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
This story is evidently written by AI and contains a number of errors. For accurate information, please see the OCYFA 2025-2026 Annual Report (link below) and our recent testimony.
Thank you for sharing the OCYFA report. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing testimony, public records, and related documents before publishing this article, and the reporting reflects my own editorial judgment and responsibility.
If there are specific factual errors in the story, please feel free to identify them so they can be reviewed. A general claim that the article contains “a number of errors” is difficult to evaluate without pointing to the particular information in question.
The OCYFA report you linked is certainly relevant to the broader discussion about Vermont’s juvenile system, and readers may find it useful as additional context.
Thanks for your reply, Tom. The biggest thing is that the article is based heavily on the work of the OCYFA, but you don't give proper attribution (on the "testimony" you cite, for example), and you didn't reach out to us on this story.
Also: the article seems to be talking primarily about H. 657, not H. 30, but doesn't mention H. 657; the headline doesn't make sense and doesn't match the article content; the $1.7 M is a reduction to a line-item for future FFPSA-related funding, not to FFPSA funding itself (i.e. active programs); West River Haven is not a "secure" program; these contracts are not "interim"; it is not clear where the term "availability payment" structure came from; it appears you didn't look at the actual West River Haven contract; and if you are going to say that the state "must" continue work on identifying a permanent location for the youth detention facility, then you should say whose perspective the "must" represents. Because we would disagree with that statement.
I do truly appreciate you covering these topics, and my aim is not to be a naysayer, but if you had reached out to us before publishing, the article would have been stronger. Isn't that standard protocol?
Hi Matthew, I truly appreciate your insights. If you are interested in writing a letter to the editor with your clarifications and observations, I would certainly publish it without editing parentheses with the usual editorial standards of course. I appreciate the dialogue. Tom
......."It's spending is fourth-lowest on preventive services at 2% and second-lowest on child protection"........For a State so far left, school budgets[ highest in the Nation] with "It's about the Kids" one would think they would care more about "Juvenile Delinquency". I guess not....
This story is evidently written by AI and contains a number of errors. For accurate information, please see the OCYFA 2025-2026 Annual Report (link below) and our recent testimony.
https://childadvocate.vermont.gov/sites/ocyf/files/documents/2025-2026%20OCYFA%20Annual%20Report%20FINAL_.pdf
Matthew,
Thank you for sharing the OCYFA report. I spent a significant amount of time reviewing testimony, public records, and related documents before publishing this article, and the reporting reflects my own editorial judgment and responsibility.
If there are specific factual errors in the story, please feel free to identify them so they can be reviewed. A general claim that the article contains “a number of errors” is difficult to evaluate without pointing to the particular information in question.
The OCYFA report you linked is certainly relevant to the broader discussion about Vermont’s juvenile system, and readers may find it useful as additional context.
Tom Davis, Publisher
Thanks for your reply, Tom. The biggest thing is that the article is based heavily on the work of the OCYFA, but you don't give proper attribution (on the "testimony" you cite, for example), and you didn't reach out to us on this story.
Also: the article seems to be talking primarily about H. 657, not H. 30, but doesn't mention H. 657; the headline doesn't make sense and doesn't match the article content; the $1.7 M is a reduction to a line-item for future FFPSA-related funding, not to FFPSA funding itself (i.e. active programs); West River Haven is not a "secure" program; these contracts are not "interim"; it is not clear where the term "availability payment" structure came from; it appears you didn't look at the actual West River Haven contract; and if you are going to say that the state "must" continue work on identifying a permanent location for the youth detention facility, then you should say whose perspective the "must" represents. Because we would disagree with that statement.
I do truly appreciate you covering these topics, and my aim is not to be a naysayer, but if you had reached out to us before publishing, the article would have been stronger. Isn't that standard protocol?
Hi Matthew, I truly appreciate your insights. If you are interested in writing a letter to the editor with your clarifications and observations, I would certainly publish it without editing parentheses with the usual editorial standards of course. I appreciate the dialogue. Tom
Sorry, that wasn't AI, it was my voice recognition on my phone, as I was walking my dogs. It should have been ().
......."It's spending is fourth-lowest on preventive services at 2% and second-lowest on child protection"........For a State so far left, school budgets[ highest in the Nation] with "It's about the Kids" one would think they would care more about "Juvenile Delinquency". I guess not....