Vermont committee debates S.193 after Legal Aid expert says placing competency restoration in Corrections is unnecessary

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee heard testimony April 16 on S.193, a bill that would create in‑state competency‑restoration services and place operational authority with the Department of Corrections. Jack McCullough, director of the Mental Health Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid, told the committee "we don't think that this...is a bill that is either necessary or helpful" to the state mental‑health system or public safety.

McCullough, who represents people facing involuntary psychiatric treatment and competency proceedings, said both civil and criminal commitments currently require a judicial finding that a person has a qualifying mental illness and poses a danger. "The treatment that people receive once they've been committed ... is essentially the same," he said, arguing that S.193 does not show how proposed "competency restoration services" would be different or more effective than care available now.

Why it matters: The committee must weigh competing goals — providing treatment to people found incompetent to stand trial and protecting public safety — while also defining where services should sit administratively. Several members warned that placing authority in DOC risks mixing correctional and clinical roles; others said the state lacks alternatives and wants a solution for a small number of high‑need cases.

Committee discussion focused on three practical problems McCullough raised: the statute does not define "competency restoration services" or specify where a facility would be, it does not attach cost estimates, and it designates DOC without explaining why Corrections is the appropriate clinical operator. McCullough also told members he has seen people in custody "can't be safely treated in Corrections" and who are repeatedly transferred to psychiatric hospitals, calling that pattern evidence of quality concerns with correctional psychiatric care.

Several lawmakers said they supported the concept of a separate, recovery‑oriented forensic unit but opposed vesting custody and rulemaking authority solely in DOC. One member told colleagues there must be a "very strict wall" between those who provide treatment and those who evaluate competency, using the phrase to underscore conflict‑of‑interest worries.

On process and timing, members flagged that the bill would begin rulemaking July 1 under the DOC with consultation from AHS agencies and that a draft report and rules would be due to legislative committees in October. Several lawmakers warned that delegated rulemaking risks producing regulations that exceed the legislature's intent and discussed requiring an interim legislative review or sending the issue to Joint Justice Oversight for ongoing oversight.

Funding and Medicaid were recurring themes. Members asked whether a forensic unit operated on a corrections campus could qualify for Medicaid reimbursement or count toward existing psychiatric‑bed waivers, and they noted past loss of Medicaid certification for the state hospital as a complicating factor.

Next steps: Committee members suggested commissioning an independent feasibility study — conducted outside the Agency of Human Services and involving clinical, constitutional and Medicaid experts — before committing to language that would give DOC rulemaking authority. Options discussed included attaching a forensic unit to the state psychiatric hospital, pursuing an interstate compact for capacity, or creating a stakeholder task force and clearer statutory definitions.

No formal vote or final action was recorded at the April 16 session. The committee recessed to hear additional testimony and scheduled follow‑up work on definitions, rulemaking oversight and potential feasibility studies.