Parole Board briefs committee on hearings, presumptive parole, earned time and victim notification

Dean George, chair of the Parole Board, and Mary Jane Ainsworth, the board’s director, gave the Corrections & Institutions Committee a detailed briefing on Jan. 29 on how the board schedules and conducts hearings, the mechanics of presumptive parole, and operational issues including victim notification, earned time, and a counsel conflict.

Board operations and caseload: Ainsworth said the board held 694 hearings in 2024 involving people incarcerated or on community supervision, and that 152 individuals waived hearings (128 waived initial‑eligibility hearings and 24 waived parole‑violation hearings). The board has seven members; three members sit for each hearing date. The board schedules hearings primarily Tuesday–Thursday with an overflow Thursday each month and typically runs 10 hearing days per month.

Presumptive parole and the shift away from furlough: The pair described the Justice Reinvestment II changes that created presumptive parole and changed supervision practices. Under the board’s explanation, presumptive parole is an administrative review that can set conditions and parole placement without an in‑person hearing when a person meets statutory eligibility criteria and no disqualifying factors apply. Ainsworth said presumptive parole cases fell from around 12 in 2021 to four in 2024; George and Ainsworth said several statutory safeguards (including new criminal charges while incarcerated and recent major disciplinary infractions) frequently make people ineligible for presumptive parole.

The witnesses told the committee the department and board are shifting away from furlough as the principal vehicle for transition to community supervision. Department of Corrections officials now supervise people in the community by assessed risk rather than by legal status (parole vs. furlough). George said that where appropriate, the board aims to parole people from facilities directly rather than place them on furlough first.

Hearings, violations and evidence: George and Ainsworth described parole‑violation hearings as the board’s most complex work. Violation hearings typically have an evidentiary phase and a disposition phase; they can include testimony from victims and police officers and often require coordination with prosecutors. The board reported a trend toward continuing more parolees on supervision rather than revoking parole for technical violations: Ainsworth cited a year in which the board continued 59 parolees on technical violations and revoked 19. She also said contested probable‑cause and release hearings — including requests for counsel and probable‑cause challenges when someone is detained prior to a violation hearing — have increased in number.

Victim notification and testimony: By statute, victims of listed crimes must be notified and may testify. Ainsworth said the Department of Corrections performs notifications through automated victim systems and follow‑up outreach; the board now includes a victim‑notification summary in parole packets to show whether victims were reached and whether they want to testify. The board reported a notable increase in victim testimony since 2019 and said virtual hearings make it easier for victims to participate while preserving privacy options (for example, blocking video or joining audio‑only).

Open‑meeting/streaming concerns and counsel conflict: George told the committee the board had observed commercial re‑broadcasting of hearings on YouTube, including occasions in which victims were imperfectly anonymized. The board has begun asking attendees at the start of hearings to declare their purpose and to limit observers to Vermonters with a direct interest, to curb commercial reuse. The board also described a conflict problem: its general counsel also supervises DOC’s litigation unit, creating an appearance of conflicted representation for some matters. The board attempted to procure independent conflict counsel with $25,000 set aside in the budget but received no bids.

Earned time and incentives: Committee members raised that some people prefer furlough to parole because furlough and incarceration accrue seven days of earned time per month, while parole currently does not. Ainsworth and George said some people decline parole for that reason; the board supports examining earned‑time parity because the current arrangement creates perverse incentives and complicates victim expectations about release dates.

Operational constraints and training: George described training burdens for volunteer board members (per‑diem compensation is $100 per workday) and the resource constraints of being a line item in DOC’s budget. He also described the board’s adoption of a structured decision‑making framework and that additional training is required to implement it properly. The board noted that an increase in complex hearings and caseload changes has increased workload and training needs.

Ending: George and Ainsworth framed the briefing as informational. They requested follow‑up on several operational topics — victim notification, earned time policy, counsel conflict and resource needs for training and administration — and said the board would share data and materials the committee requested.