Committee reviews simpler statutory definition of ‘recidivism’ and new annual justice reports

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee reviewed a strike‑all amendment to H.410 on March 12 that would move the statutory definition of “recidivism” from Title 28 into a new chapter in Title 13 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), adopt a simpler definition tied to convictions, and require a set of annual criminal‑justice reports funded by a FY27 appropriation.

Michelle Child of the Office of Legislative Council presented the amendment, saying the change is intended to make the statutory definition easier to use and to consolidate related study and data‑collection statutes in one place. Child summarized the proposed definition: “recidivism means a relapse into criminal activity as evidenced by an individual who was convicted for a criminal offense after receiving a criminal conviction for a previous crime.” She said the date used to mark a recidivism event would be the arraignment date for the subsequent offense so agencies can calculate rates using court record dates that are readily available.

The committee pressed on the boundary cases. Members asked whether technical violations of release conditions—such as missing a curfew—count as recidivism. Child and other participants clarified that, under the proposed language, recidivism for the annual report is limited to individuals who are convicted a second time; violations of release conditions that are not separate criminal convictions would not meet the definition used for the statutory recidivism measure.

Committee members also sought clarification on when the “clock” for the look‑back period begins. Child explained that for an individual sentenced to incarceration the clock would begin on the date of release from incarceration; if the person is sentenced to probation (a non‑incarcerative sentence), the clock begins on the probation sentencing date. The committee discussed several examples to make that point concrete.

The amendment also requires CRG (the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center/Crime Research Group) to produce annual reports for the legislative Judiciary and Institutions committees. The initial set of required reports described by Child includes:

• an annual bail‑rate report, by county, including hold‑without‑bail amounts and bail‑posting data; • an annual recidivism report calculated under the new definition using three‑ and five‑year look‑back windows; • an annual arrests and clearance rates report organized by offense categories; and • an annual sentencing report summarizing the 20 crimes with the most convictions, including number, type, lengths of sentence and fines, and analysis of which crimes and counties contributed most to sentences imposed.

Members questioned the choice of three‑ and five‑year look‑back windows for the recidivism rate. Child said the three/five windows are standard measures advised by CRG for regular reporting and that the legislature or staff could request longer windows (for example, a 10‑year look‑back) for specific analyses if needed. One committee member characterized the annual report’s focus on three and five years by saying, “If you reoffend six years later … you wouldn’t be captured in that report,” and another added, “I would say we don’t care” about cases that far removed from the original conviction for the purposes of the regular annual metric; those characterizations appeared in the committee colloquy and reflect debate over policy usefulness versus comprehensiveness.

Child said the amendment would repeal the narrower Title 28 definition currently calculated by the Department of Corrections (DOC). The existing definition has been limited to people sentenced to more than one year of incarceration and measures return to prison within three years or supervision violations that result in a new incarcerative sentence of at least 90 days. A DOC representative told the committee that DOC has calculated the Title 28 measure for corrections purposes and that moving the definition into Title 13 would make the metric more broadly available for policy analysis beyond corrections.

The strike‑all amendment includes an FY27 appropriation to pay CRG for the annual report work: $10,000 for the bail report, $10,000 for the recidivism report, $1,000 for the arrests/clearance report, and $4,000 for sentencing analyses. Child said Judiciary had obtained cost estimates from CRG and that any ongoing funding and sources (general fund versus other language such as ‘available funds’) would be determined by the Appropriations Committee during budget review.

No formal committee vote was recorded during this informational briefing. Members expressed general support for the intent of the new definition and for consolidating data functions, while seeking clearer operational definitions for measurement. The chair recessed for lunch and said the committee will return at 1:00; Child noted the language will require technical cross‑references to existing statutes to ensure consistency if the definition is moved from Title 28 to Title 13.

What’s next: The amendment as described will continue through the legislative process; because it contains appropriation language, the funding components will be considered by the Appropriations Committee if and when the amendment advances.