Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recidivism Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hearing on recidivism definitions: witnesses urge tailored metrics and more agency coordination
Summary
Experts and state officials told the Judiciary committee that the current statutory recidivism definition is limited, the Department of Corrections lacks the data systems to produce a conviction-based metric as proposed, and lawmakers should adopt tailored metrics per policy question rather than a single, fixed legal definition.
Witnesses and agency officials told the Judiciary committee that the proposed change to Vermont’s statutory definition of recidivism (H.410 / draft referenced as H4 10) would better reflect convictions than the current incarceration‑based metric, but that shifts in data sources and more interagency coordination are required before a new definition could be operationalized.
Dr. Robin Joy, director of research at Prime Research Group, testified that the state’s current statutory definition arose from an historical decision to allow Department of Corrections (DOC) reporting using DOC’s management system; that definition excludes many people who never receive incarceration sentences and therefore undercounts repeat offending. “Nobody uses it and nobody would use your current one in order to decide somebody’s punishment,” Dr. Joy said, adding that researchers typically use fingerprint‑supported criminal histories and batch processing to build more accurate recidivism measures.
DOC policy director Isaac Dano told the committee DOC’s current systems are structured around facility populations and incarceration events and that the department can more easily report incarceration‑based metrics than a conviction‑based definition tied to court outcomes. “Recidivism, at least for the Department of Corrections, is not a metric that we really look to very closely because it is so out of line with how other states measure recidivism,” Dano said, noting the department’s preference for data aligned to its management systems.
Kim McManus, appearing for the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, said the office uses the statutory definition that currently exists and warned that any new statutory language should be chosen to match how agencies will be asked to report. Assistant Attorney General Todd Dalos said the Attorney General’s Office supports the bill language broadly and cautioned that competing definitions complicate cross‑jurisdiction comparisons and policy evaluation.
Committee members raised several consistent points: (1) a single statutory definition cannot serve every policy question, (2) conviction‑based measures are preferable for many evaluations but require court and criminal‑history data and matching logic, and (3) DOC does not currently collect or standardize some of the data researchers use (for example, criminal‑history “rap sheets” that include fingerprint confirmation and death records). Members and witnesses recommended forming a technical work group or task force that includes DOC, CRG/Prime Research Group, the judiciary and state’s attorneys to align definitions, identify data sources, and build capacity if the legislature wants regular, comparable recidivism reporting.
No formal committee vote on statutory recidivism language was taken at the hearing. Committee direction: continue the discussion, consult DOC and CRG on data capacity, and consider tailoring statutory language to require reporting only after the agencies confirm they can produce consistent metrics or creating a legislative standard for how recidivism will be defined for particular policy evaluations.
