In this episode we will be continuing our discussion of the Foster Care to Prison Pipeline, focusing in on this system as it pertains to Vermont. This will be a discussion with two extremely knowledgeable individuals from the Department for Children and Families, Family Service Division; Deputy Commissioner Aryka Radke and Adolescent Services Unit Director Lindy Boudreau.
Guest Info:
Aryka Radke, JD Deputy Commissioner
Vermont Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division
Aryka Radke serves as Deputy Commissioner of the Family Services Division (FSD) within the Vermont Department for Children and Families. Appointed by Governor Phil Scott in 2021, she leads the division responsible for Vermont’s child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Since joining FSD, Aryka has advanced statewide efforts to strengthen family well-being and safety through restorative practices, trauma-informed care, and culturally responsive approaches. She has championed initiatives to support and retain the child welfare workforce, modernize information systems, and deepen collaboration across state and community partners to better serve children, youth, and families.
Nationally, Aryka serves on the Executive Advisory Group of the National Partnership for Child Safety and on the Executive Committee of the New England Association of Child Welfare Commissioners and Directors, contributing to regional and national efforts to improve safety, accountability, and learning in child welfare systems.
Originally from Chicago, Aryka holds a Bachelor of Science in Education and Social Policy from Northwestern University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Chicago Law School. Her prior public service includes leadership and adjudicatory roles with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration, and as Vice Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Industrial Commission of Arizona.
Outside of work, Aryka enjoys time with her husband and two daughters, attending sporting events, playing board games, and traveling.
Lindy Boudreau, MSW is the Adolescent Services Director for the Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division. Lindy earned her Master’s in Social Work from the University of Vermont in 2009. Lindy has worked for the Department for Children and Families for the past 33 years. Her experience includes working as a Child Protection and Juvenile Services Social Worker, Social Services Supervisor, and later as the Juvenile Justice Director.
Throughout her time with FSD, Lindy has advanced statewide efforts to enhance restorative practices in the division. She has developed opportunities to promote learning and leadership opportunities for staff and contract providers, through a collaboration with Vermont Law and Graduate School. She has championed efforts to reduce collateral consequences for youth, by creating alternatives to prosecution that promote better outcomes for youth.
Outside of work, Lindy enjoys time with her husband and two dogs, boating and spending time with family and friends.
Host Info:
Mackenzie Leonard is a senior at Champlain College graduating May 2026. She is studying for her Bachelor of Social Work with Minors in Family Studies and in Criminal Justice. Mackenzie is currently a social work intern at the Vermont Child Welfare Training Partnership as a part of her studies.
Transcript:
Lindy Boudreau (00:00):
We’re really trying to emphasize the importance of looking at the folks who are most impacted, which are the youth and families, and making sure that we elevate their voice and give them agency in the process.
Chynah Boise (00:14):
Hello, you are listening to the Social Work lens, and I’m Chynah Boise. The social work lens is a collaboration between the University of Vermont’s Child Welfare Training partnership and the State of Vermont. Last episode, we took a look at some of the national research in regard to the impact of trauma and system involvement on youth with Dr. Sherri Simmons- Horton. This week Mackenzie will sit down with Vermont Department for children and Family, family services division leaders to make sense of where this research intersects with Vermont systems of care and what Vermonters are doing to transform systems in service to better outcomes for youth. Thank you, Mackenzie.
Mackenzie Leonard (00:53):
Thank you, Chynah. Today I am joined by Family Services Division Deputy Commissioner Aryka Radke, who has been in this role for five years, and by adolescent services unit director Lindy Boudreau, who has been with the division for 33 years. They both are part of initiatives to implement restorative justice practices into the division, and they both have so much great experience that I cannot fit at all here, but their full bios will be available in the show notes. To start off our conversation, I want to ask, how is Vermont approaching juvenile justice and what should other states take away from that?
Aryka Radke (01:35):
You know, I know that we’ve been doing some really important things, even though there’s still always work to be done. But some of the areas where I think Vermont really shines is this commitment to kinship care. Not kinship at any cost, but when it’s possible to place children with kin. Because we know the outcomes tend to be better when a child is connected with their family and their community. This strong commitment to restorative practices, and I mean that in terms of not just with families and with community partners, but also within the division, how we’re trying to relate to each other to make a better working environment. And, finally, and this is something I know Lindy will be able to talk to, really is this commitment to making sure when we do have kids that have juvenile justice involvement, that we’re looking at it from a restorative lens where there is accountability, but the focus is not so much on punishment or being this carceral approach, but really where we’re able to look at it restoratively, where the kids can, you know, if they’ve made a mistake, if they’ve made a bad choice, you know, you do need to be held accountable for that. But if there’s a way to then not have that ruin the rest of the child’s life we wanna make sure that’s what we can do with, while still, of course, keeping everybody safe.
Lindy Boudreau (03:02):
Sure. so in relation to the, the overall restorative work, I’ll start with that piece first. I feel like where we’re different is that we as a division have really accepted the fact that our system causes harm. The work we do causes harm. We’re not so much that we’re, we’re not doing it correctly ’cause we are, is that removal. We recognize that when we’re doing our job and keeping youth safe, when we remove youth from a home, that causes harm. And so it’s okay for us to acknowledge that and it’s okay for our system to look for ways to meet our legal mandate, keep youth safe, but also provide opportunities to, to address the harm and give the family the opportunity to be whole. I think that another piece of this work that makes us unique is that as a system, it’s a big powerful system. And for us to be vulnerable as a system, as a leader, and Aryka has really accepted this and, and allowed us the space and the opportunity to do this and engage in this work, through that process, we’re really challenging the status quo and saying, why do we do things the way we do it? And really giving us an opportunity to be reflective and to look at the opportunities that we have to be relational in our work across the board. Traditionally, prior to this contract that we have with Paul Nixon to do this exploration, the restorative part of our work sat with juvenile justice, people would say, oh, that’s, the tool that you do, that’s a referral to our balanced and restorative justice program. And or that’s a restorative panel. So we’re restorative because that’s what we do. Excuse me. Restorative work is across the board. It’s a way of being in relation with other people and being in community with people. And so it’s a way of being in the world. And that applies across the board in Family Services division. So what I think the other piece that provides us with a unique opportunity, from what Aryka mentioned, those are the statewide initiatives. We’ve also supported our districts. We have 12 districts throughout the state to develop their own restorative plans to move the work that’s important to them at the local level. Again, being mindful of recognizing who’s most impacted. So instead of us in central office saying, oh, we’re gonna say these are the things that are important to you that’s not being relational. We’re truly recognizing and understanding and embracing this initiative by saying you all and at the districts, what’s important to you and what do you want to change? And allowing them to do that at their own pace in their own way. And so that’s something that I think has really been key to this initiative. And it is really an important factor for folks to really have, again, similar to what we’re, you know, eventually gonna get to with our family and youth is developing a plan that they are they’re dictating, they’re developing it. So there’s this different level of ownership and sustainability when they are driving that plan. And so again, it’s really modeling that process. And so the other piece to be, specific about the youth justice system, it’s interesting because in Vermont a handful of years ago, we the legislature put in statute of mandate, not only for us at Family services, but also for Department of Corrections that both systems will approach work with youth or adults who are charged in Vermont with a restorative lens. And so that is in statute that we have an obligation to work with people in a restorative way. Again, I think because of that, that kind of sets up the framing for the work that that I support within the division to do that. But again, moving that throughout the division has been really key. But with that said, our juvenile justice system in Vermont is really based on a couple of things and recognizing the adolescent brain development and where youth are at with that and the limitations that that might bring and also reducing the collateral consequences of youth’s behavior on them long term has really been two key components for how our system has shifted over the past 10 plus years. So since 2016 of Vermont, we have been in a process of constant change when it comes to our juvenile justice scheme. And so throughout that time we have shifted away from prosecuting youth as adults who are 16 and 17 to one that goes the polar opposite, being the first state in the nation to pass and implement what we have called raise the age which is we have under the scope of family division juvenile court. We have 18 year olds. So anybody who is 18 years old in Vermont who commits an offense that’s not on this infamous big 11 list, the top, you know, the big charges in Vermont will be prosecuted at least initially in the family division. So they’ll be treated as juveniles, not adults. And, it’s slated to be raised to 19 year olds in 2027. So we’re the first in the nation to actually pass and implement that law. So that’s been something that’s been significant as far as a trajectory for our system to broaden the population of youth that do not have the collateral consequences of a criminal charge or treated as an adult. The other thing that we have done over the course of those years is expand a hybrid population that we serve, which is called the youthful offenders. And those youth, it used to be that that that status eligibility for that status ended when the youth turned 18. And we, we changed that. And so in 2018, we began serving or affording youth up through the age of 21, the opportunity to potentially be treated as youthful offenders. So our population of youth that we work with and provide opportunities to, again, not have the collateral consequences of a criminal charge, an adult charge is, is significantly large. So in our system, we’ve really been very mindful of working with our partners at the Department of Corrections and providing supports and supervision to that population, the youthful offender population specifically. But it really speaks to kind of the direction that we as a state have taken to recognize that that youth their brains aren’t fully capable at that point, even at age 21, 22, to be able to make those decisions in an informed way. So we need to be able to treat them differently, provide them different opportunities for rehabilitation. ‘Cause They’re at that stage in their life and in their development, they’re, they’re so very capable of making those changes and, and respond really well to rehabilitation and treatment opportunities.
Mackenzie Leonard (09:46):
That’s amazing work being done. Vermont is very unique in their approach. Now I’m wondering if we can listen to a clip from the last episode and have you both respond to how Vermont does or doesn’t do things that way. So we’ll play that clip now.
Dr. Sherri Horton-Simmons (10:01):
One other thing is that children who run away from placements, that’s also considered a delinquent act. And if they’re found and picked up, they’re also, you know, charged with delinquency for that as well.
Mackenzie Leonard (10:14):
So, Lindy, can you start us off and share your thoughts?
Lindy Boudreau (10:17):
Sure. So in Vermont our system is unique in that we’re, we’re entirely integrated with our child protection system. And with that we do not prosecute youth who are runaway or who are truant or don’t go to school. We consider those status offenses, which are situations that if you are an adult, you would not be prosecuted for. So because of that, in Vermont, we do not charge youth with a crime if they run away. So how we handle that is, we respond from the child protection side of our work and work with that youth around in their family, around the circumstances that are causing either them to run away or to not attend school. And so, we would most likely have a case plan for them and really look at targeted interventions to remove the barriers to either remaining in the home or going to school. There is one exception to a runaway specifically, and that is if the youth has run away from another State and there’s a warrant out for that youth per authority in the interstate compact for juveniles, we do have a requirement to hold those youth securely until they can return to their State. But that’s the only exception. So I know that a lot of folks around the nation do hold youth who are runaways or don’t go to school insecure facilities and we’ll charge them and they’ll actually have probation conditions. We do not do that, and we’ve never done that as a State.
Mackenzie Leonard (11:41):
I think that’s really good context to have. Do you have anything to add on to that, Aryka?
Aryka Radke (11:45):
Yes, actually, I’m just thinking about the way we treat status offenses is sort of, of really, if you look at it globally in Vermont, that’s sort of our approach with how we treat young people here. We really look at it more holistically and not so much as a punishment, but really more trying to help our youth get on a better path. That there’s a way to help them in a way that does not, you know, further make them go deeper into the criminal justice system if there are ways we can do that while still keeping them safe. It’s, it’s a broader approach I think that we use. And if one of the things that helps us do that is what Lindy mentioned in terms of having this integrated juvenile justice and child welfare system together, which is something unique. Most states don’t do that. Most states have these systems separate, and I think being able to have them together means we can look at a kid the whole person and really treat them as individuals.
Lindy Boudreau (12:46):
Yeah. And oh, and Aryka, I think another thing that you made me think about that strengthens our system because we’re fully integrated is that we don’t have problems with what other states deal with it as what they call crossover youth. So those youth who go from the child protection system to the youth justice system don’t typically fall through the cracks here because we’re one system. And in some cases it can be the same social worker that carries that youth. When I was in the field, I remember when I was a child protection worker, if a youth committed a delinquency, I would hold that case. I had the relationship with that youth and their family. And so there was that seamless connection recognizing that one of the, one of the strong positive things that youth respond to in systems like this is the relationship. And so having, maintaining that continuity with youth is really key. And so I think that we as a system do that well. And because there is that, there’s not that opportunity to have the systems not talk to each other. ‘Cause We’re all the same. And the other thing you made me think about is the fact that we’re trained social workers. We’re not probation officers. It doesn’t show up in our language, it does show up in statute, but I think that what that does is it gives us a different framing for how we look at the youth. We’re not coming at it from a punitive lens. We’re really coming at it from a holistic view and how we work with the youth and family to reduce their risk or to reduce the circumstances that are causing the issue that we’re, that we’re charged with intervening on.
Mackenzie Leonard (14:15):
That’s really interesting. And now I wanna know, what do you think Vermont still needs to learn?
Aryka Radke (14:21):
Well, for me one thing I’m thinking of, we are starting it, but is really doing a much better job incorporating youth voice and family voice throughout our decision making. One of the things I would love to do, my dream would be to have sort of a, a family youth advisory panel that would sit perhaps outside of FSD, the Family Services division, but when we have decisions about policy, really have them come in as a voice to make sure that those that have actual lived experience can weigh in so that we aren’t making decisions sort of about somebody without them and at the table. And I think it would just add a lot more richness to our decision making. And I’m excited we are making some initial steps in that direction. And there are some things that we need to work out. I mean, there’s also, you know, an issue about when you have people with lived experience, it’s important that if they are, you know, working with you, that they receive some kind of pay. If we have a group of family services workers or people from other state departments in a meeting, all these people are getting paid. So why wouldn’t our lived experts be paid too? So there, there are a lot of things that would need to be worked out, but I think it’s important for us to take a page from some of the other states that are doing some really strong work incorporating family voice.
Lindy Boudreau (15:57):
Yeah, I agree. And I also think taking that on a different realm. We’ve spoke about this earlier, Aryka, the family group conferencing and our initiative around emphasizing and bringing back to our practice, the family group conference. I would love to be in a position where we had in statute that there was a requirement that we have a family group conference prior to removal of a child into DCF custody. We, you mentioned international partners, our work with Paul Nixon, who is now in Scotland but came from New Zealand. His work in New Zealand specifically, he talks a lot about how they have adopted that practice. And it is, it is a mandatory statutory requirement. And I just, I think about that and think about, oh my gosh, like, wouldn’t that be great if we really, if we took that step, if our state took that step to, to codify and statute how important family voice is. And that really sends a message like, you are the experts on your situation and on your child and your family, and so you should be at the center of this decision. And really trying to see what folks can bring to the table around natural supports. So I think that for me, I feel like it might be a bit of a pipe dream, but I would love for that to be our situation in Vermont.
Aryka Radke (17:11):
I mean, there’s been a lot of excitement too in our, our staff about bringing that practice back. And the thing is, when we talk about it, I know sometimes folks will think, oh, that’s sort of pie in the sky, but really the outcomes from other countries have shown that this family group conferencing, if you’re thinking about it, if you’re talking about before removal, so then you’re not necessarily bringing as many kids into the system. So that can create a, a cost saving in addition to having better outcomes of not having that trauma of removing a child from a home, which then means if you have a cost savings, you can then invest that money into other initiatives that can work for prevention or work for retention and recruitment that can still then overall improve your system. So it’s not just you know, a theory. There’s some real concrete benefits to this.
Mackenzie Leonard (18:09):
While you’re talking about those other initiatives and that cost saving, I would love to talk a little bit more about other services that are provided that you see supporting these youth. Things like mental health support, support for educational expenses. I know that one thing that’s been talked about before is supporting youth who have been in foster care to get their license. Things like that that you see and what the impact of those are.
Aryka Radke (18:35):
You know, we have been doing a lot of work. YDP is an organization that’s been working with us that has done a lot with youth older youth and even youth that are transitioning out of care. And it’s really important, the things that they focus on. It seems that, you know, in looking at the type of work that they do, it’s practical. They’re, they’re looking at helping kids with scholarships to go to school helping them get transportation important paperwork, like driver’s licenses, things that will help them when they start to move of, you know, out to becoming an adulthood adult, that they have that solid base. And another thing that YDP focuses on that I really like is having a connection with a supportive adult because yes, you know, you’re maybe moving into adulthood, but you still need someone in your corner that’s a grownup that is there to support you and to encourage you. So in between having all these you know, distinct things like a, you know, driver’s license or a birth certificate, all these things in line, you also have somebody there to sort of keep the wind under your wings to keep you moving forward. So I think that those are things that are really important. In addition to, of course, making sure the scholarships for all kinds of education, and it’s not just college education. They also are providing scholarships for vocational work. We’ve had students get degrees we’ve also had them get certificates for different things in vocational fields. So it’s really to make sure the kids are having the best possible way to set them up for adulthood as opposed to just sending a kid out with you know, a handful of papers from FSD and our Good luck. it’s really trying to make sure we’re giving them a best path forward for success.
Mackenzie Leonard (20:37):
And when you say YDP, will you define that for me? Mm-Hmm <affirmative>. Can you tell me what that means?
Aryka Radke (20:41):
It’s youth development program and it’s a, a really neat program that we’ve been funding and they’re the ones that do a lot of the hands-on work with the young people.
Lindy Boudreau (20:51):
Yeah. So the youth development program is a program that I think it’s fairly strong around the state. We have every one of our district offices has a youth development program in the community, and as Aryka mentioned, they focus on transition age youth. And so youth who are exiting DCF custody and care have the ability to continue to work with youth development coordinator post DCF custody. So in thinking about this, this interview and this conversation, I was thinking about sometimes those youth may have been in our system for a long time mm-hmm <affirmative>. And maybe like, you know, I’m kind of done <laugh>, I’m done with DCF, thanks, but no thanks. But the good thing about the youth development program is that the youth typically is already working with youth development coordinator when they graduate from our system or exit our system. So they already have that relationship, but even if they decide they’re done with the YDP program, they can come back. And so it’s not like, oh, okay, we’re, we’re done. We want to, you know, go out on our own and that’s it. They can come back and say, well, you know, I, I thought about it and I really would like some continued support from you. So it’s a great system that really can help, again, transition or support the youth throughout the transition out of care and into adulthood. ‘Cause We all know, and I was, I I was the same at at 18, it’s not like, oh my gosh, you know, everything, you have all the resources, you’re ready to be out in the world on your own. That’s not true. And certainly not true for somebody, for a youth who’s been primarily supported through a state system. And so I think it’s a, it’s a great opportunity and, and the YDP does a great job in really holding and supporting these youth up through the age of 23.
Mackenzie Leonard (22:31):
Now, I wanna shift our topic of discussion a little bit. So talking about restorative practices that are being put in place, there’s one example of some restorative work happening right now that I wanna discuss. I wanna talk a little bit about Woodside, specifically about the work that’s being done now to repair harm that was caused and what learning we’re gaining from it. So if maybe you could give me a really brief, what Woodside was, and then let’s dive into what we’re learning and where we’re gonna take that in future practice.
Lindy Boudreau (23:02):
Sure. So Woodside was our only secure detention facility in Vermont. It opened in the eighties, and we had 30 beds available. And over the course of the time that it was open to close in 2000, it’s, it changed its purpose from a pure detention facility to one that later provided it provided treatment and support to youth. So there was two different ways that youth were served at Woodside, what we call detention, the D Wing and then the rehabilitation, the, the R Wing, which was a longer term residential treatment program at Woodside. So Woodside went through very, you know, different forms and who they served and how they served those youth. But at the core it was, it was a secure facility. And so when Woodside closed, we lost the capacity of Vermont to hold youth securely. And so we now have a program that’s a four bed facility. It’s a temporary facility that can help support youth who need that highest level of care. So after Woodside closed, it closed under not great circumstances, Vermont was left very vulnerable because our highest need youth were left without having a place to be able to be supported in the state. So we as a system, again, through the conversations that we were having internally about our work with Paul Nixon at exploring how the division can become more restorative, this piece around the system, high end system of care, and this population of youth, and the impact of the closure of Woodside and the, the program itself was a big topic of conversation. So the department decided to support a separate initiative with a, a different group of facilitators to support conversations with family services staff previous Woodside staff around that experience. And when you say the harm that was caused, that harm is defined broadly, that’s defined by the person. So we don’t wanna assume that just the fact that we had Woodside caused harm. That’s not what the, what it’s about. It’s really about an individual experience with the program or with the closure of the program, or how the department worked with the program. It’s kind of like, fill in the blank . Really based on the unique experience of that individual. And so we’ve been through the work with our facilitators, retreat facilitators, Mark, John and Kim have been great in working with staff who have volunteered to be a part of listening sessions. And so they’re talking with folks about their experience and, and various things and taking that information and compiling it. And so this process is meant to be confidential so that folks can talk to the facilitators in a way that is truly restorative and healing for them. And they don’t have to worry about any kind of retribution for their statements. And so we, the information that comes back to the department about these listening sessions is really a summary, and it’s meant to help inform us and the broader system around learning from the experience of Woodside and moving forward. Like, what kind of system do we need and how do we need to treat youth when we’re looking at a secure facility? And so I think that’s really the, the crux of the contract and the work that they’re doing. So yeah, that’s, so it’s been, it’s been a great experience . And I think that I’m hopeful that that information is really gonna be informative for future conversations around not only red Clover, which is, again, is a temporary four bed facility, but as a broader system of care. And as part of our part in that system, what can we learn from what happened at Woodside? And Woodside wasn’t all bad. I, I will say I, Woodside wasn’t all bad. I think when a program ends in a negative way, we tend to forget that this program was here for many years and did great work. And they did. My opinion is that Woodside did.
Mackenzie Leonard (27:08):
And it was there for a reason.
Lindy Boudreau (27:09):
It was there for a reason. And so I feel like we need to acknowledge that, and I’m not sure that our system did that when it closed. So I feel like there’s this, my hope is that this process will provide some validation for the folks who worked at Woodside because they did good work. And also the folks who supported the youth and the program who may not have actually worked there, but might have been within family services and external partners. But yeah, I’m hopeful that this will really be informative for our system. We need to be a system that learns from our past and, and informs our future in a way that’s not with blinders on.
Aryka Radke (27:45):
That’s exactly it. And, I look at it in terms of Woodside closing and the harm that did occur. And as Lindy said, it was not all bad, but it, as a system, when harm does occur, you do need to acknowledge it as leaders and then learn from it and then do better. And I think this restorative process that we’re undertaking is one of those steps in terms of particularly starting with the staff and having them talk about their experiences there. Because there were a lot of, you know, deep feelings about what happened at that facility. And then learning from it in terms of the facilities that we are going to be creating in the future, and making sure that that doesn’t happen again. And being informed by what we can learn from the, the listening sessions that have been going on. And then the next step is something we want to do is then bringing in parents or children that also experience harm at Woodside. If there’s a way for us to facilitate discussions there too, because that’s the other part that has to be acknowledged and has to be learned from. So I do think this is, it’s difficult work, but it’s important work. And I, I am, I’m proud that the, the division is taking it on because it’s so important to us when we have facilities that we’re doing it better, that we’re making sure these kids are well taken care of, they’re getting the help that they need, and that we’re not creating additional harm.
Mackenzie Leonard (29:26):
I think that’s really important because systems do cause harm, but being aware of it and doing what you can to learn from that and make a positive impact on these youth’s lives is really important. So now I’d like to talk, talk a little bit more about some of these policies, and not to get specifically into set policies, but I wanna talk… There’s a few that you mentioned, and we know that the legislative work and that policies in place guide practice, and those are the rules that we follow. And I’d like to hear a little bit about ones in Vermont that you think help us in this work. Like you mentioned how using restorative framework is in policy in Vermont. So I’d like to hear about other things like that or where you think we could add in more policy or change policy to better support youth.
Aryka Radke (30:20):
Well, I guess it’s one policy, one regulation that we do follow is making sure when their kid’s in custody, that they are seen every 30 days by, by a worker. And I think that that’s important because as Lindy mentioned earlier in our discussion, the kids being able to have that connection with somebody from our staff is important, that they know somebody cares about them, that they know someone is following up with them. So having that on a monthly basis, and us, and this is something that we track very closely, is a policy that is, it’s critical because we don’t want anyone to fall through the cracks. And we know that from studies that having a, a relationship with a, a competent, caring adult is protective. It’s a protective factor. So that’s one policy, I think is a very strong one.
Lindy Boudreau (31:13):
Yeah, I agree. And I, and I think that, you know, even with youth who are placed outta state, that’s something that the department really supports. I mean, it’s, we have workers flying here, there, and everywhere all the time. And so I think that staff really see the importance of it. Youth certainly see the importance of it. So I do think that it’s an important policy that we that we have and that we really uphold because the commitment to continued relationship with youth when they’re outta state especially needs to be there because we can’t just, you know, have kids go to treatment. It’s gotta be scary. It’s, they’re far away from home. And, and so we wanna make sure that they have that connection back to, to their social worker, to their family, you know, to all other things. So certainly that when you were talking about the restorative work specifically in our policy right now, our policy language specific to restorative work sits only in the juvenile justice side of our work. But part of what we’re doing, as I mentioned at the beginning is as a division, as we’re looking across the board, my hope is that we’ll get to a place where we have operationalized this throughout our work. So it’ll, it’ll appear in not only our practice, but potentially policies that impact our investigative staff and our child protection staff as well, or side of our work. So right now it’s primarily focused on how we work with youth who are on juvenile probation or youthful offender status. So it’s sitting in policy 1 62 and 1 64 specifically. But it really does talk about how we, again, can use a relational approach. And it’s really, if you’re looking at those policies specifically, I feel like it’s really bringing in more of a social work lens than this kind of punitive directive, kind of like, you will do X, Y, Z go out and do, you know, 10 hours of community service. It’s, it’s not driven by that. It’s really driven by the unique circumstances that brought the youth to the table. And so we’re not doing a one size fits all approach to probation or to work with youth. We’re really trying to, again, include the youth voice in that. That’s key. A key component of our, our youth assessment screening instrument is, is the youth voice. What motivates them, what are barriers for them around achieving success? And so I think that that’s something when, when all of the things go right, youth voice and what they wanna see and what they want to engage in is really at the core of our case planning and our work with them. So I think that that’s pretty key to our policy work with the, the youth on juvenile probation.
Mackenzie Leonard (33:43):
Yeah. And you just mentioned the youth assessment screening instrument. I’d love for you to talk a little bit more about what that is and then talk about how you see that work. What do you see come from that when you have these engagements with the youth? How do you think it’s working to support youth better? How do you think it’s impacting the work that’s being done with them?
Lindy Boudreau (34:04):
So it’s the YASI, the Youth Assessment Screening instrument. We call it the YASI. So in Vermont, we brought the YASI here, I believe, in 2007. And at the time we had done some research on various screening instruments, and this was the one that was used in New York. It’s, it’s used throughout the United States and Canada. It came from the state of Washington. But the reason we adopted the YASI and Vermont was because of the strong element of youth engagement and case planning component. And so we’re talking about the risk need responsivity principle, which is a driver behind this tool. The, the YASI has a couple of functions, the prescreen, which we do, it’s, it’s about a third of the tool that really speaks to the youth risk. And so we use that in Vermont to help inform recommendations to our state’s attorneys around prosecution. And so in Vermont, again, we’ve operationalized off-ramps or different ways to kind of inform the route that the case should take. And so we have a pro presumption of diversion. So we use the YASI prescreen to help inform State’s attorneys around the state to say, oh, this youth is low risk research says we should not overserve that youth. So that case should go to court diversion, which is an alternative again to juvenile probation. So that’s, that’s one positive impact that in a way that we use YASI to help inform not only our system, but the state’s response to delinquency in Vermont. So the other way that we use YASI is the full screen. And that’s where the case planning component comes into play. So after a youth has been placed on probation, that’s when we do, or we’re moving towards a recommendation for probation, that’s when we do the full screen, and that’s when we develop like probation conditions or a case plan for the youth. And so it’s the entire tool. And that’s where we get into conversations related to say, substance use is something that’s a strong indicator of the youth risk and a part of the incident that brought them to our involvement. We would say like, this is something that, you know, that the tool is indicating we want to work on. What is your motivation around, you know, substance use or addressing your substance use? Or the youth might say like, oh, I’m really, you know, like, I’m really nervous about going to treatment. Okay, what’s a barrier to that? So we would just talk to them about kind of how do we get them to the place where that is an intervention or an area that they’re willing and able to focus on. Because if we can’t, if you force somebody to do something, it’s not gonna work. Especially when we’re looking at treatment and placing them in a vulnerable position, it’s really hard if the youth is feeling like they’re not gonna be successful. So really having a conversation with them about how do we get them to a place where that is something that they’re motivated to work on. And so the YASI, how we, use it long term is, again, it identifies their risk and which interventions we need to target to reduce that risk. And so we use it for like we will do a reassessment to say, oh, this youth is now, it wet from moderate risk to now low risk. So this might be an opportunity for us to close the case. The youth has reduced the risk to the point where our involvement might actually have a negative impact and increase their risk. And so I feel like, you know, it’s a great tool, I’m biased, but I think it’s a great tool to help inform for us, but also for the youth. Like, look at the change you’ve made. This is where we started and this is where you’re at right now. Like, that’s great progress. So I feel like it’s a great tool also for getting to know the youth and really engaging them on an ongoing basis.
Aryka Radke (37:37):
Just hearing you talk about the YASI, and it’s funny you say you’re bias, but just the through line of what we’ve been talking about so far this morning in terms of having connection with the youth, it’s strength-based, and it’s looking for ways to capitalize on those good things and making sure when it’s appropriate to close the case, to make sure there’s not that further involvement into the, the criminal justice system if that’s, you know, if it’s possible. And so it’s really sort of tying up what our, our approach is.
Lindy Boudreau (38:10):
So the other thing I, you made me think about Aryka, is and we get this question a lot, actually a lot this week. We’ve been talking about this. The YASI is a validated tool. And so when we began using the YASI, we Vermonticized it. So there were some things about our system that are different. And so there were some questions that we added to the tool that were specific to our system. And so over the course of the time that we’ve used the YASI we’ve done two validation studies, to make sure that the way that we have changed the tool actually still fits the way it’s normed. And so it, it does. And so the first validation study was just to say, yes, it, it’s the modifications that we’ve made still, you know, it’s still a valid tool. So that’s great. We recently, a couple of years ago, finally had enough race data to be able to do a validation study to make sure that we were not, that the tool itself was not creating disproportionate risk or higher risk for youth of color. And so our validation study showed that it’s not doing that. So that’s great too. That we’ve, we’ve had those two opportunities to make sure that the tool is not having a negative impact on the youth that we’re serving.
Mackenzie Leonard (39:22):
And that’s really important to highlight too, because there is a disproportionality in representation within these systems. And Aryka, you just brought up how there’s been a lot of talk throughout this conversation around connection, and that’s what I wanna close this out with talking about connection, connection with the youth, because that is so central to the work. And I’m thinking about this. If I was a worker for DCF or someone that is interacting with these youth often, how I should best foster connection, how I can be a best support, what are your thoughts on that?
Aryka Radke (39:56):
My thoughts are, I, and I think so many of the team do a good job with this is being present. And I know a lot of times our workers say they really want even more time to be present with the youth and the families. ’cause That’s the best way for them to understand what the family needs, but is to continue showing up, talking to the youth even when it’s difficult, making sure that they are open and vulnerable and with just the, the understanding that some of our youth are having tough times because of what has brought them into custody. And keeping that in the forefront that we are here to help, we do care, and just to make sure we’re bringing our best selves every day.
Lindy Boudreau (40:40):
Yeah, absolutely. And I was just thinking and reflecting back on that question and thinking about just some conversations that I’ve had over the past few weeks with some district staff. And it’s really clear to me that folks, despite all of the, the pressures of, you know, paperwork and court and all the things that that folks have to do, our staff are really connected to the youth and they really do prioritize being able to have a relationship with the youth. Whether they’re just beginning their time with them or if they’ve been working with them for two plus years. Folks really know their circumstances and really wanna be there to support the youth. And as Aryka mentioned throughout the conversations that we’ve had over the past 18 months related to the restorative work that we’re doing in the self-assessment that we’re doing as a system that continues to come up, whether you’re talking to district directors who are in a leadership role or folks doing investigations or youth justice workers. And so it’s key throughout our system that that is a priority for folks to be able to spend more time with youth and families that we’re working with because they recognize the importance of that relationship and how that can help create sustainable change. Mm-Hmm <affirmative>. And, and again, bring their voice to the center. So I really do feel like a lot of the activities that we’re doing right now as a division around our restorative work and moving towards a place of being a restorative system is really the connection piece of that is, is a central theme. And in the district plans that the folks are implementing, that’s also a central component of their plans. And so I feel like that that is the thread that really has created so much excitement, whether it be for us in the central office or with our, our staff at the district level connection and the opportunity to be able to create the conditions for better connections with the youth and families we serve, I think is a central driver.
Mackenzie Leonard (42:29):
Well, thank you both so much for being here today. It was really amazing to speak with you on this topic, and I think that a lot of important things were discussed today, and I think that this is something that I hope people within the work can take away and learn from this and build their own knowledge.
Aryka Radke (42:46):
Thank you. It was really great.
Lindy Boudreau (42:47):
Yeah. Thank you for having us. It was nice.
Cassie Gillespie (42:52):
The social work lens is produced by the University of Vermont’s Child Welfare Training Partnership and the State of Vermont. Our theme music is composed and performed by local band Brick Drop, and our sound production and engineering has been brought to you by Egan Media Productions. We’d also like to give a special thank you to our in-house administrative production assistant Emma Baird. For the social work lens, I’m Cassie Gillespie and we’ll see you next time.