House committee hears calls to fix gaps in Vermontvictim-notification system

Montpelier, Vt.

Lawmakers and victim advocates told the House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 2 that Vermonts victim-notification systems are fragmented and sometimes fail to deliver timely information to crime victims about earned time, transfers and release dates. The committee heard testimony from Jennifer Pullman of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, Department of Corrections victim services officials and county victim advocates, who urged a coordinated fix and stronger handoffs between law enforcement, prosecutors and DOC.

The witnesses said the state currently relies on two partly separate notification paths: advocates connected to states attorneys during prosecution, and a DOC-run VINELink system that provides post-adjudication notifications for people in custody. "In an ideal world, we would have a seamless system for victims, across the board," Jennifer Pullman, executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, told the committee.

Why it matters: Advocates said gaps in how victim contact information is gathered and shared can leave victims unaware of changes in an offenders incarceration status for months or years. That risks retraumatizing victims and undercuts safety planning, the witnesses said. The committee earlier established a work group under Act 159; panelists described that group as the vehicle to develop operational fixes.

Key points of testimony

- Statute and proposal: Pullman and other advocates asked the committee to consider amending the earned-time notification statute (cited in testimony as 28 VSA 818 in testimony) so victims who opt in would receive timely notice about changes to an offenders minimum release date. Testimony noted the existing statutory obligation requires the Department to notify an offender no less than 90 days before time off the minimum sentence is applied and asked lawmakers whether the same affirmative obligation could be extended, for those who choose it, to victims.

- Minimum frequency and victim control: Advocates proposed language that would provide victims with notice "not less frequently than every three months" if they opt in, while preserving the victims ability to set a different preference. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that any change should keep the victim in control of frequency to avoid retraumatization.

- Data handoffs and systems: Department of Corrections officials said VINELink is used by most states and can operate as a single system if all partners feed it, but the central shortfall is getting reliable victim contact information into whichever system is used. Meredith Kalki, director of victim services at the Vermont Department of Corrections, said the larger problem is that "there's nothing in statute that says how we are going to get the victim contact information," and that courts, law enforcement and state's attorneys do not consistently supply that data to DOC or VINELink.

- Capacity and staffing constraints: Witnesses described limited staffing that affects service. Pullman noted the victim services specialist program at the Office (as described in testimony) has five specialists serving the whole state. Several state's attorneys advocates were described as managing very large caseloads, roughly 600 cases each in some offices, making manual data entry into VINELink burdensome.

- Technical and trust issues: Committee members and witnesses debated whether the problem is primarily technical (databases that don't talk to each other) or human (workload, training, trust). DOC officials said their vendor can accept data feeds from other systems, but many local law enforcement agencies do not use the same data platforms and some offices do not routinely enter victims into VINELink. Megan Place, Windsor County victim advocate, described handing off victim contact information by email or form in her county and said local practice varies.

What was not decided

No bill was voted on and the committee took no formal action on the floor. Witnesses and committee members discussed amending statute and the possibility of using legislative oversight and quarterly reporting to monitor the work groups progress; no statute change was adopted during the hearing.

Quotations from the record

"In an ideal world, we would have a seamless system for victims, across the board," Jennifer Pullman, executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, said during her testimony.

"It could be one system if everyone wanted to use that system," Meredith Kalki, director of victim services at the Vermont Department of Corrections, told lawmakers when asked if VINELink could serve as the single platform.

"There is a sense of distrust in how the notifications are going to go out," Megan Place, victim advocate for the Windsor County State's Attorneys Office, said, describing why some advocates have been reluctant to rely solely on automated VINELink notices.

"We are grateful to be a part of conversations around improvements to Vine," Charley Glesserman, policy director for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said in testimony.

Ending note

Committee members and witnesses agreed to use the Act 159 working group to pursue technical fixes, agreements on data sharing and options for resourcing, with an eye toward quarterly reporting back to legislative oversight. Several committee members also offered to meet separately with agency IT staff or vendors to keep momentum while the working group begins meeting in May.