Community justice centers warn of program cuts as DOC reshapes funding

LEDE: Directors and staff from Vermont’s community justice centers told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 1 that planned changes to Department of Corrections (DOC) funding and an uncertain Attorney General’s Office funding request for precharge diversion could leave some centers without state support, even as the centers reported high program completion rates and low recidivism for participants.

NUT GRAF: Speakers said Vermont’s 17 Community Justice Centers (CJCs) provide reparative panels, circles of support and accountability (COSA), reentry services and precharge restorative options that divert cases from court. They warned that DOC plans to change its FY26 funding allocation — moving from 17 funded centers to support for 13 centers and a new per‑county award structure — combined with no guaranteed legislative funding for the Attorney General’s proposed statewide precharge program, will create immediate budget uncertainty for several long‑running local programs.

Body: Kaci Viado, co‑director of Restorative Justice Programs at InterAction (formerly Youth Services in Brattleboro), told the committee that CJCs offer reparative panels, COSA and reentry work and are starting restorative practices inside correctional units. “We help participants self determine meaningful repair they can offer,” Viado said, and noted that Act 11’s passage last session “opens the door for community justice centers to build relationships with local domestic violence support organizations and the potential to accept domestic violence cases.” Viado also stressed that Act 11 did not include additional funding for CJC work.

Joseph Bovandway, director of the South Burlington Community Justice Center, described how his center receives primarily precharge referrals from law enforcement and how the process operates in Chittenden County: law enforcement refers incidents to CJCs, CJCs conduct intake and, when responsible parties accept the process, panels create restorative contracts and a completion document that is returned to police records instead of proceeding to court. “We look at a 97 percent completion rate for folks that engage,” Bovandway said; later in testimony he cited a 97.4 percent completion rate for those who complete intake and an overall recidivism rate of 10.2 percent based on a 10‑year review of Chittenden County data.

Bovandway provided additional program detail: South Burlington typically handles about 20 direct precharge referrals per year and has processed roughly 600 precharge cases over the past five fiscal years, while Chittenden County as a whole processed 2,643 precharge referrals from FY2019–FY2024. He told the committee that when a participant completes a restorative contract the CJC provides a completion document to police records and “the citation is null and void.” He said that, in practice, most referrals come from law enforcement rather than court filings and that CJCs can and do accept cases of varying severity when responsible parties acknowledge harm and volunteer to participate.

On funding, Bovandway summarized current and proposed support: DOC has been a steady funder for decades but proposes to change its model for FY26 to one agency per probation‑and‑parole catchment area with a base grant of $100,000, remainder distributed by probation and parole population share, and an added $75,000 for agencies that provide correctional‑facility restorative services. He said his center operates largely on DOC funding and that South Burlington’s DOC allotment has been roughly $120,000–$125,000 a year (Bovandway also said DOC funding for South Burlington this fiscal year was approximately $149,000). Under the DOC proposal, three CJCs in Chittenden County (South Burlington, Williston and Essex) would lose DOC funding in FY26; Bovandway said those three centers accounted for 1,917 of the county’s 2,643 precharge referrals.

Committee members asked about cost savings and public‑safety impacts. Bovandway said there are “significant cost savings” from avoiding court dockets, judges, prosecutors and defenders when cases are resolved through precharge restorative processes; he gave South Burlington’s DOC budget of roughly $120,000–$125,000 as the operating cost for the number of precharge cases his center handles. A committee member noted the Attorney General’s Office requested approximately $1,750,000 to fund precharge statewide, with about $1,000,000 intended to support current providers.

Several lawmakers pressed speakers on outcome measures and whether the CJCs reduce recidivism and backlog pressures. Bovandway said his ten‑year review found a 10.2 percent recidivism rate among people who completed the restorative process and that the CJC completion rate for those who engaged was 97.4 percent. Speakers also emphasized non‑monetary benefits—community connection, accountability and closure for affected parties—that they said are not captured in simple cost comparisons.

Ending: Speakers urged the committee to consider funding stability for the statewide precharge model as the Legislature and the Attorney General weigh FY26 appropriations. Bovandway said municipalities are preparing contingency budgets—South Burlington’s city budget includes a $60,000 line for its CJC to be considered at town meeting—while the final distribution of DOC and AGO funding remains unresolved this session.