Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers hear testimony on bill to create narrow forensic competency‑restoration program
Loading...
Summary
On April 22 witnesses told lawmakers that Vermont lacks a forensic competency‑restoration system and urged a narrowly targeted pilot program for a handful of people annually accused of the most serious crimes; advocates and officials differed on placement, oversight and victims' access to information.
On April 22, during a legislative hearing, state officials, corrections representatives and victims urged lawmakers to address what they called a longstanding gap in Vermont’s handling of people found incompetent to stand trial.
Karen Barber, general counsel for the Department of Mental Health, told the committee that “Vermont is an outlier, and that we don't have any sort of forensic system of care.” Barber said the state has no formal competency‑restoration program and that competency is a legal — not clinical — determination. She said courts must hold a hearing within 21 days of a finding of incompetence but that the current system can leave people “stuck in competency” with no secure, treatment‑focused placement when their clinical needs do not meet hospital admission thresholds.
The bill discussed — S.193 — would authorize a narrowly focused secure setting for a very small number of people each year (Barber estimated “maybe 3 to 5 a year”) who are accused of the most serious offenses and who, because of either developmental disability, substance use, traumatic brain injury or other conditions, are not restorable through existing civil or correctional pathways.
Supporters, including Dr. Gilboa, commissioner for the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living, framed the measure as a limited pilot intended to allow AHS to develop evidence‑based restoration services and risk assessments. Dr. Gilboa said the agency intends to use established assessment tools and methods such as the Slater method for developmental‑disability cases and VOTIPS/SOTIPS for violence risk, and that AHS would prepare a report over the summer and return to the Legislature in the next session with implementation specifics and rulemaking proposals.
Laurie Fisher, general counsel for the Department of Corrections, said DOC would likely provide security for any secure unit and noted statutory duties that already require DOC to screen and provide certain care under Title 28 §907. Fisher said DOC’s contractor, Wellpath, has experience with competency‑restoration programs in other jurisdictions but that Vermont would need additional clinical staff and resources to run a specialized program.
Members pressed witnesses on why existing correctional detox or jail‑based services do not suffice. Barber responded that sobriety or clinical stabilization alone often is not enough to restore legal competency: “Just having someone be sober isn't enough to restore them to competency,” she said, because competency restoration includes an educational and courtroom‑familiarization component in addition to clinical treatment.
Committee members also asked whether wings of existing facilities such as River Valley or the Berlin psychiatric hospital (VPCH) could be repurposed. Barber said Medicaid and federal rules would likely bar mixing forensic and civil populations and that prior attempts to carve units out of hospitals were blocked by federal funding constraints.
Victim advocates and family members urged the committee to act. Kelly Carroll, whose daughter Emily was murdered in 2021, testified in support of S.193 and recounted multiple Vermont cases she said illustrate systemic failures: repeated community releases, inadequate supervision, and limited victim participation. “One case cannot define law, but one case can highlight the gaps,” Carroll said, and urged clearer victim notification and oversight if a secure forensic option is created.
Witnesses differed on where clinical oversight and operational responsibility should sit; AHS officials said the bill would authorize work that AHS would use to build a coordinated plan, including oversight and appropriations. Multiple speakers said the proposal intentionally targets only the highest‑level offenses to avoid creating a large, statewide competency program that would replicate existing backlogs in other states.
The hearing produced no final votes. AHS officials said that, if the Legislature authorizes this narrow path forward, the agency would conduct planning and submit a report in October to inform rulemaking, oversight arrangements and appropriation requests. The committee recessed and said it would continue deliberations the next day.
