Vermont’s $8 Million Question: Why a New Juvenile Safety Bill Doesn’t Address the Cost of Empty Beds

Vermont spends 72% of its child welfare budget on out-of-home placements, the third-highest in the US. It's spending is fourth-lowest on preventive services at 2% and second-lowest on child protection

The Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center in Essex, which closed in 2020, cost roughly $548 per bed per day. The contracted replacement facilities cost Vermont up to $4,000 per bed per day, even when the bed is empty.

The Woodside Crisis and Its Aftermath

For decades, the Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center in Essex served as Vermont’s sole secure detention and treatment center for youth with acute behavioral and safety needs. The 30-bed facility operated with an annual budget of approximately $6 million, housing justice-involved youth and children in state custody who required locked placement.

The facility closed on October 1, 2020, following years of escalating legal and ethical crises. A federal lawsuit filed by Disability Rights Vermont in 2019 alleged that conditions at the facility were “conscience-shocking,” citing dangerous physical restraints and pain-inflicting maneuvers. A U.S. District Court judge granted an injunction requiring the Department for Children and Families to provide immediate training on national standards for physical intervention.

Internal investigations revealed a pattern of abuse. Evidence emerged of incidents including a young girl discovered by emergency medical personnel who was naked, covered in bodily fluids, and showing signs of hypothermia. In 2023, the state settled the federal lawsuit for $4.5 million, split among seven former residents, to address physical and psychological injuries sustained between 2016 and 2020.

The closure left Vermont without any secure infrastructure for high-needs youth, forcing the state to develop interim solutions while planning a permanent replacement facility—a process now entering its sixth year.

Understanding Vermont’s Interim Youth Facilities

The state currently operates two temporary secure programs to serve youth who previously would have been placed at Woodside. These facilities house children and teenagers who pose a risk to themselves or others and require locked placement.

The Red Clover Treatment Center in Middlesex operates four beds in repurposed trailers previously used as an adult mental health facility. The state’s contract with Sentinel Group, LLC totals approximately $10.7 million over two years, or roughly $4.1 million annually for the four-bed program.

The West River Haven program in Windham County provides three beds in renovated basement space at the Windham County Sheriff’s Office in Brattleboro. The state signed a five-year contract with Pennsylvania-based Cornell Abraxas Group valued at up to $21.5 million, or approximately $4.3 million per year.

The “Availability Payment” Structure

Both contracts operate under what state officials describe as “availability” payments. This means Vermont pays the full contract amount regardless of whether the beds are occupied. According to legislative testimony, the programs are billed “whether the bed is used or not.”

This structure results in a daily per-bed cost of approximately $2,808 at Red Clover and nearly $4,000 at West River Haven. For comparison, Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center had an annual budget of approximately $6 million for 30 beds, or roughly $548 per bed per day.

The combined annual cost for the seven interim beds exceeds $8 million, compared to $6 million for the 30-bed Woodside facility.

What Bill H.30 Actually Does

The Vermont legislature is currently considering H.30, an act relating to the use of seclusion and restraint on children and youth in Department for Children and Families custody. The bill emerged following reports that youth in Vermont custody have been physically restrained hundreds of times in recent years, according to a May. 2025 VTDigger article.

According to the 2025-2026 Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate annual report, there were 461 recorded instances of restraint or seclusion involving 57 unique children during the reporting period. The data revealed 47 individual instances of injury during these events, including suspected broken bones, ingested glass, and one fatality.

H.30 focuses on three main areas. First, it establishes legal definitions for “seclusion” and “restraint” in state statute to ensure all facilities follow the same standards. Second, it requires the Department for Children and Families to upgrade its information technology systems to properly track and report every instance of physical force used on a child. Third, it mandates that facility staff receive professional development on therapeutic alternatives to physical restraint.

What H.30 Does Not Address

The bill does not include provisions to renegotiate the interim facility contracts or implement occupancy-based billing instead of availability payments. It does not direct the state to reduce its reliance on high-cost secure beds or redirect funding toward community-based prevention programs.

According to the Child, Youth and Family Advocate’s legislative testimony, Vermont currently spends 72% of its child welfare budget on out-of-home placements, ranking third-highest in the nation in this category. The state ranks fourth-lowest nationally in spending on preventive services at 2% and second-lowest in spending on child protective services at 1%.

The fiscal structure of the interim contracts and the broader question of budget allocation between crisis response and prevention remain issues primarily debated in the state’s budget and appropriations committees, not through H.30.

The Prevention Programs Facing Cuts

Governor Phil Scott’s proposed budget for state fiscal years 2026 and 2027 includes significant reductions to prevention and post-adoption support programs. These proposed cuts are driven in part by funding limitations and the state’s failure to meet federal data standards, which has jeopardized eligibility for federal matching grants.

Prevent Child Abuse Vermont faces a 50% reduction in base appropriation of approximately $194,373, estimated to lead to a 30% reduction in programming affecting thousands of families. The Post-Permanence Program, which supports families who have adopted or taken guardianship of children in the welfare system, would see a reduction of $293,866. The Nurturing Parent Program faces complete elimination, saving $194,373.

Additionally, the budget proposes a $1.7 million reduction in Family First Prevention Services Act funding, which is intended to keep children out of state custody through evidence-based interventions.

The state’s inability to modernize its information technology system—a project that has received $8 million in funding but remains unfinished—is a primary driver of these losses. Because Vermont cannot accurately track child outcomes to federal standards, it is losing Title IV-E matching funds for adoption outreach and foster care facilitation.

What Happens Next

The legislature faces several distinct but interconnected decisions in the coming months.

Bill H.30 will move through the committee process with a focus on safety standards, data collection, and staff training requirements. If passed, the Department for Children and Families will need to implement new tracking systems and training protocols across all residential programs serving youth in state custody.

Separately, the appropriations committees will determine whether to accept the Governor’s proposed cuts to prevention programs or redirect funding to protect these services. This budgetary decision operates independently from H.30’s safety reforms.

The state must also continue work on identifying a permanent location for the Green Mountain Youth Campus, the proposed 14-bed facility intended to replace the interim programs.

The interim contracts with Sentinel Group and Cornell Abraxas Group will remain in effect under their current availability payment structure until a permanent facility opens or the contracts expire. Any changes to the fiscal model of these contracts would require separate legislative or administrative action outside the scope of H.30.