s child, youth and family advocate.

Most youth are able to desist from criminality after one incident.
Matthew Bernstein

The study has been received with more caution in the governor’s office, where Scott’s stance on Raise the Age has changed over time.

In 2021, when vetoing a separate bill that would have prevented police from releasing arrest information about people under 20, Scott wrote that he had been assured the state could properly serve these young adults in family court before Raise the Age was fully implemented.

“This has not yet been the case,” Scott wrote. “In addition to ongoing housing challenges, programs designed and implemented for children under 18 are often not appropriate for those over 18.”

In family court, DCF fills the role that the Department of Corrections plays in adult court, providing supervision and coordinating services. Before any hearing occurs, the agency screens young defendants for potential treatment needs and risk of reoffending, and many cases end there, either because they are diverted into restorative justice programs or dismissed altogether.

In the cases that move forward, a hearing is held at which prosecutors offer evidence to show that the teen broke the law. A judge can then place a defendant on juvenile probation — the most common outcome — and DCF draws up a detailed case plan aimed at getting the teenager the help they need to stop breaking the law.

It’s a much more involved process than a typical adult court case, according to Marshall Pahl, an attorney who represents young people in juvenile court.

“But there’s a payoff for that,” he said. “There’s a reason why we do it.”

DCF officials, who were grappling with pandemic-related disruption, lobbied lawmakers in 2022 and 2023 to delay the expansion to 19-year-olds. They cited a need for additional caseworkers as well as a new secure juvenile facility that could temporarily house young offenders deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. That part of the juvenile justice system has been in flux since the 2020 closure of the Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center amid allegations of abuse by staff.

Then, in 2024, DCF and the governor began calling for the expansion to be postponed indefinitely. In his budget address, Scott said he may have made a mistake in signing what amounted to a “policy experiment.”

“We didn’t plan for, or build, the system needed to address extreme cases, or have the workforce to support it,” he said. “We focused so much on our well-intentioned goals that we didn’t think through all the possible consequences.”

In an interview last week, Scott’s general counsel, Jaye Pershing Johnson, described the administration’s shift as an “evolutionary process” based on “real-life observations.”

She said the governor has been leery of Raise the Age from the beginning and suggested that he signed the bill only because his DCF leaders at the time were proponents of the change.

Laying out the administration’s current position, Johnson raised numerous objections to expanding juvenile jurisdiction to 19-year-olds.

During the first phase of Raise the Age, DCF caseworkers have encountered challenges at times in getting 18-year-olds — who, as legal adults, have a right to deny services — to comply with their juvenile case plans, according to Johnson.

She pointed to another tool for dealing with them: youthful offender status, a middle ground between adult and juvenile court.

People 21 and younger who are charged in criminal court can ask to have their case handled that way. If granted by prosecutors and judges, the youthful offender case moves to family court. But the status can be revoked if they don’t follow court orders, Johnson said, providing a proverbial stick that encourages young people to engage.

Victims, meanwhile, find that the confidentiality of family court and the lack of punishment can leave them feeling unsupported, Johnson said.

Those same complaints apply to 18-year-olds, of course. And yet Johnson said Scott is “cautiously optimistic” that keeping them in juvenile court makes sense, given the recent study’s findings.

The administration’s position thus boils down to a single argument: Nineteen-year-olds are different from 18-year-olds in ways that make them unlikely to have similar outcomes.

DCF officials say an important indicator of success lies in how much support offenders have around them. Eighteen-year-olds are more likely to still be in school and to live at home, according to DCF, making them more likely to engage in the services offered through family court.

“The buy-in you get from them really does shift from 18 to 19,” said Hannah Marble, DCF’s director of communications and legislative affairs, who previously oversaw caseworkers as a district director.

The idea that 19 poses a meaningful dividing line puzzles Lael Chester, who is the director of the Emerging Adult Justice Project at Columbia University’s Justice Lab.

Chester said she’s not aware of any research that would back up the idea that 18- and 19-year-olds have drastically different circumstances. Few 19-year-olds live independently, she said, and many are still in school.

“They’re absolutely still dependent on other adults, financially, emotionally and practically,” she said. “They are making their way to independence, but that’s going to take years. And that is why the family court and the juvenile system is a much better fit.”

For Liz Ryan, who served as the administrator of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention under president Joe Biden, the Scott administration’s stance raises another question.

“If there is a concern for not having enough support for 19-year-olds, why don’t you create them?” she asked.

The state wouldn’t have to look far for a blueprint. A year after Vermont enacted Raise the Age, DCF officials — with the help of Chester, the Columbia University researcher — created a detailed implementation plan. The 70-page document laid out nearly a dozen broad steps that the state could take to help teens in the juvenile system, from expanding diversion programs to more community-based supports.

Very few of the plan’s recommendations have been enacted, according to Bernstein, the child advocate. He said he has seen the state “treading water” for years now and feels that any time there’s positive news about Raise the Age, “the sands seem to shift.”

“I wish that as much energy would go into implementing Raise the Age as has gone into not implementing,” he said.

Lawmakers share that frustration. LaLonde said he believes there has been “a lot of foot dragging” among state officials because they don’t want to expand Raise the Age. He said he’s hopeful that the administration will finally be ready for the expansion next year.

He will almost certainly be disappointed.

While the chronically understaffed DCF has made headway on addressing vacancies — open jobs have fallen to about 7 percent, from an average of 11 in 2024 — agency officials say it will take more than just additional caseworkers to serve 19-year-olds.

“When we talk about the support and systems that these young people need, it expands more broadly into mental health, housing,” said Aryka Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division.

“Many pieces need to be in place to give them the best opportunity that they deserve,” Radke continued. “Given what we know and what we’ve learned, without those pieces in place, we simply do not believe there is success to be had.”

Bernstein, the advocate, called DCF’s position disingenuous. The agency has had years to build out the services it says are needed to fully implement Raise the Age.

Meanwhile, 18-year-olds are succeeding despite very little investment in the program.

“They’re rising to the challenge,” he said. “Will the state do the same? Right now, the answer is unclear.” ➆

The original print version of this article was headlined “Age Appropriate? | Advocates say it’s time to treat most 19-year-old offenders as minors in court. State officials disagree.”