Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recidivism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee Weighs How to Define and Measure Recidivism as Bill H410 Moves Forward
Summary
Witnesses told the Judiciary committee that Vermont’s proposed recidivism bill, H410, could benefit from broader data elements and measures — including desistance and program participation — and urged a multi-stakeholder effort to align definitions and data systems before finalizing statute.
At a Judiciary committee hearing, members discussed bill H410 and broader options for defining and measuring recidivism in Vermont, hearing testimony that urged clearer, more granular metrics and improved data sharing across agencies.
Marshall Paul, of the Office of the Defender General, told the committee he and his office support “the concept behind H410” but asked for a multi-stakeholder effort to identify what data the judiciary, Department of Corrections (DOC) and the state’s data analysts (CRG) can provide before a statutory definition is finalized. Paul recommended adding measures that capture whether any period of incarceration — not just stays of 90 days or more — affects reoffending, noting national research that even short stays “as little as 48 hours” can increase recidivism for young people.
Paul also urged the committee to collect program and supervision data to assess whether interventions are working. Citing federal guidance, he said the National Institute of Justice recommends measuring recidivism relative to criminal-justice interventions so the state can understand “do our interventions work?” He gave examples committee members could use to compare outcomes, such as DOC’s RRP programming, vendor treatment programs, and differences between administrative probation and in-person supervision.
Ellen Whelan Wiest, deputy division director for the Council of State Governments Justice Center, said the Justice Center’s recent national report compared states using a common metric — a three-year re-incarceration rate — because it is universally available. But she endorsed reconviction as a useful middle-ground measure for Vermont, calling reconviction “a nice way” to focus on cases that progressed through the court system and produce a disposition. Whelan Wiest also supported the bill’s proposed breakout of violent and nonviolent offenses, saying that tracking those categories can help policymakers understand whether violent-offense cohorts show different recidivism patterns.
Both witnesses cautioned about using rearrest as a primary metric because it can capture arrests that do not lead to charges or convictions and can reflect disproportionate policing in some communities. Whelan Wiest illustrated that rearrest can “capture bad arrests” and produce misleading comparisons across populations.
Committee members and witnesses raised several technical and policy issues the bill should address before becoming law. Among items discussed were:
- Including measures of desistance (whether subsequent offenses are less serious) rather than counting only repeat offenses of the same class; Paul used a hypothetical sequence of increasingly less-serious offenses to illustrate desistance that a simple repeat-offense metric would miss. - Collecting linked data elements needed for analysis: arraignment and disposition dates, offense types, and DOC release dates, which Whelan Wiest said are commonly available in court and DOC systems. - Accounting for sealed records and expungements: witnesses and members discussed whether sealed records should be included in recidivism calculations and how to preserve legal protections while maintaining historical population baselines; Whelan Wiest said sealing and expungement raise distinct analytical and legal questions and offered to follow up with Justice Center colleagues on juvenile-specific issues. - The feasibility of statute versus technical guidance: Paul urged capturing as much as possible in statute to ensure data are gathered, while also recognizing that different policy questions will demand different measures and that some queries may be better handled outside strict statutory definitions.
Committee chair remarks closed the hearing by saying the panel will schedule dedicated discussion time on H410, seek additional stakeholder input (including CRG, judiciary and DOC), and consider working over the summer if needed to develop a shared definition and data plan. No formal motions or votes on H410 were taken during the session.
The committee also asked staff to post the Justice Center report referenced by Whelan Wiest and to return with follow-up information on juvenile measures and how sealing/expungement are handled in other states.
