Vermont stakeholders press for clear policy, services and reentry funding as CRCF replacement planning continues

Members of the House Corrections and Institutions Committee heard a progress update April 30 from a stakeholder group advising the Department of Corrections on plans to replace the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility and to include a reentry component on the same campus.

Advocates said the planning process has produced valuable dialogue but urged clearer statutory direction, more funding for community reentry services and steps to ensure detainees — people held pretrial — can access reentry programming while still in custody.

“The majority of incarcerated women, both in Vermont and across our country, have experienced some form of interpersonal trauma,” said Sarah Robinson, co-executive director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, describing the network’s DIVAS program and survey results showing high rates of prior domestic and sexual violence among women at CRCF. Robinson and other providers told the committee that programming, eligibility rules for the reentry unit and sustained community funding must drive the facility’s design.

Why it matters: Committee members and service providers said the physical site and building design are contingent on acquiring land — currently under discussion with the town of Essex — and that policy choices about who can access the reentry unit will determine how many reentry versus secure beds are needed. Stakeholders warned that building a facility first, without codified policy and funded community services, would lock in limits on programming for decades.

Stakeholder group and roles

Robinson described the stakeholder group as an informal, quarterly forum where DOC provides updates and community partners give input on programmatic needs. Participants include contracted service providers, advocates, policymakers and DOC staff. Several witnesses asked the committee to consider whether the group should be formalized by statute or given specific deliverables and public reporting requirements so recommendations are tracked and implemented.

“Long term residential places that have routine and discipline, but not demands in bars, who have mentors, not correctional officers,” said Gina Alsar of Free Her Vermont, reading a formerly incarcerated woman’s recommendation for alternatives that prioritize healing and community accountability.

Programming, detainees and eligibility

Providers told lawmakers that many key design choices hinge on who is eligible for the reentry facility: sentenced people only, or also detainees. Lund’s Kids Apart parenting program and others emphasized that detainees currently lack access to the same release planning and reentry services as sentenced residents. Stakeholders reported that roughly half the women at CRCF are detainees on any given day, reducing access to programs that support reentry.

Several witnesses urged the legislature to clarify whether the DOC commissioner has statutory authority to place detainees in a less-secure reentry setting. Julie (staff communications, stakeholder group) told the committee the DOC’s current reading of state statute does not explicitly authorize placing detainees in a non-secure reentry facility; changing that would be a policy decision for lawmakers.

Space, services and community proximity

Providers recommended that the reentry portion of a new campus be located near community services, transportation and employers to support housing, treatment and work opportunities. Robinson and others said facility design should be informed by the programming planned for inside and outside the walls — and by stable funding for services that bridge incarceration and community reentry.

Workforce, vocational training and funding

Vermont Works for Women described long-standing vocational and employment programs for incarcerated women and recent partnerships with employers, including a planned work-release arrangement with Rhino Foods in Burlington. Ronnie Bostin, executive director of Vermont Works for Women, said the organization has developed in-facility job-readiness programming and pre-apprenticeship models but that current space limitations at CRCF constrain what is possible.

Bostin also told the committee that Vermont Works for Women’s DOC contract was cut by roughly 50 percent, a reduction of about $106,000, which will reduce on-site staffing and services unless alternate funding is found. Committee members and witnesses flagged the funding cut as a risk to continuity of workforce programming and to release outcomes.

Health, substance use and continuity of care

Witnesses said the majority of women at CRCF have histories of trauma and substance use disorder, and they urged stronger continuity of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and behavioral health care when people leave custody. Providers said sentenced residents receive formal release planning that can connect them to community health and housing resources, whereas detainees typically do not receive that same level of planning before being released.

Timing, next steps and remaining constraints

Committee members were told that major programmatic and design work will accelerate only after a site is secured; once land is acquired, state building and engineering work (soil borings, water and sewer design) can proceed. Several witnesses asked the committee to consider formal changes to the stakeholder group’s mandate, the statutory authority governing detainee placement, and explicit legislative commitments to fund reentry and community programming alongside any construction budget.

Details and data cited to the committee

- DIVAS survey (submitted by the Vermont Network): 97 percent of surveyed women at CRCF reported prior experience of domestic violence; 82 percent reported sexual violence; 79 percent reported sexual violence before age 18; 62 percent reported forced criminality. These figures were presented to the committee by Sarah Robinson and submitted for posting. - Stakeholders reported that the daily population at CRCF has ranged between about 90 and 140 women in recent years, and that detainees make up roughly half the facility on many days. - DOC and contractors have discussed the Maine-inspired model that colocates a secure unit with a reentry unit; stakeholders said the model “holds promise” if eligibility and community investment are designed to maximize reentry use.

What was not decided

There were no committee votes or formal actions reported at the hearing. Stakeholders and the DOC did not present final bed counts, a selected site, or a formal plan; those decisions remain contingent on land acquisition, statutory clarifications and funding commitments.

Next in the process

Witnesses said the stakeholder group meets quarterly and that work on siting and technical building assessments will increase once a parcel is secured. Several providers asked lawmakers to consider statutory language or a formal mandate that would (1) guarantee stakeholder input, (2) allow detainees to be eligible for reentry programming if desired, and (3) fund community-based reentry services to ensure programming continuity from facility to community.