Vermont DOC officials tell Corrections & Institutions committee VINE notifications hampered by data gaps; integration with prosecutors discussed

Members of the Corrections & Institutions committee heard Feb. 5 from Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) Victim Services staff about gaps in the state utomated victim-notification system known as VINE and discussed options to improve data sharing with state's attorneys.

Meredith Pilkey, director of victim services for the Vermont Department of Corrections, and Ashley Fisk, senior victim service specialist who manages the VINE system for DOC, told the committee that the state—stablished a Victim Services Unit in January 1999 to provide information, support and opportunities for victims to participate in the post-adjudication process.

Pilkey said the unit is small: a director, the senior victim services specialist, four regional victim service specialists and a 24/7 VINE line the two manage. "We wanted to start today by just telling you all a little bit about what we do at victim services for DOC," Pilkey said.

Fisk said the VINE system was implemented in 2010 after the department found it was not meeting statutory notification obligations. She said DOC has invested in improving data flow between systems and in refining the timing and content of notifications, but that technical fixes are only part of the challenge. "Data is not always easily shared or it doesn't always work very well," Fisk said. "We continue to improve and upgrade the system focusing on refining the timing and content of notifications to make them clearer and more understandable for victims and survivors."

Committee members pressed staff on specific operational issues. Fisk described how VINE sends automated alerts when a booking or status code is entered and said the vendor ppriss—an sweep the department database frequently (the system is configured to check for changes roughly every 15 minutes). Each notification includes a contact number so victims can call DOC directly.

Both witnesses said a central difficulty is that DOC does not receive victim contact information consistently. When victim information is not entered in VINE, DOC staff must contact state's attorneys' victim advocates to obtain contacts for release planning or parole notifications. Pilkey said the department currently uses a note field in VINE to store victim contact information when necessary, but called that approach labor-intensive and unreliable as an automatic notification source.

Committee members asked about opt-in and opt-out behavior and whether victims who do not want notifications are being contacted in error. Fisk said errors do occur when offenders are booked incorrectly, but victims always receive a DOC contact number with notifications and staff try to return calls promptly. Committee members also raised concerns that frequent earned-time notifications could re-traumatize victims; Fisk and Pilkey said earned-time information is presented generally on notifications ("an offender is eligible"), and DOC avoids sending overly specific, frequent earned-time notices because of the variation in case outcomes and privacy limits.

On cost and vendor questions, staff said DOC pays for its portion of VINE and described the system as "very affordable," estimating current operation costs roughly at $40,000 (exact figures available on request). They identified the vendor as Appriss (the company that provides VINE services nationally) and said the department nd the vendor have discussed expanded uses of VINE such as court notifications, automatic victim registration by partner agencies, and other integrations used in other states.

Multiple committee members asked whether bringing VINE and prosecutors' systems into tighter integration has been discussed in detail. Pilkey said conversations have been at a high level and that any deeper integration would require planning with state's attorneys about what data and alerts they would want. "We would be totally open to it. We want to work together," Pilkey said, adding DOC would welcome vendor briefings for state's attorneys and other partners.

No formal motions, votes or policy changes were recorded at the hearing. Staff described options and next steps rather than proposing immediate statutory changes; committee members asked DOC staff to follow up and to continue discussions with state's attorneys and the vendor.

The committee also discussed broader policy questions such as earned time and parole eligibility, but members and staff said those issues extend beyond the narrow technical scope of the VINE discussion and would require separate legislative debate and analysis.

The meeting closed with committee members thanking staff and asking DOC to provide follow-up cost details and additional technical information about possible integrations.