DOC seeks $300,000 to study converting St. Johnsbury into intensive substance‑use treatment center

The Institutions Committee on Feb. 18 heard testimony from Nick Dillon, Commissioner of Corrections, about a $300,000 line in the governor’s proposed FY26 general fund budget to study converting part of the St. Johnsbury corrections campus into an intensive, in‑residence substance‑use treatment program.

Dillon told the committee the department already has “the infrastructure already,” and that the money would be used chiefly to contract experts to design a program that could be implemented inside the secure facility. “We have the beds, we have the staff in place,” Dillon said. “What we don’t have is the intensive programming and the substance use specific model that moves people through the recovery journey.”

Why it matters: the department reported a daily incarcerated population of about 1,415 people, roughly two‑thirds sentenced and one‑third pretrial detainees. Dillon said nearly 70 percent of that population have opioid use disorder and that adding other substances would put “us close to 100 percent” with some substance‑use problem, making treatment availability inside corrections a system‑wide issue.

What the proposal would fund: Dillon described the $300,000 as primarily a planning and startup appropriation. He said roughly two‑thirds of the amount would pay consultants — clinical psychologists and treatment‑design experts — to (a) produce a program design, (b) recommend staffing and eligibility criteria, and (c) provide a playbook for implementation. The remaining roughly one‑third would be reserved for early implementation so work could begin in the same fiscal year rather than waiting for a future budget cycle.

Facility and bed counts: committee members and DOC staff reviewed how the St. Johnsbury campus is configured. The campus includes a secure detention facility and a separate minimum‑security work camp. Dillon said the work camp is an open‑bay dormitory of about 100 beds (roughly “50 beds per side”), while the secure facility and the whole campus total in the “hundred‑seventies range.” He said the department would likely preserve one unit for transient detainees (committee discussion estimated that transient unit could be “30‑something” beds) and noted a planning estimate that about 90 beds could be dedicated to treatment phases if the design warranted it.

Program model and eligibility: the department envisions an opt‑in, phased model with intensive in‑residence care that steps down into lower‑intensity units and community transition supports. Dillon pointed to the Granite Recovery Center (New Hampshire) and other community models as examples for the consultants to study while stressing that corrections‑specific models must be adapted to the facility setting. He said the department expects the program to serve a mixed population of detainees and sentenced people, and that medical and treatment staff (not corrections supervisors) would guide clinical decisions such as continuing medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Timeline and procurement: Dillon said the department expects the consultant study to take about six months. If the study is funded and proceeds, DOC would issue an RFP unless the work could be covered under an existing contract. Committee discussion clarified the funding breakdown: committee members reported a working understanding that about $200,000 would be used for the consultant study and roughly $100,000 would be held for initial implementation and infrastructure needs.

Evidence of outcomes and measurement: committee members asked what success metrics the department would use. Dillon said existing measures (completion rates, retention on MOUD after release, recidivism) could be replicated from programs that demonstrate efficacy; he noted DOC’s overall recidivism rate is about 40 percent and that DOC data shared in partnership with the state’s Medicaid analytics showed about 70 percent of incarcerated people who receive MOUD remain on MOUD in the community after release for the early post‑release period. Several committee members requested that the consultant’s report include clear success metrics and be returned to the committee before any larger, recurring funding is approved.

Questions and concerns raised: members pressed on staffing (whether new clinical staff would be needed and how to recruit them), long‑term operating cost (the committee repeatedly said the $300,000 is one‑time planning money and that ongoing costs would be a separate budget request), criteria for who would be eligible to enroll, and whether the department could replicate community programs inside a secure setting. Committee members and the commissioner discussed safeguards — for example, checking back with the committee or joint justice if the department sought additional implementation funds after the study.

Next steps: committee members signaled preliminary support for including the planning appropriation in their recommendation to the House Appropriations Committee by the Feb. 26 deadline but emphasized that further reporting and explicit performance metrics should accompany any request for recurring funds.

Ending: DOC staff and legislators agreed to draft committee language to accompany the recommendation, request the consultant present findings to the committee or joint justice if implementation funding is sought, and return requested precise cost estimates for the study portion before the Appropriations deadline.