Vermont AG outlines July 1 rollout, $1.75M funding need to implement Act 180 pre‑charge diversion

Willow Farrell, Court Diversion and Pretrial Services Director at the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, told the state Judiciary Committee on Jan. 17 that the office is preparing program manuals and a statewide plan to implement Act 180’s pre‑charge diversion provisions and expects a phased transition beginning July 1.

Farrell said the AGO will deliver a plan to the legislature by April 1 and has estimated a funding need of about $1,750,000 to maintain existing services and support statewide expansion. “July 1” was identified as the target implementation date; the office also asked the committee to include a dedicated AGO position in the Budget Adjustment Act to manage grants and program administration.

Act 180, passed last year and commonly described in testimony as the statute that codifies pre‑charge (direct referral) diversion, requires counties to publish state’s attorney policies on pre‑charge referrals, sets reporting expectations, and tasks the AGO with grant administration and a plan where multiple providers exist in a county. Committee members were repeatedly told that the program will create faster outreach to victims and can keep appropriate cases out of the court system.

Farrell described the AGO’s existing Community Justice Unit, which currently supports 12 community justice centers and runs post‑charge court diversion, civil‑violation diversion (e.g., underage alcohol/cannabis), and programs for driving with a suspended license. She said the pre‑charge program will be similar programmatically to post‑charge diversion but differs legally because pre‑charge referrals concern incidents for which a crime has been identified but a prosecutor has not filed charges.

The office emphasized three near‑term priorities: developing a pre‑charge manual in coordination with existing providers, completing the April 1 plan for counties with multiple providers, and ensuring grants and staffing are in place so local programs can continue operating without interruption. “We are stretched thin,” Farrell said, explaining why the AGO needs the new position and ongoing grant management capacity.

Tim Leaders‑Dumont, Executive Director of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the committee that many counties already make pre‑charge referrals in practice and that the new law mainly standardizes terminology and expectations. He noted that not all counties have posted policies yet — “there’s been 9 published policies of the 14, at the moment” — and said he expects full compliance with the statute’s publication requirements by July 1. He also warned that existing statewide data on pre‑charge referrals is incomplete: “that data is incredibly inaccurate,” he said, explaining that some local practices intentionally keep referrals out of formal court data to avoid putting people into the court system.

Rachel Jolly, director of the Burlington Community Justice Center, said community providers have long led restorative pre‑charge work in some counties, particularly Chittenden, which handles an estimated 400–500 pre‑charge cases a year; Washington and Windham counties were described as handling roughly 40–50 cases annually. Jolly said pre‑charge programs can deliver “swift” outreach to victims and that providers in some counties report high completion rates for participants who engage — “generally from 70 to 90% for those who engage.”

Witnesses and committee members discussed several operational challenges. Funding is contingent on legislative appropriations, and the AGO’s estimate — approximately $1,750,000 — is preliminary and described as difficult to pin down while demand and staffing needs remain uncertain. The Department of Corrections has historically funded many pre‑charge activities; witnesses said a new DOC RFP and planned DOC funding changes have created near‑term uncertainty for providers. Leaders‑Dumont and others also said the state lacks centralized training capacity and that more granular training for law enforcement and local partners would require additional resources.

Committee members repeatedly framed the program as both a potential efficiency for the court system and a community‑centered option that can be better for many victims. Several members said they anticipate weighing AGO and provider budget requests as part of the Budget Adjustment Act and the House Appropriations Committee’s deliberations.

Next steps noted at the hearing include the AGO’s April 1 plan for counties with multiple providers, an AGO funding request and position request to the Budget Adjustment Act, and continued local coordination among state’s attorneys, law enforcement and community justice centers. The witnesses emphasized that services must remain timely and high quality while transition work and grant processes proceed.