Senate Committee reviews amendment to S.193 to establish a secure forensic facility for a small population

The Senate Committee on Institutions on March 17 reviewed an amended draft of S.193 that would require the Commissioner of Corrections to establish and operate a locked, secure forensic facility for certain criminal-justice-involved persons who are transferred for evaluation, treatment and care.

The amendment, explained by Office of Legislative Council staff (Katie), would define the forensic facility and require it to operate “in a manner that supports a therapeutic, recovery-oriented, and trauma‑informed environment comparable to a community‑based residential treatment setting” while maintaining appropriate safety and security. It would prohibit refusal of a person ordered to be admitted and would not require clinical or diagnostic prerequisites for admission. The draft also directs the department to employ a clinical services director, set staff qualifications and training, and provide an initial person‑specific treatment plan within 72 hours of transfer, with periodic review as clinically indicated.

Why it matters: supporters said Vermont currently lacks a secure setting tailored to a narrow group of people — primarily those accused of very serious crimes who are found incompetent yet are not eligible for hospitalization — and the amendment attempts to create a clinical, not solely carceral, pathway for their care.

Wellpath testimony and program model

Dr. Robin Hodgeges, senior vice president for mental health at Wellpath, told the committee that Wellpath has experience designing jail‑based competency restoration programs and recommended a “milieu‑based” model that integrates competency restoration with broader mental‑health treatment, group activities and psycho‑legal education. “The best option is your milieu‑based competency restoration,” Hodgeges said, arguing that the model keeps people engaged in therapeutic activities and allows practice of skills that support restoration.

Hodgeges described Wellpath’s correctional‑health experience and said the company has provided statewide contracts and competency programs in other jurisdictions; she also said Wellpath will supply facility‑level staffing numbers to the committee on request.

Rulemaking, reporting and timing

The amendment removes emergency rulemaking and instead requires permanent rules to implement standards governing staffing patterns and ratios, staff qualifications and licensure, clinical supervision, quality assurance, documentation and safety protocols. Committee counsel said permanent rulemaking typically requires a longer time and a more robust public‑comment period than emergency rules.

The draft calls for an interim report due Oct. 1 (this year) from DOC, in consultation with the departments of health and mental health, addressing rule adoption status and timeline, proposed site and fit‑up planning, preliminary cost estimates, initial staffing considerations and an anticipated implementation timeline. The committee was told the amendment provides roughly an 18‑month lead time for the forensic facility provisions to take effect so agencies have time to adopt rules and prepare operations; members asked officials from both DOC and the Agency of Human Services to confirm realistic schedules.

Population, capacity and operational concerns

Department of Mental Health General Counsel Karen Barber and witnesses emphasized that the bill targets a very small group — an estimated three to five people a year who are accused of the most serious crimes, have been found incompetent and are not appropriate for hospitalization. “We are not talking about large populations,” Barber said, urging flexibility so the department can assess clinical needs and design an appropriate program.

Committee members recalled prior proposals that contemplated roughly eight beds in earlier planning, but witnesses stressed the current draft is a narrow proposal and that exact bed counts and facility sizing should follow the interim planning work.

DOC context and services

Haley Summer, director of communications for the Department of Corrections, said Southern State Correctional Facility currently has a dedicated mental‑health living unit (Bravo) with capacity for 26 people and 24 residents at the time of testimony; she added other facilities have designated areas for mental‑health services but Southern State is the only facility with a distinct unit. Summer and others warned that strict segregation from the general population could reduce access to volunteer‑run programs and activities and urged planners to preserve access to rehabilitative programming when designing a forensic unit.

Next steps and committee action

Legislative counsel said she would make small drafting tweaks and that members of Health & Welfare and Institutions could sign onto a joint amendment if the committees agree; the committee did not vote and deferred further consideration to the next meeting. The chair said, “we're not going to vote today,” and members asked for follow‑up information from DOC and Agency of Human Services on staffing, facility options and realistic timelines.

What the amendment requires (clarifying details)

- Initial person‑specific treatment plan required within 72 hours of transfer; subsequent updates are governed by clinical need. - Interim report to multiple House and Senate committees due Oct. 1 (this year) with draft rules, proposed location, space and fit‑up plans, staffing estimates and preliminary costs. - Permanent rules to establish staffing, licensure, training, clinical oversight, quality assurance and safety/monitoring protocols. - The amendment delays the forensic‑facility effective date to provide an approximately 18‑month implementation window; the committee sought agency confirmation of the exact schedule.

No vote was taken at the March 17 hearing; the committee will revisit the amendment and associated drafts at a subsequent meeting.