Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Experts brief Corrections & Institutions committee on "earned good time" policy and Vermont practice
Loading...
Summary
Council of State Governments advisers told the House Corrections & Institutions committee that earned good time—credits for good behavior or program participation—is widely used across the U.S., can improve facility safety and reduce recidivism, and that Vermont’s recent changes (moving from 5 to 7 days per 30 'good' days and separating program participation from day-counting) reflect a pragmatic, administrable approach.
David Demora, a senior adviser at the Council of State Governments Justice Center, told the House Corrections & Institutions Committee on April 14 that "earned good time means that you have to have done something" to qualify, distinguishing it from automatic credits and noting that roughly 38–40 states use some form of earned credits.
Demora said earned good time is intended to reward positive institutional behavior, improve prison safety and reduce recidivism: "It helps improve prison safety because people have something to do, and people get some kind of reward for behaving well." He cautioned that studies show reductions in recidivism but do not eliminate it, and that measurement matters: recidivism is typically tracked as return to incarceration, which can include technical violations as well as new crimes.
A presenter with previous work in Vermont summarized the state’s reforms following a 2019–2020 justice-reinvestment process: Vermont historically allowed five days credit for each 30-day period without a major infraction; the reform increased that to seven days and recommended decoupling the day-count calculation from program participation so that programming is considered at parole or furlough decisions rather than being a required component of monthly earned-time counts. The presenter said that logistical challenges—interrupted program participation as people move between facilities and inconsistent record systems—were a key reason for that design choice.
Committee members pressed presenters on causation versus correlation, the evidence base, and whether sentencing actors (prosecutors or judges) adjust initial sentences to account for expected earned credits. One member asked how recidivism is measured; Demora replied that studies generally use a return-to-incarceration metric and that multiple studies document reductions in rearrest or return-to-prison associated with program participation or good institutional behavior.
Members also raised operational fairness and equity issues: how to apply credits where programming is unevenly available across facilities, how data systems must improve to support more stratified credit schemes, and whether repeat offenders should be excluded. Presenters recommended clear statutory objectives and robust data systems before layering complexity into earned-time calculations.
The committee did not take formal action on earned-time statutes at the hearing. Chair Representative Emmons said staff and agency briefings will continue, and members requested follow-up materials from the Justice Center, including cited studies and state-by-state comparisons.
