Committee reviews bill to bar use of for‑profit out‑of‑state prison beds, but pauses for capacity study

Montpelier — House bill H.191, which would bar the Vermont Department of Corrections from placing people in privately operated, for‑profit out‑of‑state correctional facilities and require a plan to bring incarcerated Vermonters home, drew detailed testimony and questions from the House Committee on Corrections & Institutions at its April 3 meeting.

Ben Novakravsky, legislative counsel for the committee, summarized the bill’s core provisions, saying it would limit the commissioner of corrections’ authority to transfer people in DOC custody so that assignments “are only permitted to facilities operated by public or nonprofit entities and pursuant to an interstate or federal contract.” Novakravsky said the bill text also directs DOC to develop an implementation plan to repatriate people now housed out of state.

The bill’s sponsors and several committee members said the measure is grounded in concerns about oversight, family visitation and rehabilitation when Vermonters are housed hundreds of miles away. Novakravsky read the bill’s findings that Vermont’s daily detainee count rose from about 300 in 2020 to about 500 in 2024 and that out‑of‑state placements discourage visits and can limit access to legal counsel.

Department of Corrections policy director Isaac Dann told the committee that the department shares many of the bill’s values but raised operational concerns. Dann said DOC is already operating above its general‑population capacity and that bringing people home would strain in‑state beds. “Today, we’re at 135% of our general population bed capacity,” Dann said, and DOC reported about 117 people are currently housed in Mississippi. He added that systemwide DOC has only about 13 available general‑population beds at present and that facility beds are designated for different uses (booking, infirmary, mental‑health, geriatric or close custody), so raw bed counts do not equal usable general capacity.

DOC and committee members also discussed language in H.191 that would prohibit DOC from contracting with private or for‑profit vendors for rehabilitative, educational, health‑care or other support services. The department told the committee it holds roughly 73 contracts for services such as commissary, tablets, electronic monitoring, health care (Wellpath), training and some offender treatment programs; DOC said the bill as written would affect a majority of those agreements and that the state currently lacks in‑house capacity to absorb all those functions immediately.

Union testimony supported the bill’s intent. Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association, told the committee VSEA supports H.191 as a values question and urged lawmakers to take time to refine the proposal. “We think the Windsor facility should be reopened and should be considered as part of this process,” Howard said, citing an existing but closed state site that union members and DOC officials said could play a role in returning people to Vermont.

Throughout the hearing, members pressed DOC for fiscal detail and for a list of existing out‑of‑state contracts and other vendor agreements that would be affected by the bill. Committee members and DOC staff referenced prior work: language in last year’s miscellaneous bill that directs a study on in‑state capacity and a report expected back this fall; DOC witnesses said they will rely on that report as part of planning. Novakravsky and committee members said H.191 would require DOC to submit an implementation plan on or before Nov. 15, 2025, and the bill text includes a July 1, 2025 date after which DOC “shall neither negotiate nor execute” new contracts for assignment or transfer to out‑of‑state facilities except where those placements are part of interstate compacts or federal contracts. Committee discussion also referenced a 2030 deadline mentioned during testimony for terminating existing contracts.

Members asked whether interstate compacts or federal contracts (for example, beds used for federal detainees and U.S. Marshals Service per‑diem placements) would be exempt; Novakravsky and DOC clarified the bill’s draft preserves placements under interstate compacts and federal contracts. DOC witnesses noted some interstate compact placements have unique purposes — for example, when Vermont lacks an in‑state maximum‑security bed or to accommodate transport for federal trials — and said those arrangements are uncommon but still used.

Committee members expressed a mix of philosophical support for the bill’s goal and practical concern about how to implement it without creating dangerous overcrowding, undermining care standards, or abruptly terminating services such as electronic medical records, electronic monitoring and health care provided through private vendors. DOC staff and witnesses repeatedly emphasized staffing and infrastructure limits as central constraints.

The committee took no formal vote. Members asked DOC to provide detail on contracts that would be implicated and discussed scheduling additional testimony and tours of state and out‑of‑state facilities; several members said they would like committee members and staff to see facilities and to hear further from vendors including those that provide health care and other services. For the present, the committee agreed to continue work on H.191 and to await the forthcoming capacity study and report due this fall before taking further action.

What’s next: The committee asked DOC for a more complete list of affected contracts and indicated it will continue to gather testimony, including from contractors and the defender general’s office, and to arrange site visits. Committee members also signaled interest in following related bills and in interim work on specific system changes — for example, commissary pricing, medication‑assisted treatment and transitional‑housing grants — that could reduce pressure on institutional beds.

Sources: testimony and bill summary read into the record by Ben Novakravsky, legislative counsel; testimony from Isaac Dann and Haley Summer of the Department of Corrections; testimony from Steve Howard of the Vermont State Employees Association; committee discussion, April 3, 2025.