House Corrections panel reviews Vermont's new pretrial supervision program and funding limits

Montpelier ' The House Corrections & Institutions Committee spent its Jan. 14 meeting reviewing Vermont's pretrial supervision program, created in 2024 by Act 138 (section 75-55 of Title 13), and examining who the program covers, how the Department of Corrections administers it, and whether current funding and capacity support statewide expansion.

For the record, Hillary Cheddar Ames, legislative counsel, told the committee, "The pretrial supervision program was created in 2024 as part of Act 138," adding that the statute establishes the program in Title 13 and includes a prospective repeal to prompt legislative review. Ames said the statute lists two categories of eligible defendants: those charged with violating a conditional release and defendants with five or more pending dockets.

The program is structured as a three-step placement process: a party or the court may move for review; DOC conducts a screening and recommends a supervision level; and the court holds a hearing and may impose pretrial supervision as a condition of release. Ames emphasized the statute requires DOC to adopt written policies and evidence-based criteria for supervision levels, but the statute does not define specific supervision levels itself.

Unidentified committee members raised implementation questions: who supervises defendants in the community, what counts as a violation, and why DOC was assigned screening and supervisory duties. A committee speaker summarized the fiscal tradeoffs: "We only appropriated 600,000 not last session, but the session before. That doesn't do it. It's about a $1,300,000 program." The same speaker later said a conference committee allocated $300,000 for the pilot rollout. Committee members and counsel noted that courts cannot order pretrial supervision in a county where the program is not funded and operating.

Ames described operational details drawn from DOC policy, including a Vermont-residency requirement for supervised defendants and examples of supervision measures: weekly check-ins, electronic monitoring and referrals to substance-use treatment. She explained that a DOC pretrial supervision officer'not authorized by statute to file motions directly with the court'monitors compliance, notifies prosecutors of court-imposed condition violations, and makes reasonable efforts to notify defendants.

Committee members and counsel stressed a distinction the statute and DOC policies make between (a) conditions of release that a court imposes (placement in the program, home detention, treatment) and (b) administrative conditions DOC imposes while running the program. Ames noted that DOC internal administrative violations do not always require the officer to notify prosecutors, whereas a violation of a court-imposed condition would trigger notification.

Ames said the Joint Justice Oversight Committee initially recommended implementing the pilot in Orleans and Essex Counties; the pilot was later located in Chittenden County tied to an accountability court docket. The Department of Corrections contracted with the Council of State Governments (CSG) to review the pilot; CSG may recommend limiting eligibility criteria and could suggest changing notification protocols so DOC could notify courts directly about certain violations, a change that committee members flagged as an area for further review.

Because the statute conditions program operation on available appropriations and includes a prospective repeal of section 75-55 effective 12/31/2030, the committee intends continued oversight. Members requested DOC, the state prosecutor's office and a judge return to explain how the program operates in practice, how many people qualify, and the implications for local DOC capacity and detainee counts.

The committee also briefly noted other business, including reviewing a proposed $8 million increase for WellPath and examining recurring reports tracked by House Government Operations. The committee scheduled follow-up sessions to invite DOC and other stakeholders back for implementation details and to review Council of State Governments recommendations.