Lawmakers and witnesses at a committee hearing on H.410 on Jan. 14 debated how Vermont should define and report “recidivism,” with prosecutors and researchers urging a clearer, more comparable measure and defense counsel warning that categorical classifications risk becoming de facto sentencing rules.

Kim McNaddis of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs said her office proposed revising the statutory definition and recommended tracking "conviction to conviction," using conviction dates as an anchor so the metric is reproducible across studies. "We suggested tracking from conviction to conviction," McNaddis said, adding that renaming the Department of Corrections’ public metric from "recidivism" to "reincarceration" would reduce public confusion about what is being measured.

A long‑testifying public‑defense representative who raised comparability concerns argued that Vermont’s current statutory approach diverges from federal and many other states’ methods and cautioned against sorting people into class 1–4 recidivism buckets. "This looks like a backdoor way to do sentencing guidelines," the witness said, warning that categorical buckets could be used to "pigeonhole groups of offenders" and limit judges’ individual discretion.

Researchers from the state’s research and statistical units told the committee the measure in statute is primarily an indicator of population trends, not a program performance metric. A Statistical Analysis Center representative said a generalized recidivism rate "is not a performance measure. It is a population indicator," and that answering whether a specific policy caused a change requires targeted study designs rather than a single rolled‑up rate.

Committee members and witnesses discussed options that would preserve comparability and limit unintended uses: adopt a clear conviction‑to‑conviction definition with arraignment or conviction date as the anchor, keep identifying information separated from population counts, and use ad hoc studies to evaluate the effects of particular policies or programs. Unidentified Speaker 1 said the committee would consider moving the statutory definition into a new criminal‑justice data chapter in Title 13 and return with a revised draft.

The hearing produced no formal vote. Committee members asked staff and researchers to draft revised language that (1) sets a reproducible definition for reporting and research, (2) clarifies that population indicators are not sentencing rules, and (3) minimizes the risk that individual identifiers would be used to make case‑by‑case legal decisions. The panel scheduled further discussion and follow‑up with witnesses and researchers.