Disability council urges community alternatives to proposed forensic facility, warns prison-based model risks indefinite confinement

Susan Aronoff, representing the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, told the House Human Services Committee that the proposal to place people who are incompetent to stand trial in a forensic facility within a correctional setting raises significant concerns for people with developmental disabilities.

Aronoff summarized federal and state expectations for community-based services and said the council follows the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Olmstead decision in favor of providing services in the community when possible. She warned the committee that the current bill language could allow people with lifelong conditions—intellectual disability, dementia, or brain injury—to be held effectively in a prison setting "until such time as you no longer are suffering from the condition that led you to being not competent," a phrase she used to stress the risk of prolonged confinement.

Aronoff urged the committee to separate the competency-restoration mission from any long-term secure-housing function. "Competency restoration" programs, she said, are appropriate for people whose conditions may be treated or reversed; people with irreversible cognitive impairments require a different, community-based approach that does not resemble incarceration. She said community forensic specialists, better pay for agencies, and incentives for providers to accept higher-need clients are proven alternatives used elsewhere.

Aronoff also recommended statutory language to guarantee regular, unannounced access by protection-and-advocacy organizations so residents in any secure forensic setting have an independent oversight path. She said a system modeled on protection-and-advocacy statutes would allow advocates to visit facilities and check on court review schedules and treatment plans.

Members pressed Aronoff on capacity of crisis houses and how community systems have performed; Aronoff noted COVID-era strain on crisis beds and suggested expanding effective community crisis capacity rather than defaulting to an institutional model.

The chair told members they will receive a walk-through of S.193 and that the judiciary and corrections departments will also present. Aronoff closed by stressing the DD Council’s opposition to institutionalizing people with disabilities in prison-like facilities and offering to work with the committee on drafting language that separates restoration services from long-term secure housing.

Next step: committee to take a walk-through of S.193 in a subsequent session with Department of Corrections and Judiciary witnesses present.