Joint House committees review draft of S.193 to set rules, timeline for state forensic facility

Montpelier — House lawmakers on May 6 reviewed a consolidated draft of S.193 that would establish a state forensic facility to provide competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment and extended care for people involved in the criminal justice system who are not currently hospitalized.

Legislative counsel summarized eligibility and process provisions central to the debate. The draft ties placement to four conditions that must all be met: the person must be charged with an offense punishable by life; be held without bail (or, if not held without bail, pose a substantial risk of bodily injury on release); not be currently receiving treatment under an order of hospitalization; and have been found incompetent to stand trial. “You’ve gotta look at 1, 2, 3 and 4, and all of those have to be in place,” the committee heard from staff explaining the draft.

The bill would require an initial review six months after placement and periodic judicial reviews thereafter. Committee counsel said the Agency of Human Services medical director could make clinical determinations — including a finding that a resident is unlikely to regain competency — at any time, which would trigger a court hearing. “They’re perpetually at the facility without having their status reviewed. There’s gonna have to be a review, at least every 6 months,” a counsel member said while explaining the review schedule and the role of the medical director.

The draft sets out decision paths if competency restoration efforts fail. If a court finds someone non-restorable, the judge must hold a hearing to decide whether the person is dangerous. If the person is non-restorable and dangerous, the court may order continued treatment at the forensic facility with 12‑month review periods; if non-restorable and not dangerous, the person must be released under supervised conditions outlined in the statute.

Committee members pressed the drafters on scope and policy tradeoffs. One member objected that eligibility tied to sentencing exposure — offenses carrying a possible life sentence — could exclude clinically volatile people with serious violent histories who are not charged with life‑penalty offenses. A staff lawyer replied that expanding the list of qualifying crimes would be a policy decision for the committees to make.

Members also discussed a defender general suggestion that, in some circumstances, courts could keep a person at the forensic facility pending trial if transferring them back to a prior custodial setting would likely cause them to become incompetent again. “So all this really means is that they would stay at the forensic facility … as opposed to being remanded back to whatever the prior custody arrangement was,” a committee member said.

A separate drafting conflict emerged over post‑competency custody: House Health Care’s draft language would let residents who regain competency remain at the forensic facility while awaiting trial and through the trial, while other committees flagged that as a point requiring further negotiation.

The draft assigns clinical oversight to the AHS medical director rather than custody responsibilities to the Department of Corrections for day‑to‑day clinical decisions. Committee staff said the proposal is intended to separate clinical authority from custodial authority. “The medical director would be answering to Agency of Human Services,” staff told the committee, noting the intent to bifurcate treatment and custody roles.

Lawmakers reviewed a statutory definition of “forensic facility” adapted from earlier legislation that would license the facility as a Therapeutic Community Residence (TCR) and require trauma‑informed programming, psychiatric care, medication management, courtroom‑education, habilitation services, interpreters and grievance procedures. Staff emphasized the statutory definition would take effect Jan. 1, 2028, and flagged that feasibility and implementation planning must align with that timeline.

The secretary of human services must submit a feasibility plan by Jan. 15, 2027, the draft says. That plan must identify a proposed location (standalone or retrofit), bed count, the operator or operators (the draft specifies the operator shall not be DOC), staffing levels and qualifications, estimated construction and operating costs, which aspects of the TCR rules would need waivers, discharge and community monitoring plans, potential out‑of‑state placement options while Vermont develops capacity, and recommended legislative actions to effectuate the facility. The plan also requires interim updates to the joint legislative justice oversight committee in August and November 2026.

Committees debated who should operate and be accountable for the facility. Multiple participating committees said they were not comfortable having the Department of Corrections provide forensic clinical services; staff reiterated the draft places operational responsibility with the Secretary of Human Services but requires consultation with corrections, mental health, health and the agency that handles developmental disability commitments.

There were no formal votes during the session; chairs said committee leadership would coordinate next steps, reconcile drafting conflicts and circulate amendments before reconvening.

The joint session focused on reconciling technical and policy choices — eligibility, clinical oversight, and the feasibility and implementation timeline — and instructed staff and the secretary’s office to produce the required plan and interim updates ahead of further committee action.