House committee advances feasibility study for forensic facility amid sharp dispute over Corrections role

The House Corrections & Institutions Committee on May 12 reviewed proposed amendments to S.193 that would direct the Agency of Human Services (AHS) to establish and operate a locked, secure forensic facility to provide competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment and care for people found not competent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of insanity on serious criminal charges.

Katie McLean of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee the revised draft places operational responsibility with the Secretary of Human Services and adds a clear statement that “the Department of Corrections shall not operate or staff the forensic facility, with the exception that employees of DOC may provide security services for the facility around the outside perimeter of a forensic facility if it is co-located on the grounds of a correctional facility.” McLean also read detailed statutory language and a list of expected clinical and operational standards for the facility, including 24/7 access to a registered nurse or physician and the requirement that the facility be licensed as a therapeutic community residence (TCR).

Why it matters: The bill is intended to create a path for competency restoration so people accused of the most serious crimes can receive clinically appropriate services and, where possible, proceed to trial. The committee inserted a feasibility requirement — a plan due by Jan. 1, 2027 — that must identify location options (standalone or co-located but sight-and-sound separated), bed counts, staffing, estimated costs, necessary rule changes to TCR licensing, a security plan and discharge/community monitoring approaches.

The feasibility plan, McLean said, must assume operations and programming will be provided by AHS or its departments and reiterates the lead language that DOC “shall not play a role in the forensic facility’s operation, the provision of services, internal security, or post-release monitoring of any former residents.” The plan must also address whether out-of-state placement is appropriate while Vermont develops its own facility and include annual reporting metrics.

Tensions over Corrections’ role: Commissioners and corrections officials pressed back. One commissioner, speaking for a group of cabinet-level officials, argued the Department of Corrections has the operational experience and immediate capacity to provide secure custody, transport and on-site security for the small number of individuals the bill targets. “These folks are charged with the most heinous of crimes,” the commissioner said. “The security for which DOC is the expert would be under DOC. The idea of taking it out of that…makes it almost, if not impossible, for us to put something like this into the system and fill that gap.” (Speaker identified in the transcript as “Commissioner.”)

Emily Haw, Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, told the committee that earlier drafts included a collaboration between DOC and other departments for supervision and transport, and she asked who would bring people back to a facility if post-release monitoring and transport were explicitly prohibited for DOC. Haw said those operational questions should be answered in the feasibility plan.

State’s attorneys and sheriffs also urged a pragmatic approach. Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs asked the committee to preserve a role for DOC in the feasibility work so the plan can present side-by-side options (with and without DOC participation) including costs and timelines. McManus said prosecutors had identified seven pending homicide cases being held without bail that appear to fit the bill’s target population and stressed the urgency of a workable near-term solution.

Clinical scope and exclusions: Committee members pressed staff about scope, including whether nursing homes would qualify as TCR placements. A speaker identifying herself as “Dr. Jau, commissioner for Dale,” said nursing homes are separately licensed and would not be treated as TCRs under the bill, though an individual could later qualify for nursing-home placement if they meet nursing-home criteria. McLean and committee members clarified that the draft defines a forensic facility as “a locked secure facility or placement licensed as a therapeutic community residence,” and that operating such a facility likely requires specific rule changes to the TCR licensing scheme.

Authorization and funding issues: Several AHS staff and disability services leaders told members Vermont lacks a statutory competency-restoration program and is not currently budgeted or authorized to provide the structured services the bill envisions. Jen Garedia, developmental disability services division director, explained courts and prosecutors may move some intellectually disabled defendants under Act 248 in limited circumstances, but a consistent statewide competency-restoration pathway does not exist.

Next steps: Committee members agreed to continue work, asking the secretary’s office to return a feasibility plan by Jan. 1, 2027, and to reconvene the committee the next morning for further review of the amendment language. The draft amendment does not take effect until Jan. 1, 2028 under the current text, giving the legislature time to consider the feasibility plan and amend statutory language.

What remains unresolved: The principal policy dispute centers on whether DOC should be barred from operating and providing internal security for a forensic facility. Proponents of limiting DOC’s internal role say the facility should be therapeutic, trauma-informed and governed by health-focused staff; opponents say DOC’s custody and security experience is necessary for safe, usable near-term operations and transport. The feasibility plan is expected to present options and cost estimates to help the legislature resolve that trade-off.

The committee scheduled follow-up work to continue drafting and to review the remainder of S.193.