Lawmakers hear competing views on bill 176 to reinstate DOC work‑crew sentences; DOC warns of cost, limited results

A legislative committee heard testimony Feb. 27 on bill 176, which would direct the Vermont Department of Corrections to reinstate a work‑crew sentencing program that was closed in 2023. Nick Demore, commissioner of corrections, told the panel that DOC does not support restarting the old model because of cost, staffing and poor outcomes.

Demore said the prior work‑crew model was structured as a contract‑style labor program that assigned people serving short sentences to crews supervised by DOC staff and contracted to municipalities or other public entities. "Since 2015, [the program] never achieved that mark," Demore said. "Since 2015, this program cost the state 11 and a half million dollars. By the end of the program, each participant cost us about $62,000." He added that, when DOC closed the program, it estimated it would need roughly $3,600,000 to run it for one more year and that restarting the program today would require hiring about 15 positions and restoring equipment the agency no longer has.

Demore described operational problems the department encountered before closure: a 70% decline in work‑crew sentences from 2016 to 2023, a population shift toward people with co‑occurring substance‑use and behavioral health needs, and frequent failure to appear. "Two‑thirds of the individuals who were being sentenced to work crew never showed up," he said; when participants did not appear, DOC staff typically sought an arrest warrant and the participant was often incarcerated. At the time the program closed, Demore said, DOC had about 190 outstanding arrest warrants tied to failure to comply with work‑crew sentences (he later said the number had declined to about 160).

Demore also described how program staff positions and equipment were removed after closure: "There are no work crew positions any longer. There's no equipment." He said the program served fewer than 2% of DOC's supervised population (Demore said the supervised population is about 4,200 people) and that DOC concluded the model was not producing rehabilitative outcomes consistent with the department's current priorities.

Several witnesses urged a restoration or redesign of a dispositional option that offers quick finality for misdemeanor cases. Tim Lederthuma of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs — speaking for several state's attorneys who testified — said prosecutors value a simple, certain sanction that can resolve repeat misdemeanor dockets. "All 14 state's attorneys want this program back," Lederthuma said, arguing the option was frequently requested by defendants, helpful to victims who wanted a case resolved, and useful for clearing court dockets. He described the old work‑crew sentence as a tool of "certainty of the sanction": a defendant who did not appear for the scheduled work received a predictable consequence (an arrest warrant and a short incarceration term).

Lederthuma and several committee members emphasized that the old program's appeal stemmed from its simplicity and finality rather than from rehabilitative programming. He said many cases resolved with short work‑crew sentences involved retail theft, disorderly conduct or repeat misdemeanor offenders who had exhausted diversion options. "It is an accountability tool," Lederthuma said.

DOC described an alternative it has piloted, called the alternative community sentence (ACS) or alternative community sentence program, in a small number of counties (Demore cited Rutland County as the site with the strongest early uptake and listed three counties where the pilot has been available). The ACS is designed to be more individualized: probation and parole officers connect people with a menu of options, including community service, treatment and education. Demore said the agency has already used the ACS in a limited number of cases and that at least one person had been incarcerated after failing to complete that program. He urged that uptake by courts and defense counsel is necessary for ACS to reach scale.

Committee members raised several policy and equity issues. One lawmaker asked whether unpaid labor as a sentencing option disproportionately falls on people who cannot pay fines; another cited national research showing such programs can disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Demore and state's attorneys acknowledged those concerns; Lederthuma said judges and prosecutors viewed the option as a dispositional tool used when other remedies have failed and when victims sought case resolution.

Community stakeholders who used the prior DOC contracts gave practical testimony about how the old model operated. Patrick Healy, a cemetery director who said his organization had hosted crew teams, described receiving crew rosters by fax and checking attendance: "From Barry, they'd send me a list to 12 people to come to the cemetery 5 days a week. I'd get it Monday morning... They would just show up. We did the work." Healy said DOC had previously held formal contracts with municipalities and nonprofit providers and that the current pilot model — which relies on probation officers to solicit ad hoc placements from local organizations — places additional burden on field staff.

No formal vote was taken. Committee members repeatedly pressed for clarifications on cost and implementation logistics and discussed whether the program could be redesigned to include educational or restorative elements, including use of a $5 million federal earmark Demore said is available to provide community college courses through the Community College of Vermont for people in DOC programs. Several members expressed interest in further work: the committee paused testimony to reschedule additional witnesses and directed staff to circulate the ACS policy documents Demore referenced.

The committee's next steps, as recorded in testimony, include rescheduling stakeholders (including local providers such as cemetery directors) for more detailed operational testimony and reviewing DOC's ACS policy and cost estimates before taking bill 176 up for decision or referral. "We need to discuss this as a committee as well to see where we wanna go," the chair said near the close of the hearing.