August 4, 2020

Ms. Jennifer Benedict, Director

Ms. Lauren Higbee
Residential Licensing & Special Investigations
State of Vermont, Department for Children and Families
Family Services Division
280 State Drive, HC 1 North
Waterbury, VT 05671-1030

Dear Ms. Benedict and Ms. Higbee,

Thank you for sending us the Residential Treatment Program Licensing Report (site visits from 10/30/19 to
12/20/19). I read through the entire report several times and found it to be very interesting, although a bit
distorted in several instances, and certainly out of date regarding what is currently in place at Kurn Hattin. I
want to posit first that the suggested changes from both DCF and NEASC that have come to us over the past
year, in conjunction with our own observations and assessments, have prompted numerous changes in our
functioning and structure that are not generally recognized or reflected in this Licensing Report. These
discrepancies and deficiencies in the report will be noted as I go along. The reasons for this may be due to the
fact that MANY changes have been made since the last site visit of 12/20/19, but it is interesting to note that the
report references one or two events and changes at KHH that occurred after that site visit, and I am not sure how
comprehensive this information gathering after 12/20/19 was or even how it actually occurred. Regardless, the
Kurn Hattin Homes reflected in the report and upon which decisions for DCF Foster Care admissions are being
made today is, at best, an inaccurate and inadequate depiction of the Homes as we currently operate.

I also want to mention that during this summer of 2020, we have received word from RLSI that Kurn Hattin
Homes is not a suitable institution for children in DCF custody during the academic year, and thus these
children will not be allowed to attend KHH, even if they have been here previously and are having a favorable
experience. These decisions by RLSI are being made on past, erroneous information and not on the current
reality at Kurn Hattin Homes. This rebuttal to the Licensing Report speaks directly to the outdated errors and
the changes that have been made, in order to refute the rationale for the RLSI decisions of this summer.

Let me begin. In the “Program Summary” section’s last paragraph (page 2 of the report) it is stated that “…
RLSI concludes that Kurn Hattin operates in form and function as an educational program with boarding
options rather than a traditional treatment-oriented RTP.” The latter part of this statement is quite true and has
been for some time; KHH has not functioned as a treatment-oriented RTP for perhaps the entirety of its
licensure. Kurn Hattin Homes’ Executive Director, Christopher Barry, and the Director of Residential and
Educational Services, Thomas Fahner, sought RTP status in the mid-1990s after a sordid period of sexual abuse
at the Homes in the late 1980s that resulted in a former staff member confessing to the abuse of numerous boys,
being tried and convicted, and serving a prison sentence in the early 1990s. No doubt both Mr. Barry and Mr.
Fahner felt that the association with and supervision of DCF, through becoming an RTP at that time, would help
restore the integrity of the Homes’ residential program after this scandalous period. It appears that Kurn Hattin
Homes was licensed as an RTP by DCF in 1997. I have seen no information that the overall program at KHH
changed to accommodate this new arrangement as an RTP, nor can the Admission Director who was here at that
time (and continues on staff) remember any new emphases for admissions nor any new “treatment” programs
being put into place as a result of the new licensure. I contend that Kurn Hattin Homes functioned as it always
had – accepting boys and girls from challenging home environments of dysfunction and poverty, children who
had mentally or physically ill parents or relatives, who saw substance abuse at home, who may have
experienced some form of abuse themselves, and who would have likely have had diagnoses of
ADHD/ODD/CD/MPDD/depression/anxiety/etc. had those diagnoses been as prevalent in those days as they
are now. This was the purpose of Kurn Hattin Homes – to provide these types of children a stable, safe, secure,
structured home environment first and a quality basic education second. The Homes have done this for 125+
years and have positively transformed the lives of thousands of children! This is still the purpose of Kurn
Hattin Homes today; thus, when “RLSI concludes that Kurn Hattin operates in form and function as an
educational program with boarding options…” it is clear that RLSI (DCF) does not now, nor has probably ever,
fully understood who and what we are as an entity – Kurn Hattin Homes is first and foremost, “in form and
function,” a HOME for children from challenging home environments, and we also operate a top-notch
educational program. We have never been perfect and without blemish in this work with children, but we have
done, and continue to do, a terrific job with the vast majority of our children in a home environment that they
desperately need. Today, our expectation is that we will assess, evaluate, improve, and then re-assess our
practices and policies in order to make the experience positive for 100% of our children, contrary it seems, to
the opinion of RLSI.

Also in the last paragraph of the “Program Summary” section, it states,

“… the lines are blurred between what is advertised as ‘residential care’ and what is
construed by many as the provision of treatment for children with known trauma histories.
It is precisely this intersection that has justified the ongoing regulatory oversight of Kurn
Hattin as an RTP until this licensing review when the program administration expressed a
desire to function solely as an educational institution rather than an RTP.”

And then it goes on to say,

“In order for the cessation of DCF regulation to occur, Kurn Hattin must make clear and
specific changes to their web-based advertising of their program description; admit only
children and youth whose needs can be met within the program; notify primary referral
sources of no longer being licensed by DCF; and continue to practice as mandated reporters
with any incidents of suspected child abuse and neglect per Vermont Statute.”

It is important to note first that Kurn Hattin Homes never asked to function solely “as an educational institution
rather than an RTP.” We merely asked to be released from our RTP license since we never really provided
“treatment” nor functioned as an RTP, regardless of how many “construed” the care and services we provide as
“treatment for children with known trauma histories.” Just to be clear, this course of action, to relinquish our
RTP license, was initially suggested to us in 2015 by Brenda Dawson, RLSI Director at that time. To reiterate,
we will operate as a Home for children that offers an educational program just as we always have.

I will digress briefly at this time to elaborate on a logical inconsistency in DCF practice in this matter. This
entire Licensing Report focuses its comments on our alleged failure to comply fully with the requirements of an
RTP, pointing to the areas and instances where Kurn Hattin Homes has failed children, ostensibly putting them
in harm’s way, and certainly not, in RLSI’s estimation, serving children’s needs in a sufficient manner. The gist
of this report is currently being used as rationale for prohibiting any children in DCF custody from coming to
KHH for the academic year, regardless of the particular child’s history of progress, positive development,
ability to fit into the program, and/or the specific desire of caretakers to have the child(ren) attend. In other
words, RLSI has determined that Kurn Hattin Homes is not fit for children with tough lives to attend, at
least not for any DCF custody children. AND YET, RLSI is releasing Kurn Hattin Homes from its
regulatory oversight and supervision with absolutely no requirements for correcting the alleged
innumerable flaws that they have supposedly identified! The agency in Vermont that is charged with
protecting the most vulnerable among us - our children in challenging situations in their lives - is relinquishing
its supervision of, in their eyes, a potentially harmful home for children, with only four stipulations. Three of
the stipulations are only concerned that we don’t associate DCF/RLSI with KHH in the public sphere, and the
fourth that ensures that we would function as we always have – as Mandatory Reporters. The report, if
followed in its entirety, would limit children here under our care to those who are model citizens with no
character flaws, because we supposedly can’t be trusted with any others. RLSI has effectively said that Kurn
Hattin Homes is unsuitable for children who come from homes with difficulties, which essentially nullifies both
our mission and our history of assisting thousands of children from tough backgrounds through our 125 year
history.

I will move now to comments as they relate to specific areas of “noncompliance” or “compliance with
reservations.”

RTP Regulation 116 (page 4 of the report) lists noncompliance for not notifying RLSI 60 days before the hiring
of Nancy Richardson and Sue Kessler in their roles. While this entire regulation is bureaucratically perfunctory
and petty, the fact is that RLSI (i.e. Brenda Dawson) knew on 1/30/18 by email that we had dismissed the
Director of Residential Services (Karen Lansberry) and an Assistant Director (Mary Jo Dansereau). Soon after
this date we informed Ms. Dawson that Clint Plante had been hired as the Assistant Director. We conducted a
search for the Director and hired Nancy Richardson in late Spring (May) with a start date at the beginning of
June. We didn’t even know 60 days in advance that we were hiring Ms. Richardson, so this violation couldn’t
have been avoided. The same is true of Sue Kessler. The Trustees asked me to look for an Assistant Executive
Director in early June 2019, and Ms. Kessler started her new position in July 2019 – less than 30 days later, thus
the 60 days notification period was impossible!

RTP Regulations 118, 120,and 122 (also page 4 of the report) were rated as noncompliance. The first noted
problem was listed as three incidents when it seems that it was one incident with three girls, happening
essentially at the same time. It seems that the Director at the time, Nancy Richardson, did fail to report this in a
timely fashion (however it is significant to note that KHH has never received the report on this investigation
even though it has been promised numerous times). A second allegation “where information was intentionally
withheld from licensing” asserts intent that cannot be factually determined – how could “intent” truly be
ascertained? Still, the assertion that Ms. Richardson did not report information is correct. I cannot comment on
the third allegation regarding SWIS data since I have no idea what the investigators found regarding incidents
“that should have been reported to RLSI but were not,” because this information was not shared with us. Based
on the previous insinuations and possible prejudice already seen here, I have little confidence in the inferences
that might have been made from reports they saw. I will say that during this period of late 2015 to 2018,
collecting data into the SWIS system was just getting started and was generally successful in the academic
program but such collection of data was sketchy and unreliable, at best, in the residential program. After Nancy
Richardson was hired in June of 2018, she showed odd resistance to incorporating SWIS into residential life.

I will freely admit that there were concerns in Residential Services from before I began my time at Kurn Hattin
Homes in September 2015. The residential leadership at that time was inconsistent and played favorites with
the staff. House parent training proved to be low quality and consisted mainly of new hires “shadowing” in
cottages for 4-6 weeks of on-the-job training. Pay was low, and thus hiring was very difficult and positions
often went unfilled, resulting in a revolving door of house parents. Morale was very low. In January 2018, I
dismissed the Director (Karen Lansberry) and one Assistant Director (Mary Jo Dansereau) due to poor
performance. Replacement candidates were hard to find at that time, and it took nearly 6 months to find a new
Director. During that time, staffing was definitely stretched to the max, with almost the entire administrative
team filling in for evening RL Office duty. Even after we hired a Director (Nancy Richardson) in June 2018,
we worried that we had not gotten the caliber of leadership that we needed. We worked with the new Director,
sent her to professional development trainings and conferences, provided direct assistance and close
supervision, but we realized that she was not up to the challenge of effectively running Residential Services. I
discharged her in December 2019 for nonperformance and spent the next month and a half searching for a
replacement. The fact that Residential Services had gaps in services and documentation, a lack of attention to
detail, and personnel problems galore from 2015-2019 does not come as a surprise to me, but in spite of all of
these problems, Kurn Hattin Homes still served the vast majority of our children very well.

In the summer of 2019, I transferred Sue Kessler from her excellent work as Director of Enrollment to the
increased responsibility of Assistant Executive Director for Direct Services. She added more extensive
supervision over the RL Director and was able to get a more comprehensive training program for new house
parents developed. In the fall of 2019, the Trustees approved our plans to increase house parent pay and
benefits to help “professionalize” the position and to make it more attractive to higher quality candidates. As
previously stated, I discharged the RL Director December 2019, and in January 2020, we hired a twenty+ year
veteran residential professional from Landmark College, Ellen Wood, as Director of Residential Services.
From day one, the difference in tone and professionalism was apparent to everyone as she brought true
competence to the position. She began a remarkable transformation in the RL department, aided by new,
quality staff hired under the new pay/benefits package and oriented under a new, comprehensive training
program for house parents. Currently we have a full complement of house parents for all nine cottages as well
as two additional RL Office staff to cover the office while evening Directors circulate the campus and provide
additional assistance to house parents and counselors.

On March 18, 2020, Kurn Hattin homes shuttered its doors and sent students home due to COVID-19. All staff
were kept on payroll, and RL staff cleaned, painted, renovated, and trained in preparation for our reopening. In
June 2020, I notified our Counseling Department that their hours would be changed from 8-4 daily to 12-8 daily
in order to provide more coverage and assistance to the residential program in the afternoons and evenings
around campus and in the cottages. Three counselors resigned in protest, and we are currently seeking their
replacements and are confident that we will be fully staffed shortly after the 2020-21 academic year begins.
Also in June 2020, I told our nursing staff that instead of both nurses being here through the school day, one
would be on a 7-3 schedule and the other would be on a 1-9 schedule and that all weekday medication
distribution (morning, noon, afternoon, and night) would fall on the nurses instead of house parents. Both
nurses also resigned. We are thrilled to have already hired a highly qualified Director, Lee Bliss, who
volunteered to take the afternoon/evening (1-9) shift. We’re still seeking a day nurse.

So while the Licensing Report documented what had been occurring at the Homes, mostly before 2020, it does
not reveal what is currently happening here and the transformational changes that have been made! This makes
the decisions of the RLSI to prohibit DCF custody children from coming here all the more egregious as you
operate on past, erroneous information regarding the Homes.

I want to address the allegation that Kurn Hattin Homes did not report to RLSI the situation involving an
alleged sibling rape that occurred off campus at home before the children had come to KHH. It is our
contention that this incident was immediately reported to DCF by our as soon
as we learned of it. is no longer employed here, but her records report that the call to DCF took
place. While she should have known to also make a report to RLSI, this was an oversight and apparently did
not happen. (The lack of internal communication within DCF should also perhaps be explored fully.) It should
also be noted that DCF ostensibly this incident, and we can only assume that it was found not to be
credible since the was dropped, and KHH was not informed of the results.

RTP Regulation 201 (bottom of page 4 of the report) is listed as noncompliant in the report for a variety of
reasons which I will deal with individually. The report insinuates that KHH only allowed a small number (5) of
children to be interviewed for the investigation, when in fact we always provided RLSI with access to whatever
and whomever it requested. If the number of children was small, it was because RLSI only requested 5
children. The first real issue seems to deal with the general category of children feeling safe at Kurn Hattin
Homes. The report says that “The students in the interviews said they feel safe at Kurn Hattin but there is a lot
of bullying and ‘mean peers’ that ‘hurt them.’ One student was hesitant to say they feel safe and explained that
‘when people say they are going to kill themselves, it makes me worry a lot.” Later in this section it is noted
that from our NEASC Survey of students “’that 21 percent of the students strongly disagreed that they felt safe
at Kurn Hattin.’ The program appears committed to exploring and greater understanding what this percentage
means. However, staff members were candid to explain that children say they don’t feel safe when they are
escalated or they do not feel safe based on the actions of their peers.” This section goes on with comments
about dress codes, hair policies, and church attendance. I would contend that speaking to any child in any
setting on any day might well elicit some feelings that their peers are mean and their care-givers too strict, their
clothes aren’t what they want, and their hair should be shorter/longer/a different color/etc. This has nothing to
do with dignity or anything other than the fact that children sometimes complain. The more salient question is,
“Do they feel safe?” The investigators’ statement that the children in the interviews “said they feel safe at Kurn
Hattin…” speaks directly and clearly to that point. Statements about peer relations and snapshot surveys
supposedly to the contrary do not contradict clear, face-to-face statements that they feel safe at the Homes. The
rest does not show that KHH is noncompliant in ensuring their rights in terms of dignity, privacy, growth,
development, or any of the other overly broad aspects of Regulation 201! They essentially like counseling, but
they don’t care for going to church all that much. These are typical comments from typical preteens and
‘tweens, but they aren’t proof of a too restrictive environment.

The Gender-fluid Residential Placement Policy needs to be fleshed-out a bit. When I was researching this
issue to formulate a policy, I called DCF directly (Lauren Higbie, I believe) to ask if DCF had any guidance on
this issue. I was told that there was nothing available from DCF. I called six other junior boarding
programs/schools around the country to see if any of them had policies on this issue, and none of them did. I
found policies for high school and college level programs, but nothing at the elementary or middle school
level. The policy clearly acknowledges the “best practice” trend for high school and beyond, but it also states
that we are very concerned with issues of dignity, respect, and safety as the following policy shows:

“Sensitivity to the range of factors is important, but selecting which factors may take
priority positions in placement decisions is sometimes a delicate balancing process. This is
especially true when contemplating both the admittance and the placement of gender-fluid
children in residential situations, no matter the age of the child. Since Kurn Hattin’s current
cottage configuration separates children by male and female gender, perhaps the most
important question for admitting a gender-fluid child into our residential program is where
would the child be housed? The trend in secondary schools and colleges/universities with
coed facilities is to ask for individual preference and then to attempt to meet those
preferences. At Kurn Hattin, which has no coed housing, very few single rooms, and no
private bathroom facilities for children in the cottages, the situation is slightly more
complicated and nuanced.

With prepubescent children and those moving into and going through puberty, many
considerations need to be taken into account for placement. Gender identity is certainly one
factor, as are emerging sexuality, privacy concerns, body image, relational maturity, safety,
dignity, and more, and sometimes these factors may be at odds with one another as the
needs of the individual meet the needs of the community. Attention needs to be given to
each with sensitivity to all, but in the end, some determinants need to take precedence to
make a placement decision.

It is the considered opinion at Kurn Hattin that the primary determining factor is the
privacy and safety of our children, both individually and collectively. With this in mind,
the policy to be followed is that gender-fluid children will be placed according to biological
gender rather than by potential gender-identity.”

This determination for placement is for safety, dignity, privacy, and more at this level. With no laws to guide
us and no direction from DCF when we asked for it, it is now rather disingenuous for RLSI to attempt to play a
social arbiter role and to criticize our decisions! We would be happy for RLSI to discuss with us how the
conditions as described in our policy would be contrary to the safety, dignity, and privacy of our children.

The section regarding staff and children of color was fully discussed with the investigators, and its inclusion in
the report is an affront to everyone involved. My comments regarding staffing decisions had been totally taken
out of context and completely reversed from their original meaning, and this was explained fully to the
investigators as well as being previously discussed with the staff members involved. My actual comments
were that we needed to ask the staff members where they would like to be placed to avoid perceptions of racial
insensitivity. The Director at the time did not follow this directive and instead shared the alleged comment
from me. When I found out about this, I discussed the issue with both staff members to clear the air. The
Director in question is no longer employed here, and this is an instance of why this is so. I have no idea what
is meant by the nonsensical line, “The noncompliance rating takes into consideration interviews with staff
members who explained an unsaid occurrence that children were placed in certain cottages based on their
racial identity.” How can someone “explain an unsaid occurrence” in an interview. This seems to mean that
someone ASSUMED a reason for an occurrence but had nothing to back it up. The report then goes on to say,
“RLSI could not reconcile or confirm the reports of segregating practices in the cottages…” and yet this is a
consideration for noncompliance! This entire section is both ludicrous and a travesty. RLSI should be
embarrassed to even include this type of unfounded allegation and sheer speculation in an official Regulatory
Investigation Report! Kurn Hattin Homes is one of the most diverse organizations in Vermont, and our history
of dealing sensitively with children of color has been laudable, but not perfect. We all have more to learn, but
reports like this one are less than helpful in this regard.

The summary for this entire 201 section (page 5) concludes “The gender-fluid residential placement policy and
rate of bullying and peer-to-peer regulatory and child abuse investigations limits Kurn Hattin’s ability to
provide ‘gender specific, culturally competent and linguistically appropriate service’ and for students ‘to be
free from harm and [sic] caregivers and others.’ These issues within Kurn Hattin and the findings that 21
percent of students strongly disagree that they feel safe at the program inhibits the students from being ‘served
under human[sic] conditions with respect for their dignity and privacy.’” The gender-fluid residential
placement policy is gender specific (without RLSI-imposed social determinations), culturally competent
(without RLSI-imposed social determinations), and linguistically appropriate (the report cites “birth gender” as
inappropriate, but it is nowhere to be found in the policy). RLSI cites no evidence of the “rate of bullying” - is
this from the 5 interviewed children cited? If so, that, by the investigators’ own admission, is an inadequate
sample. Furthermore, RLSI cites “the rate of … peer-to-peer regulatory and child abuse investigations”
without stating the rate of these investigations and most particularly, without ANY indication of how many of
those investigations resulted in ANY assessment of validity, actual regulatory reports, or requests for changes
in our programs. Investigations do not mean violations! We are mandatory reporters, required to report even
SUSPICIONS of possible ill-treatment of children, even possibilities of peer-to-peer activity, but those reports
do not mean that such activity has actually occurred, except in the insinuations of RLSI in official regulatory
reports like this.

Lastly for this section, the fact that 21 percent of KHH children (middle school children only completed this
survey) indicated that they strongly disagreed that they felt safe at Kurn Hattin really only says two things.
One, at that point in time, in a snapshot, that was their internal feeling. A minute, a day, a week later, that
feeling may change drastically. Two, something was making them uncomfortable enough to make this
assertion. No clarifying statements were required or received, thus we have no way of knowing what prompted
those replies. I will not attempt to unpack these replies or try to understand the mind of a middle schooler at
that point. I will say that as you work with our children over time, see them in action, read their journal
entries, discuss their cases in general terms with counselors and house parents, and then read their responses on
the Alumni Facebook page when they leave, you will find that their experiences here TODAY are not those of
fear and trepidation but rather those of fun, confidence, and hope – regardless of the spin RLSI tries to place on
the issue. We do fulfill the stipulations of Regulation 201 at Kurn Hattin Homes!

RTP Regulation 401 (page 8 of the report) “was rated as Compliance with Reservations because of the
concerns identified in the personnel file reviews, staff interviews, and child interviews.” Four house parents
were noted to display “concerning judgement and other staff questioned their ability to appropriately manage
student behavior and incidents that have occurred.” There is no indication of whether the “other staff” were
peers or supervisors, but regardless, the determinations were negative internally. Specific house parents were
noted to have problems, etc. The likelihood that this occurred is high. As has been stated, prior to the time of
the investigation, training was poor, supervision was inadequate, and staff were overworked. During that time,
house parents were expected to distribute medications and handle other cottage tasks as well. While we had
been working for a while to improve conditions, this work took time and was overseen by inadequate RL
supervision. TODAY, those conditions have changed significantly. We have quality supervision, much-
improved training, and better morale. The information in this report is antiquated, inadequate, and simply
wrong for today’s Homes.
Regarding a staff member “on the radar” but still being thought of as “strong,” it is often the case that
employees may be good at their jobs overall (thus “strong”) but might still have an area that needs
improvement (thus be “on the radar”). This overall situation has required direct consultation and professional
development for one or two veteran house parents. The other personnel matter of alleged medication errors
has been fully rectified by removing the distribution of medications from house parents, where it never should
have been in the first place; they no longer distribute medications – our nurses do that.

The report listed noncompliance concerns with Regulations 404, 419, and 422 (page 8). This was due to some
personnel files missing job descriptions, resumes, and a few missing performance evaluations. These
discrepancies, while being rectified, really have little bearing on the smooth functioning of the Homes. The
change in medication distribution rectifies any medication error information in personnel files.

RTP Regulation 412 (pages 8&9) lists noncompliance for out-of-date finger-print-supported background
checks for current employees. This was indeed an oversight of the regulations, one for which, in the previous
20 years or so of regulatory oversight, KHH had never been cited. There is a reference that KHH did not
comply with FFPSA requirements, passed in February 2019, to do out-of-state checks finger-print checks due
to my personal directives. The fact is that I instructed Ms. Ruffle, HR Director, to wait for clarification to
come from the state (DCF) regarding whether we received funding under FFPSA which would require us to do
these checks, which indeed are time consuming and can be costly. In the “meeting to start this licensing visit
iteration,” I indeed stated that we “had not yet received notification about the background check requirement”
- from the STATE – DCF (RLSI?) had not informed us whether this requirement actually applied to Kurn
Hattin Homes due to our funding structure. During the subsequent contact with RLSI during the site visits, the
investigators from RLSI finally informed Ms. Ruffle that we were supposed to do these checks, which were
then initiated.

RTP Regulation 423 (page 9) lists compliance with reservations due to concerns among house parents “about
the leadership and supervision house parents are receiving….” This was a legitimate concern in December of
2019; that is why we dismissed the Director of Residential Services in December of 2019 and in January of
2020 hired a twenty+ year veteran residential professional from Landmark College, Ellen Wood, as Director of
Residential Services to correct the deficiencies.

RTP Regulation 504 (page 11) is found in “compliance with reservation because gaps were identified in the
main children [sic] files reviewed.” The fact of the matter is that other than the de-escalation plans, all of the
necessary elements of the files listed are present for our children, but the composite elements of the files are
not all in one place, academic information is with the school, medical information is in the health center,
behavioral information is in SWIS, etc. where the information is located for best use by the Homes. Since it
was inconvenient for RLSI to locate the information, as opposed to it all being in one file, we were “dinged.”

RTP Regulation 520 (page 11) is listed for noncompliance. The regulation states that a de-escalation plan is to
be written for each child/youth to help prevent the use of restraint and seclusion. The report goes to some
length to point out all of the ostensible instances where KHH children are traumatized and at risk and therefore
should not be at Kurn Hattin Homes - thus these children supposedly all need de-escalation plans to keep the
children out of restraint and seclusion situations. There is some kind of convoluted logic going on here, so let
me lay things out clearly:
1. RLSI now is essentially saying these children shouldn’t be here due to their need for treatment, and yet
for over 20 years we have been repeatedly licensed as an RTP to deal with this type of child.
 2. Regulation 520 wants us to have de-escalation plans for every child to avoid the need for seclusion and
restraint, but if we only admitted the exact type of child RLSI says we should admit, not even they
would think there was a need for de-escalation plans for each, since they would have no flagrant flaws
or needs.
3. Over the 5 years of my tenure at KHH, only 1 child has been restrained and 3 children (out of about
350 children total) have needed seclusion for their behaviors, but RLSI does not note these data. We
essentially do not use restraint and seclusion at the Homes and so to have specific de-escalation plans
written for each child to avoid practices that we do not use seems unnecessary and even ludicrous. We
also do not regularly write discharge plans since it is usually anticipated that children will remain at
KHH until graduation in 8th grade. One aspect of not fully being an RTP is that we don’t try to “fix”
children and then discharge them back to their regular environments; here we provide a home for
children who need one for as long as they need it (up to grade 8).
4. While there are some reports of behaviors that require RLSI investigation at KHH, at no point does the
report list out the results of those investigations and all of the negative and harmful results of Kurn
Hattin Homes’ inclusion of the children they insinuate as being inappropriate for our environment. We
fully acknowledge that we are not successful with every child we enroll and that a few even become
involved in inappropriate behavior, but that is true for every residential educational environment in the
country. When it is deemed that a child’s needs are not appropriate for KHH, we work with the family
to find a more appropriate placement for the child.
5. Once again, if KHH has admitted all of these traumatized children who have no business being here,
why is RLSI willing to relinquish their oversight and supervision of Kurn Hattin Homes with
absolutely no stipulation of practical improvements, no change of policies and practices, and no
removal of children to other programs that can meet their needs for treatment? It makes no sense that
we can be so bad, but RLSI is willing to let us go from their supervision. From an RLSI perspective,
this would almost seem to be operational negligence.
6. If KHH does not need to change our policies and practices or remove children from inadequate care in
order to be released from RLSI supervision, then why are we being castigated by a report of all of our
failings as an RTP and why is RLSI prohibiting DC F custody children from coming here?

The reality is that Kurn Hattin Homes has served children from difficult homes situations well for 125+ years.
When we became an RTP 23 years ago, we continued on with our same policies and practices without concern
from DCF/RLSI. This stasis continued for the length of our time together without in-depth review from RLSI
nor the frenzy of concern regarding compliance or noncompliance. DCF/RLSI understood the type of
institution that Kurn Hattin Homes is and the type of children we serve. The number of RLSI regulatory
investigations has gone up and down over the years, and while the number of investigations has been relatively
high over the past few years, there is no indication that the resultant validity or need for those investigations is
any higher now than in years past. What IS clear is that when Kurn Hattin Homes requested release from its
licensure as an RTP, the level of scrutiny from RLSI increased phenomenally. If you look hard enough in any
organization, you can likely find instances of some laxity of records, failure to follow the letter of the
regulations, and enough failures of practice to write a report like this – especially at a time when the
organization has indeed experienced some departmental leadership challenges and changes. I contend that this
is what happened here. I also contend that the Kurn Hattin Homes Department of Residential Services, along
with many other aspects of the Homes, is a much improved and finer version of both policies and practices
today than it was when this report was written last December and perhaps ever in its history! As such, this
report really is no longer viable or relevant to the functioning of the Homes, and yet RLSI is maintaining that
Kurn Hattin Homes cannot be used for any children in DCF custody, either new placements or return children,
regardless of the progress the children have experienced here.

RTP Regulation 601 lists noncompliance due to “inadequate supervision in the cottages.” We have reduced
the ratio in cottages from 10-11:1 in the past to 7-8:1 now. Additionally, we have a fully staffed residential
program including evening office staff which allows the Assistant Directors to circulate through the cottages in
the afternoons and evenings. We shifted the nursing staff from both being on duty during the day to having
one nurse on duty in the afternoons and evenings to circulate through the campus; this also allows medication
distribution to be removed from the purview of the house parents. We also shifted the counseling staff from
daytime hours to the afternoons and evenings as well to provide additional adults to be out and around campus
and in cottages to provide assistance. Lastly, we have hired a new Dean of Students with extensive residential
experience who will also spend some time circulating on campus in the evenings to provide more of a presence
in the cottages. All of these changes were instituted expressly to provide assistance to house parents in the
afternoons and evenings and to ensure better supervision of our children.

RTP Regulation 644 lists compliance with reservations for medical errors on incident reports and 667 is for
documentation of restraint and seclusion, and yet RLSI reports that this inclusion was because of the reporting
system. Neither of these should be a concern now since medications are now handled by our professional
nursing staff, and, as I said before, we do not utilize restraint and seclusion practices.

Page 18 summarizes the RTP Regulations that have reservations and those that are in
noncompliance. The summary then states that we wish to conclude our RTP licensure and presents
the terms by which this could happen. After the terms of release are given, the means by which we
could retain our RTP status are listed. Thus ends the Licensing Report.

I would like to end this response letter with a couple of observations:

1. In the Vermont DCF Family Services Policy Manual (90) it states:
“The Department for Children and Families (DCF) Family Service s Division (FSD) will
provide out-of-home care for children and youth in DCF custody only in facilities licensed by
the department, unless:
(point four)
 The placement is an independent school with a residential component approved by
the Vermont Agency of Education (AOE)….”

Kurn Hattin Homes is fully approved by the Vermont Agency of Education.

2. The Vermont Juvenile Court Improvement Program (CIP) produced an Info-bulleting dated
July 2017 and is entitled “Educational Stability for Youth In Foster Care.” In this document
it states, “The law requires DCF to coordinate with local education agencies (LEAs) to
ensure children remain in the school they are attending at the time of out-of-home placement,
unless remaining in that school has been determined not to be in their best interests.” It goes
on to say, “The purpose of the new law(ESEA) is to ‘ensure that children in foster care
experience minimal educational disruption as the result of foster care placement….’”

Based on the information above, this response letter, the changes to the Kurn Hattin Homes
Residential Services Program since January 2020, and the positive histories and experiences of DCF
custody children at Kurn Hattin Homes, especially and , but also
others, it would be unconscionable to prohibit children in DCF custody from enrolling in our
program. There is no reasonable impediment to having them attend here.

Sincerely,

Stephen B. Harrison, Executive Director

Cc: Mark Bodin, Sue Kessler, Jay Stroud (NEASC), Jim Forbes, Christine Johnson, Sean Brown