Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pretrial Supervision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears update on new statewide pretrial supervision program and limited pilot rollout
Summary
Members reviewed 13 V.S.A. §75-55 pretrial supervision, which makes the Department of Corrections responsible for court‑ordered supervision before trial; the program is funded partially, operating as a pilot in one county, and includes multiple supervision levels, eligibility criteria and compliance procedures.
The Corrections & Institutions Committee on April 10 received an overview of Vermont's newly enacted pretrial supervision statute (13 V.S.A. § 75-55) and a progress update on the program's pilot rollout.
Ben Novogratzky, legislative counsel, explained that pretrial supervision is a DOC‑administered, court‑ordered condition of release intended to improve court appearance rates, connect people to pretrial services and reduce pretrial recidivism. He said the program is designed to be imposed by a court after DOC produces a report recommending an appropriate supervision level.
Under the statute, eligibility includes people charged with violating conditions of release under 13 V.S.A. § 75-59 or people who have at least five pending dockets. Novogratzky said eligibility was narrowed during drafting to manage the program's administrative and court burden.
The department administers several supervision levels that a judge may order: automated telephonic reminders; telephonic check‑ins with a pretrial supervision officer; in‑person meetings; and electronic monitoring (ankle bracelets) or other contact technologies. Novogratzky said DOC will develop written policies and evidence‑based criteria that define which supervision level fits which case.
Compliance procedures require a pretrial supervision officer to notify the prosecutor and make reasonable efforts to notify a defendant of violations. For serious noncompliance — such as failing to report, multiple violations, or absconding — the prosecutor may file a sworn affidavit and the court may issue an arrest warrant.
Committee members asked about the program's funding, staffing and early implementation. Novogratzky said the department requested roughly $1.112 million to roll the program out statewide but the appropriations process provided substantially less (about $600,000), so the program is operating as a pilot in Orleans County (covering Essex) with limited staff. The committee heard the program was only recently stood up in that county, with a small caseload so far.
Members raised concerns about the program increasing short‑term court workload because supervision will identify compliance issues that previously went unnoticed, and about service gaps (transportation, housing and treatment) that pretrial supervision must coordinate to be effective. The committee discussed evaluation options and outside reviewers; Novogratzky and members referenced a potential third‑party evaluation by the Council of State Governments (CSG).
Committee members asked whether courts or DOC should set supervision levels. Novogratzky said the revised approach gives DOC responsibility to assign supervision level recommendations and the court the authority to adopt orders, noting DOC staff are trained in validated risk screening and supervision calibration.
No formal committee action was taken. Members signaled interest in receiving early program data and an evaluation and in clarifying statutory language in future sessions if needed.
