Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Advocates tell committee S.193 should exclude people with intellectual disabilities, urge investment in community supports
Summary
Two witnesses told the committee that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities should not be housed in a proposed forensic facility under S.193, arguing competency is generally not restorable for this population and urging higher service rates, clinical expertise, and other community supports instead.
Two longtime advocates told a legislative committee that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) should be excluded from S.193, the bill proposing a forensic facility for some criminal-justice–involved people, and urged lawmakers to strengthen home- and community-based services instead.
"People with developmental disabilities cannot be restored to competency," said Barbara Lee, a retired physician and co-chair of the State Program Standing Committee, during her testimony. Lee said the committee voted unanimously in October 2023 and again on March 19, 2026, to oppose placing people with IDD in a forensic facility and recommended amending qualifying-language in the bill to exclude them. The committee, she said, instead recommends allocating resources to community supports in the least restrictive setting.
Barbara Prine, a staff attorney in the Disability Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid who has represented dozens of people committed under Act 248, told lawmakers that the legal standard of competency—understanding court proceedings, assisting counsel and enduring a multi-day trial—is often not achievable for people with intellectual disabilities. "I have not had an experience where I believe competency could be restored," Prine said, describing the limits of cognitive restoration and the difference between behavioral improvement and the complex legal reasoning competency requires.
Both witnesses urged lawmakers to focus on expanding community-based tools that improve safety and outcomes, rather than creating a forensic placement they said would be costly and likely to trap people who currently receive appropriate community services. Lee listed examples of supports the state should invest in: an adequate (likely enhanced) service rate, access to clinical expertise including telehealth, and measures such as locks or barriers to prevent elopement where necessary. She said those interventions would be "likely less costly than placing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in a forensic facility."
Committee members questioned witnesses about claims made earlier in the day by other testifiers. Representative Bishop asked whether Prine was familiar with testimony from the Department of Corrections claiming a "Slater method" had a roughly 61% success rate at restoring competency. Prine said she had not heard of the method and had "Googled it," adding she could not speak to the study; she reiterated that restoring competency should not be the primary policy focus when community safety is the goal.
Witnesses also described harms their clients experienced in jails or prisons—victimization, segregation and worsened behavior—and cautioned that placing people with IDD into a forensic wing risks reproducing those harms even if facilities are superficially improved. Prine said many clients’ days are "good days" with steady employment and community roles and that aggressive behavior is a small fraction of overall functioning; she recommended targeted safety plans, staffing and placement choices that reduce contact with vulnerable groups when necessary.
The witnesses’ testimony emphasized that most of the needs S.193 aims to address are already covered by Act 248 and that, if S.193 includes people with IDD, it could expand commitments and create a system that is difficult to exit. The afternoon session ended with committee members thanking the witnesses; no vote or formal action on S.193 was recorded during this portion of the hearing.
The committee is continuing deliberations on S.193; proponents of the bill have argued it would address gaps for some justice-involved people, while opponents at the hearing urged legislative changes and funding to strengthen community-based services instead.
