State law creates precharge diversion program; local sites warn loss of DOC funding threatens services

Ben Novogrovsky, Council Legislative Counsel, gave a brief overview of Act 180 of 2024 and the statute sections that implement a statewide precharge diversion program.

The act, Novogrovsky said, “codifies precharge diversion for both juveniles and adults” and locates most of the new provisions in Title 3, sections 163 and 164 of state law. He described precharge diversion as "a referral of an individual to a community based restorative justice provider by a law enforcement officer or prosecutor after the referring officer or prosecutor has determined that probable cause exists ... and before the individual is criminally charged." Novogrovsky emphasized that the new law does not create a long-term revenue source but requires data collection and establishes administrative duties for the Attorney General’s Office.

Judge Roy Thiboe, a superior court judge assigned to the Orleans County Criminal Division, told the committee the program could reduce workload in crowded court calendars. He said removing eligible low‑risk matters from the filing process reduces centralized intake, docket creation and other administrative tasks, freeing judges and staff to focus on cases that must be litigated.

Orleans County State's Attorney Farzana Leyva said she has drafted a precharge policy covering roughly 10 offenses she expects to refer for diversion, including low‑level theft and certain driving‑related charges. Leyva said precharge diversion “is an absolute valuable opportunity to redirect eligible individuals away from the traditional criminal justice system before charges are filed,” but she warned it should be used case‑by‑case and is not appropriate for repeat or serious offenders.

Alexis Bridal, Orleans County court diversion director, said her program — embedded at Northeast Kingdom Community Action — already collects case‑level data from referral through completion and sees precharge diversion as most effective for low‑level youth and adults. Bridal described a recent case where a precharge referral resolved a negligent operation matter in about a month, preventing a potential adverse impact on the participant’s employment prospects.

Interim Chief Burke of the South Burlington Police Department described how his city’s community justice center (CJC) operates under DOC grants and other victim‑services funding. Burke provided the committee with program-level figures: roughly 600 referrals across fiscal years 2019–2024, 386 completed restorative agreements, and smaller numbers of no‑contacts, failures to complete and unresolved cases. He told the committee the CJC runs on a DOC grant that currently amounts to about $150,000 (in FY25 dollars) and said, “we can run our program through fiscal year 26. But beyond that, if there's not state funding, I don't see how we continue this work.”

Novogrovsky outlined statutory requirements added by Act 180: the Attorney General will administer the precharge program; grant authority for community justice providers shifts from the Department of Corrections to the Attorney General’s Office; state's attorneys must adopt and publicly post precharge diversion policies; participants must be offered consultation with a public defender; providers must report specified data annually to the Attorney General; and successful completion of precharge diversion triggers a record deletion process after two years. The statute also permits law enforcement and prosecutors to retain certain criminal‑justice database information for law‑enforcement purposes and directs the Attorney General to collaborate with providers, state’s attorneys and other agencies to stabilize administration and funding.

Committee members asked several witnesses about capacity and funding. Bridal said Orleans County diversion had received 10 youth referrals in the prior six months (four completed, four ongoing, one elected to go to court) and that the program currently receives DOC funding; without replacement funding she said the service would stop. Leyva and Judge Thiboe both urged that reliable data collection be part of any funding decision to permit measurement of outcomes and impacts on court backlog.

The committee did not take a vote on funding at the session. Witnesses requested that the Attorney General’s Office and other stakeholders continue to develop implementation plans and that the legislature consider funding mechanisms to replace DOC grant support.

Looking ahead, Act 180 creates a working group to examine post‑adjudication reparative options and requires a report later in the year; local program leaders urged that any transition preserve the ability to make timely direct referrals from law enforcement and maintain victim‑notification and data reporting practices.

Ending note: Officials characterized precharge diversion as an option that can reduce court administrative burden and provide restorative outcomes for victims and low‑risk participants, but local program leaders said the shift of grant authority and DOC’s decision to stop funding create a budget gap that must be addressed to sustain services statewide.