Vermont victim advocates warn expanding earned‑time credits would deepen harm, call for better notification systems

Montpelier — Witnesses at an Institutions committee hearing on Wednesday, Feb. 5, told lawmakers that expanding earned‑time credits or applying them to parolees would cause fresh trauma for victims and that the state’s notification systems and staffing are not prepared to handle any expansion.

The testimony came from Tim Leader Dumont, executive director of the Vermont Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, who brought two county victim advocates and a county state's attorney to explain how victims are notified and how earned‑time calculations affect victims’ expectations. The witnesses described survey results, gaps in the VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) system, and chronic understaffing of victim services.

The witnesses said victims already experience shocks when release dates change and that adding educational credits or extending earned time to parolees would compound that harm. "They have about 600 cases assigned to each of them on average as a sort of a snapshot," Dumont said of the department’s 27 victim advocates, who he said cover more than 23,000 pending court cases statewide. The advocates urged improved notifications, clearer plain‑language notices, and more staffing rather than expanding earned‑time eligibility.

Megan Place, a victim advocate for the Windsor County State's Attorney's Office, summarized advocates’ resistance to expansion: "I think that generally speaking, advocates are adverse to the idea of the expansion just because of how difficult it's been to roll out this news to victims." Place and others said retroactive or poorly explained changes to calculation of time served have devastated some victims when offenders’ release dates moved years earlier than victims expected.

Shay Kennedy, a victim advocate with the Rutland County State's Attorney's Office, described practical limits of the VINE system and enrollment: "I think there's this assumption that every victim of crime is automatically enrolled in this program, and that is inaccurate." Kennedy said enrollment currently depends on a victim registering, a state's attorney advocate registering them, or Department of Corrections staff doing so; it is not automatic. She added that VINE will "automatically tell someone whenever an offender is booked in or out of the facility," which is useful in some cases, but that the system’s generic messages can alarm victims if they imply eligibility for earned time when none exists.

Advocates said the survey they conducted of the department’s 27 victim advocates received 15 responses (55 percent). Of those, 14 opposed expanding earned time to parolees; respondents either opposed expanding earned time for educational credits or did not answer. On confidence in VINE’s readiness to handle any expansion, 12 respondents said they had "no real confidence," two said yes, and one did not answer, according to Dumont.

Advocates and prosecutors described the consequences for victims when release timing is uncertain. Kennedy said that the state’s calculations — described by witnesses as "DOC math" — can continually reduce a sentence after a court imposes it, eroding victims’ sense of finality and discouraging their participation in the justice process. Dumont described a case where statutory or policy changes led to an offender being released roughly 15 years earlier than family members expected; he said such outcomes are devastating.

Panelists recommended several nonlegislative steps: improved plain‑language notices; better cross‑system integration so victim contact data does not have to be reentered into multiple systems; revision of VINE messaging to avoid inaccurate statements about earned time eligibility; and increased staffing. Dumont said the department is seeking six additional victim advocates this year to reduce individual caseloads from about 500–600 toward a target range of 150–200.

Ian Sullivan, Rutland County state's attorney, answered a question about whether prosecutors attempt to adjust sentencing ranges to offset earned time and said, "The short answer is I don't think so," adding that sentencing trends and judicial discretion factor into outcomes.

Committee members asked about costs and technical fixes; Dumont said the department and committee staff will investigate integration and data‑sharing questions. "I was corrected this morning. It's called Vine, not VIN," Dumont said during testimony as witnesses discussed the notification platform.

No formal votes or bill actions were recorded during the testimony. Committee members indicated they will continue reviewing the survey posted with the committee materials and pursue next steps on improving notifications and system integrations.

The committee will accept additional suggestions on message wording, cross‑agency training about victim advocate roles, and technical integration options as it considers any policy changes.