House committee questions expansion of Vermont pretrial supervision program amid mixed results and budget uncertainty

The House Corrections & Institutions Committee on Feb. 11 took up the future of Vermonts pretrial supervision program, questioning whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) should expand the pilot statewide, redesign the model, or channel money into the short-term "accountability court" approach that resolved hundreds of dockets in Chittenden County.

Kim McManus, legislative attorney for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the committee she prepared a basic flowchart to help members understand how defendants move from arrest to arraignment and either to community supervision or detention. McManus said a central policy choice is whom the program should serve: higher-risk defendants who would otherwise be detained and need intensive supervision, or lower-risk people who are not detained but lack supports to appear in court.

"Are we looking for this program to serve high risk defendants who would otherwise be detained, or lower risk people who need wraparound services?" McManus asked, arguing the two populations require different resources and supervision models.

Defense counsel identified as Matt told the panel participation in pretrial supervision is voluntary for unconvicted defendants and warned the committee cannot sidestep constitutional limits on bail and conditions of release. "None of this changes the constitutional requirements surrounding bail and conditions of release," he said, arguing that many eligible people will decline voluntary supervision and that the Chittenden pilot enrolled only a minuscule number of participants in part because of those limits.

DOC deputy director Gary Marville described operational lessons from the rollout: low turnout in some sites (he cited about 15 referrals in Newport, eight placed on pretrial there), overlap with accountability court activity that provided similar wraparound services, and the need to refine referral criteria. Marville said DOC supports removing a strict "five docket" eligibility threshold and backing a lower caseload per officer if the legislature adopts a different supervision model.

Committee members pressed the panel on budget details. Members said Senate appropriations added roughly $660,000 in FY25 as one-time pilot funding and the governors recommended FY26 budget included about $650,000 as base funding; the governor then proposed an additional $200,000 in a later year to expand the program and hire seven permanent probation and parole positions. Staff cautioned some of the earlier funds have been spent and that precise totals and whether amounts are base or one-time would be confirmed in budget testimony.

"We have to decide: continue and tweak pretrial supervision; redesign it; or scrap the program and invest in accountability court-type interventions," the committee chair said, asking for further conversations with House Judiciary and stakeholders.

Several members noted the accountability court model concentrated judges time, prosecutors and treatment resources and produced rapid docket resolution during a three-month period in Chittenden County. Supporters said that concentrated model achieved measurable reductions in backlog; critics said it relied on temporarily reassigned personnel and one-off resources that may not be scalable across rural counties.

The committee also debated operational details that would affect effectiveness: whether pretrial supervisors should notify prosecutors or the court directly when conditions are violated (DOC favored clear policy guidance and flexible statutory language), what caseload cap to set per officer (some proposals recommended 20 cases per officer, while current statutory ratios vary by risk level), and whether DOC is the right hub to connect defendants to community partners.

The committee took no formal action and asked staff to bring clearer budget documentation and to schedule follow-up briefings, including testimony from House Judiciary and additional DOC budget staff.

Next steps: the committee said it would revisit the draft statutory language, hold further stakeholder meetings, and confirm budget numbers at the scheduled budget hearings.