UVM and Vermont DOC outline expansion of five‑year prison survey project after pilot at Southern State

University of Vermont researchers and Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) officials on Thursday described results from a five‑year pilot survey at Southern State Correctional Facility and said they plan to expand the Prison Research and Innovation Network (PRIN) survey process to all state prisons.

The presentation, led by Abigail Crocker of the University of Vermont and Anthony Giordano, volunteer coordinator at Southern State Correctional Facility, summarized three survey waves that began with a pilot launch in January 2020 and highlighted areas for further investigation including medication‑assisted treatment (MAT), reentry readiness, health care access, commissary pricing and idle time for incarcerated people.

The PRIN pilot grew from an Urban Institute grant and paired independent researchers at UVM with a single pilot prison. Crocker said the surveys were developed through focus groups and interviews with staff and incarcerated people and that each survey contains roughly 150 questions. She told the committee the project used a community‑engaged approach intended to center the lived experience of people inside the facility and staff in survey design and analysis.

"We created the surveys so we could identify issues and then partner with the Department of Corrections who would really take the lead in using that data to make change," Crocker said.

Why it matters: Committee members and DOC leaders said the data give a shared evidence base for facility‑level and policy decisions. The surveys produced high participation rates, offered multiyear trend data and prompted facility initiatives such as an honors unit and a staff‑run coffee program that officials described as skill‑building and morale boosters.

Key findings and figures: The presenters shared several summary metrics from the most recent wave (March 2024). Across the three waves the project achieved response rates above 70% and near‑complete item responses for returned surveys, Crocker said. Raw respondent counts across waves were roughly 100 staff and about 210 incarcerated people in the pilot facility.

- Purpose of prison: Staff and incarcerated respondents differed in their top responses; incarcerated respondents most often prioritized "helping people make changes for a better life," while staff responses were split between that option and "ensuring public safety." Crocker said the difference in perspective is important for policy discussion and implementation.

- Medication‑assisted treatment (MAT): Answers about MAT implementation were mixed. Crocker summarized results as about a 50/50 split among staff on whether MAT has been implemented in a way that supports operations and safety and whether it has had a positive effect on the facility; incarcerated respondents reported higher positive perceptions. In summary slides the researchers reported that only 37% of incarcerated respondents said they were receiving adequate treatment for substance use disorder.

- Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) and intergenerational exposure: Crocker said ACE scores in the incarcerated population were concentrated at the high end; she said the highest frequency of scores was above 7. The survey found 40% of respondents reported having a parent who had been incarcerated and 58% said they were parents of someone under 18.

- Staff conditions and retention: The team reported that staff morale and perceptions of staffing levels improved from baseline (2021) to 2024, but that 2022 showed particularly acute staffing stress. Crocker said 2023 was the first year in the series to show a positive net retention signal compared with prior years.

- Reentry readiness and services: Large majorities of incarcerated respondents said they did not feel prepared for release and said there were insufficient staff or services to help them prepare. Presenters and committee members flagged a disconnect between staff descriptions of reentry planning and incarcerated people’s perception that no plan had been discussed with them.

- Health care and mental health: Responses showed a mixed picture. Crocker said mental health treatment perceptions improved in 2024, while perceptions of timely access to medical care worsened from baseline. Presenters noted a change in health‑care contractors between waves (Vital → Wellpath) and cautioned that the timing of that transition makes causal interpretation difficult without deeper analysis.

- Commissary and contracted services: The survey respondents consistently raised concerns about commissary prices, vendor selection and the economic access of incarcerated people to commissary goods. Committee members and DOC staff discussed procurement constraints and tradeoffs between in‑house provision and contracted services for commissary, telecommunications (GTL), and tablets.

Actions taken and next steps: Crocker and DOC staff described a transition from the PRIN pilot to an expansion phase. UVM plans to institutionalize the research through a Justice Data Collaborative and a summer scholars program, and DOC said it will stand up a steering committee and pilot the PRIN survey process in other facilities. Presenters said UVM and DOC have prepared a scope of work and are awaiting a no‑cost contract to formalize the next phase.

Local facility innovations highlighted: Presenters credited Southern State staff with implementing an honors unit (indirect supervision and self‑governance), a coffee shop for skill building, and revived innovation councils that include incarcerated people and staff. Anthony Giordano described his role implementing the surveys and working with staff and volunteers at Southern State.

Discussion and caveats: Presenters emphasized that the survey results are a starting point for deeper investigation rather than final explanations. Crocker urged facility‑level "data walks" and qualitative follow‑up to interpret statistical trends, and DOC staff stressed that facility culture varies across institutions and that Southern State has been unusually receptive to partnerships. Committee members asked for comparisons with other facilities and for cross‑tab analyses that examine tenure, role type and other covariates.

No formal committee votes or motions were recorded during the presentation. Presenters provided links to the public reports and said three public reports and press releases were produced for each survey wave.

Ending: Crocker and DOC officials asked the committee to support the proposed expansion and to consider the data when crafting policy responses to staffing, commissary, health‑care contracts and reentry services. The researchers said UVM will host trainings and convenings, including a public event planned for April and a broader convening in the fall to bring together policymakers, DOC leadership, researchers and community partners.