Report on the New Hampshire Youth Development Center Claims Process and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Legacy of Systemic Failure and the Pursuit of Justice

For over five decades, from the 1960s onward, children detained in New Hampshire’s Youth Development Center (YDC) facilities were subjected to systemic physical and sexual abuse by state employees. The victims, many of whom came from fractured or non-existent family structures, were further traumatized by the very system entrusted with their care. This long-standing failure of state protection represents a profound breach of duty and a direct contradiction of fundamental human rights, particularly for vulnerable youth.

After years of silence induced by fear and threats, hundreds of survivors initiated lawsuits against the state, seeking accountability, compensation, and closure. These legal actions brought to light the state’s failure to uphold its responsibilities, setting the stage for a new approach to justice.

Establishing an Accountable Institution: A Commitment to SDG 16

In response to mounting legal and public pressure, the New Hampshire legislature established an administrative claims process in 2022, which began operations in January 2023. This initiative was designed to create a mechanism for justice that was both effective and compassionate, reflecting the core principles of Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. The goal was to build an accountable and victim-centered institution to remedy past injustices.

Key features of the original claims fund included:

• A Confidential and Trauma-Informed Approach: To avoid the re-traumatization of public trials, the process was mandated to be confidential and sensitive to the psychological harm suffered by claimants.
• An Independent Administrator: To ensure fairness and credibility, the fund was overseen by an administrator confirmed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, who could only be removed for “good cause.” This structural independence was critical for building trust and ensuring impartial decisions.
• A Commitment to Funding: The legislature initially pledged to appropriate $75 million annually to the fund, signaling a serious commitment to providing compensation.

In July 2024, the process was amended to include additional categories of abuse, which encouraged hundreds more claimants to opt into the administrative fund, demonstrating its initial success as a trusted, alternative judicial mechanism.

Addressing Health, Well-being, and Inequality: Upholding SDG 3 and SDG 10

The claims process was fundamentally aligned with several key SDGs. By providing a safe and confidential setting for victims to share their experiences, the fund directly supported SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. The trauma-informed model acknowledged the severe and lasting mental health consequences of the abuse and sought to prevent further psychological distress.

Furthermore, the initiative represented an attempt to address deep-seated societal failures highlighted in SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. The report from the fund’s former administrator, John T. Broderick Jr., notes that most victims came from vulnerable backgrounds, impacted by poverty, violence, and addiction. The state’s abuse exacerbated their marginalization. The claims fund was an essential, albeit late, step toward providing a remedy for the state’s failure to protect its most vulnerable children.

A Reversal of Commitments: Undermining Justice and Institutional Integrity

Recent legislative and executive actions have fundamentally dismantled the fund’s independent and victim-centered structure, representing a significant regression from the principles of SDG 16. A series of changes has effectively stripped the process of its credibility and fairness.

1. Defunding the Commitment: A new administration’s budget proposed zero funding for the claims fund. The legislature ultimately allocated only $20 million for fiscal year 2026, a fraction of the promised amount and insufficient to cover existing and future awards.
2. Eliminating Independence: A last-minute legislative amendment eliminated the independent, court-appointed administrator. The position is now a political appointee of the governor, who can be removed at any time without cause.
3. Compromising Neutrality: The new structure grants the attorney general—whose office represents the state as the defendant in these cases—the power to veto any award decision made by the administrator.

This “bait and switch” has transformed the process from a neutral forum for justice into one controlled entirely by the defendant. This action subverts the core tenet of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

Consequences for Victims and Sustainable Development Principles

The erosion of the claims process has severe consequences for the claimants and represents a failure to uphold international development goals. The state has breached the trust of nearly 1,300 claimants who migrated from the court system based on the promise of a fair and independent process.

The current framework undermines key SDGs in the following ways:

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Victims are now forced to choose between accepting a potentially inadequate award from a state-controlled process or facing the trauma of a public trial. The state is positioned to benefit from their psychological vulnerability and shame.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The revised system disproportionately harms vulnerable individuals who may lack the resources or emotional fortitude to pursue a lengthy and public court battle, thereby reinforcing the initial inequalities that led to their victimization.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The state has gutted the integrity of a judicial institution it created. Allowing a defendant to appoint the judge and veto the verdict is a fiction of justice and an affront to the rule of law.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability and Adherence to Global Goals

The initial establishment of the Youth Development Center Claims Administration and Settlement Fund was a laudable step toward providing justice and accountability in line with global standards for human rights and sustainable development. However, recent legislative changes have created a facade of justice, betraying the trust of victims and abandoning the state’s commitment to building strong, fair, and accountable institutions as outlined in SDG 16.

Restoring the fund’s independence and providing the promised resources is not merely a budgetary matter; it is a moral imperative. To achieve true justice for the children it abused, the state of New Hampshire must reverse these changes and recommit to a process that is genuinely independent, trauma-informed, and victim-centered.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues of historical child abuse within state-run facilities, the subsequent fight for justice and accountability, and the impact on victims. These themes directly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that focus on justice, health, and equality.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire narrative revolves around the failure of a state institution (the Youth Development Center) to protect children, the subsequent legal battles for justice and accountability, and the political manipulation of the justice process. The article details the lack of accountability for decades, the creation of a claims process to provide justice, and the recent legislative changes that undermine the fairness and independence of that process.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article extensively describes the severe and lasting psychological damage inflicted upon the victims. It mentions “crushing stories,” “pain and trauma,” and the need for “trauma-informed professionals.” The abuse directly impacts the mental health and well-being of the victims, a core concern of SDG 3.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights that the victims were particularly vulnerable children. It states, “The common denominator for most of those kids was being born into families that didn’t exist. Their homes were most often broken.” These children, already facing significant disadvantages due to their socioeconomic background and family situations, were further victimized by the state, exacerbating deep-seated inequalities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific targets under the identified SDGs are relevant.

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. The article’s central theme is the “sexual and physical abuse” of children detained in Youth Development Center facilities, which went on for over 50 years. This target is directly addressed by the historical problem described.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The victims’ struggle for justice through “hundreds of lawsuits” and the creation of an “administrative claims process” are efforts to achieve this target. However, the article argues that recent changes, such as making the administrator a “political appointee” whose decisions “can be vetoed by the attorney general,” fundamentally undermine equal access to justice.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article chronicles the failure of the YDC as an accountable institution. The creation of the claims fund was an attempt to build an accountable process, but the subsequent defunding and removal of its independent administrator demonstrate a regression in institutional accountability and transparency.

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being. The article’s focus on the victims’ “pain and trauma,” “mental illness,” and the need for a “trauma-informed” and “victim-centered” process directly relates to promoting mental health. The abuse described is a direct cause of long-term mental health issues that this target aims to address.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard. The state’s failure to protect vulnerable children from “broken homes” and the subsequent “bait and switch” on the compensation fund represent a failure to ensure equal opportunity and justice for a disadvantaged group. The article argues that the new system benefits the state at the expense of traumatized claimants, thus increasing inequality of outcome.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress, or lack thereof, towards the identified targets.

1. Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Indicator for Target 16.2 (End violence against children): The number of victims seeking justice. The article states that the number of claimants has “swollen to almost 1,300,” which serves as a proxy indicator for the prevalence of historical abuse being uncovered.
   • Indicator for Target 16.3 (Access to justice): The existence of an independent judicial mechanism. The article provides a clear negative indicator by describing the elimination of the “neutral and independent’ administrator appointed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court” in favor of a political appointee controlled by the governor and attorney general.
   • Indicator for Target 16.6 (Accountable institutions): The level of state funding for reparations. The article provides precise figures: the legislature initially “promised to appropriate $75 million a year,” but this was later reduced to “zero” in a budget proposal, and then only “$20 million” was allocated, indicating a severe lack of financial commitment and accountability.

2. Indicators for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

   • Indicator for Target 3.4 (Promote mental health): The provision of specialized support services. The article mentions the mandate for the claims process to be “confidential, trauma-informed, and victim-centered” and aided by “incredible trauma-informed professionals.” The existence and quality of these services are a direct indicator of efforts to address the mental health consequences of the abuse.

3. Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Indicator for Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity): The fairness of the legal process for vulnerable groups. The article implies an indicator of inequality by stating that the new system, which is “completely controlled by the state,” will force vulnerable claimants to “accept whatever the attorney general allows knowing they could never withstand the trauma of a jury trial.” This demonstrates an unequal process that disadvantages the victims.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: seacoastonline.com