House Corrections and Institutions reviews new pretrial supervision program; pilot in Essex and Orleans counties

The House Corrections and Institutions committee heard a briefing Thursday on a new pretrial supervision program created by legislation enacted last year and now beginning as a limited pilot in Essex and Orleans counties.

Committee members were told the program, added to Vermont’s bail law, lets a court order the Department of Corrections to supervise some defendants in the community before conviction. Ben Domagrovsky of the Office of Legislative Council described the change as “one of the conditions of release that was enacted last year,” and said the program is governed by 13 V.S.A. §7554 and §7555.

The program is court-ordered and administered by the Department of Corrections (DOC). DOC staff — primarily probation and parole officers in field offices — will recommend a supervision level to the court after conducting an assessment. The committee heard that supervision can range from automated telephonic reminders to regular phone or in-person check-ins and, for some cases, electronic monitoring such as ankle bracelets.

Under the statute, eligibility includes defendants accused of criminal contempt under 13 V.S.A. §7559 or defendants with five or more pending dockets; placement still requires a court decision based on an assessment of flight risk, public-safety risk and likelihood of appearance in court. Domagrovsky told the committee the court will review a report submitted by DOC and decide whether placement “will reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance in court when required, will reasonably mitigate the risk of flight or reasonably ensure protection of the public.”

Committee members discussed several operational limits and open questions. Funding approved by the Legislature for the first year was roughly $600,000–$650,000, intended to staff and stand up the pilot. Committee testimony described an estimated statewide cost of roughly $2 million and said prior funding requests ranged from staffing 12 probation-and-parole positions plus support down to fewer positions; the initial appropriation funded only a small number of posts for the pilot. One committee member summarized the fiscal trade-offs: greater community supervision could increase detection of violations and court workload while also potentially reducing some detainee counts if eligible defendants can be supervised rather than held on bail.

Judge Tom Zoney, chief superior judge, provided early operational counts for Orleans County, saying there are “21 who have five or more” dockets and 11 defendants with four charges recorded on the court list he reviewed. Zoney told the committee that the statute vests interpretive authority with the courts and that some questions — for example, whether the five dockets must all be within the same county to trigger eligibility — will be resolved through court practice and potentially motion practice between attorneys.

DOC staff told the committee the department has started hiring for the pilot and is developing required written policies. The statute required DOC to publish policies and procedures addressing supervision levels, criteria and evidence-based tools; DOC staff described the difference between passive and active electronic monitoring and noted passive systems may not report weekend events until staff check the system. The committee also heard that DOC can contract with third-party vendors for monitoring services and that some administrative compliance matters (for example, a device running out of battery) are handled with officer discretion while court-ordered violations must be reported to prosecutors.

Committee members asked about the program’s effect on detained populations. Witnesses said there are about 530 people currently held as detainees statewide; some detained people may be eligible for the program, but DOC and the courts will determine eligibility case by case. DOC and judges cautioned that not all detained people would meet the statutory thresholds and that differences in charge assignment (multiple charges under one docket versus separate dockets) affect eligibility counts.

The committee also discussed roll-out limits: the pilot currently operates only where DOC has staffing and funding, and statutory language has been interpreted to mean courts should not order the program in counties where the program is not operational. Committee members noted that expanding the pilot beyond Essex and Orleans will require additional general-fund appropriations to DOC.

Judicial and DOC witnesses told the committee it is too early to measure success; the pilot began at the start of the year and only a few referrals had been made. Judge Zoney offered to provide regular updates to the committee on use and outcomes. The committee closed by asking DOC and court staff to return with operational data as the pilot proceeds.

The committee did not take a formal vote or adopt any changes during the briefing; members requested follow-up information on counts, staffing and early outcomes.