Racial disparities panel files biennial report, urges impact assessments and changes to crisis response

Susanna Davis, executive director of racial equity and a member of the Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems Advisory Panel, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 28 that the panel filed its biennial report "on the fifteenth of this month" and intends to push a drafted bill to require the legislature to use an impact assessment tool when considering new legislation.

The panel’s report, Davis said, is organized into three parts: a review of prior legislative actions linked to the panel’s past recommendations (including raising the age and creation of a Division of Racial Justice Statistics), a renewal of earlier recommendations from 2019 and 2024, and a newer recommendation proposing use of an impact assessment by the legislative body. "The executive branch does use an impact assessment tool and has since 2020," Davis said, adding the panel "looks forward to supporting" the drafted bill.

Davis also summarized a substantive recommendation to reduce law‑enforcement involvement in mental‑health crises. "Decoupling mental health services from law enforcement engagement speaks to a desire to deescalate," she said, explaining the aim is to situate crisis response with mental‑health professionals to lower the risk of "disparate or potentially lethal contacts with the justice system," which she said disproportionately affect low‑income communities, people living with disabilities and people of color. Davis and committee members agreed the panel could provide further information on different models; in one exchange an unidentified senator noted Franklin County’s embedded‑clinician model appears "rather successful" and said they did not want to "trample on" that program.

Panel members also asked the committee to consider relaxing a statutory cap that limits the panel to 10 meetings per year. Davis said the limit constrains the group’s ability to deliberate and suggested greater flexibility or allowance for subcommittee work so the panel can respond to the fast pace of the legislative session. The panel’s next regular meeting was noted as Feb. 10; Davis encouraged written input where feasible but cautioned about open‑meeting rules for group communication.

Davis listed a subset of bills the panel has monitored and expressed interest in, including S.208 (proper law‑enforcement identification), S.209 (sensitive locations), S.193 (forensic facility), and several House bills: H.380 (pretrial support/conditions‑of‑release penalties), H.382 (data collection), and H.361 (civilian oversight). She said the panel would welcome the committee’s input on those items as they proceed through the legislative process.

An assistant from the Vermont Attorney General’s Office told the committee he had no additional testimony but noted the panel’s 2024 report contains a table listing how members voted on prior recommendations and offered to provide that record to the committee; he said some recommendations in 2024 drew abstentions from entities including the Attorney General’s Office.

The committee closed with a brief discussion of logistics and scheduling. Chair and members thanked Davis and her colleague for the update; Senator Bolesky volunteered to explore whether committee rules could provide the panel more flexibility on meeting cadence. The committee was reminded it will convene a vote on Supreme Court justices the following day, with discussion beginning at 10:35 a.m. and a vote expected about 11:15 a.m.

Next steps: the panel plans to support the drafted impact‑assessment bill as feasible, the committee said it would consider avenues for providing input before the panel’s Feb. 10 meeting, and staff offered to supply the panel’s 2024 voting table on recommendations.