Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Friday, January 23, and starting our morning meeting. We're going to get a review of the pretrial supervision program. Some folks with some preliminary background. What is also on your desk for folks who have paper copies is also on our website. We have the law for the pretrial supervision, which is really important to understand them. The law is part of a person's conditions of release. And it talks about the supervision levels for a person. This is pretrial. So it is folks who have gone through arraignment that have not been convicted of a crime. And they are released back into the community with conditions. And while they are in the community, they can be supervised by the Department of Corrections, so our PMP. And the department's supervision level can include telephone monitoring. It can include meetings with the pretrial supervision officer, which is a PMP officer. It could be in person meetings. It could be electronic monitoring for other means of contact. The law is laid out here. I would only encourage members to read the law, understand what the program is, and how it operates. That's a very brief review. Remember, these are folks who have not been convicted of a crime, yet they've been arraigned, and they've been released out to the community with conditions. And pretrial supervision is one of those provisions. This has only been done in Essex Orleans County And then in November, it got transferred to Chittenden County for part of the Port Accountability. While this was going on, Council of State Governments, who we have up on the screen here, David DeMore and Ellen Will Gregoire. Ellen, I have a hard time with your last name. You know that. They worked with DOC to do an analysis of this program, how effective it is, what's working and what needs to be tweaked. We put in two years ago in the general fund budget 600,000 for this program to get rolled out because there were some costs to DOC on this, particularly staffing costs. The governor in his budget address this past Tuesday indicated that the administration is proposing expansion of this program, which means there'll be an increase in cost, I would think, in our state budget to provide more staffing. So there are some tweaks to the statutes that are being recommended. So in order to understand those tweaks, the committee really needs to understand the law. So you have to look at the language and understand it, folks. Any questions before I turn it over to David? Welcome. And we do have some DOC folks here as well. We have Haley on the screen and

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Karen Marble, deputy director of field services.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So David, I'm gonna turn it over to you or Ellen, do you go? I'm not sure which one would go first.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: I'll kick us off. Thank you, representative. Hi, everybody. Thank you for letting us join this morning and to join you remotely. My name is Ellen Whelan Weest. No one ever needs to worry about pronouncing last name correctly or at all if you want to if you want to skip it. I am a deputy division director with the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and I'm joined by my colleague David Demora. And we have both been really fortunate to have worked in Vermont and with Vermonters many times now over the last several years, on a variety of initiatives, including this past year on an assessment of the pretrial supervision program that representative Emmons was describing, and how that program has been designed in statutes and implemented in the pilot counties, and to make some recommendations about how to strengthen the program so that it could be really effective anywhere and everywhere that it exists, and should it roll out statewide. So we're gonna present to you more about our findings and recommendations and some of the conversations and the research that inform all of that. I will try to move through some of the background pieces a little quickly, but anyone please stop me or just throw throw your hat in the ring. We are happy to field questions throughout. This is this is not terribly formal from our perspective. And also, we're always available to to take questions or to have follow-up conversations after today. I live in Vermont. I I had planned to be with you all, and then scheduling, got away from me, I'll have to jump off at 11AM just to catch a doctor's appointment. But David David will be with you for the duration, and like I said, we're we're always happy to continue having conversations on all of this. I'm gonna share my screen if I can. Tate, I'm I've just sent a request. Sorry about that. I should have done that a minute ago. But I'll pull up some PowerPoint slides that we use as just a visual aid to move through the information.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There we go. All right.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: Can you all see this? Perfect, Yes, perfect. Me see if I can get that into Is that bigger?

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Yes.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: So just some quick background on the Justice Center. We're a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works with state and local leaders like yourselves across the country, essentially trying to understand public safety and criminal justice challenges using data, using qualitative research, using direct engagement with individuals across the jurisdiction or the state to understand those challenges and to deliver recommendations and hopefully help implement new policies that can address those issues. And we have, like I said, had the fortune of working with Vermont going back to 2007. Representative Emmons, you certainly have been involved in work with the Justice Center since then. David and I did not work on justice reinvestment in 2007, which was an initiative that specifically looked at Vermont's prison population, which was rising at the time, and focusing on reentry and supervision improvements to try correction spending and incarcerated populations. But in 2019, when Representative Emmons and others in the state requested another justice reinvestment initiative, David and I were part of that team. And that project really focused on folks who were being revoked very, very quickly and at high rates back into prison after they were released. And so that was the focus of Justice Reinvestment in 2019. David was part of a team that then a year later kicked off another project focusing on the scale and the impact of domestic violence across the state. We've also done some sentencing and racial disparities analysis with you all. And then this past year, started to work on, like I said, the assessment of Act 138 and the pretrial supervision program that representative Emmons was describing. And just a little bit of context for Act 138 from our understanding and talking to people who were in the room and were drafting the bill alongside you and your colleagues. The environment of what Vermont has been grappling with, and this is true in many states, is coming out of COVID and the pandemic, a stark increase in crime, but also a stark increase in the sort of substance use disorder and mental health needs of a lot of people who are appearing in courtrooms across the state. And at the same time, a lot of failures to appear, people who were not making it back for their appointed court dates, which creates a lot of challenges for people. And so one way of addressing that was to initiate Senate Bill 195, which was enacted into Act 138, which in part creates pretrial supervision. And states and counties across the country have similar programs and similar approaches that they've used to try to address growing pretrial populations, which Vermont has been grappling with for a long time, and to try to find safe ways of releasing people back into the community while they're awaiting their trial date and a criminal conviction, but also ensuring that there are two key components to that release. One is accountability, supervising those individuals to try to make sure that they are meeting the conditions of their release. And the other is support and making sure that those people are able to access the programming and the treatments that they might need to be successful and to be healthy when they're in the community. And so both of those goals are at the heart of Act 138, both when you read it in the statute, I think, but also when you talk to people across the state who were part of drafting that bill and also are now part of implementing it. In the 2020 Oh, did some Sorry, I'm gonna pause and see if anyone had a question.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are there any questions, Evans? Okay.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We don't have anyone. Okay.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: Thank you. You're all very small in my screen, so I won't see hands that easily. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That'll help.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: In the 2024, the Department of Corrections asked Joint Justice Oversight if they could pilot this new program first, which from our perspective is a really smart way to implement a new program, is to take it and put it in place in a couple of places before you scale it across the state to see how it works or where there might need to be adjustments for it to work better. And then in January, the Department of Corrections approached us at the Justice Center and asked if we would be willing to conduct, like I said, an assessment of just really trying to understand how is this designed and how is it being implemented and is it on track to meeting the goals of the new program? There are three key components to how a person ends up on pretrial supervision in Vermont. So the first is you have to be eligible for the program. And eligibility right now in the statute is defined as a defendant who has either been charged with violating the condition of their release, which is also known as a VCR, or a defendant who has at least five pending dockets, and who may pose a risk of not appearing back in front of the court when they are scheduled to appear or doing harm to themselves or others. So these are the eligibility criteria for how a person could be considered a good candidate for pretrial supervision. Those individuals are referred by court actors, by defense attorneys, state's attorneys, or the courts, the judges themselves, to the Department of Corrections, who then conducts sort of an assessment or review of those individuals to confirm that they are eligible for PSP. And at that point, DOC has 10 to issue a report that identifies that person's eligibility, and also identifies their potential supervision level and a recommendation of the types of conditions of release that would apply best to that individual. And once someone is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Alan, let me stop you there. I just want to make sure there aren't any questions of the committee in terms of the process of how a person what the eligibility is and then the referral. I wanna make sure that folks understand this. It's not percentage folks. It is folks who have been arraigned, or they have previously been arraigned, and there was conditions of their release that was set, and there was a violation of one of those conditions. Like not to go next into near someone's property, isn't participating in treatment, some of those violations, or if the person is coming before the court, they have five pending dockets. Brian?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I feel like when you said that just there, Chair, it sort of echoes in my head what I've heard before, which is justice greater than or equal to five pending dockets. And we're sort of alighting the risk of nonappearance or harm. Is that not something that comes into it much? Is that just sort of assumed?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think we were just kind of looking. We weren't sure. This was a new program that was being rolled out. So we weren't sure how We didn't want to inundate the courts, and we didn't wanna inundate DOC. So we put some parameters around it. So it's not someone coming in, like, for the first time and they only have one docket. We really wanted to manage it. And if it's very successful, maybe we can expand it.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: It just seemed in my mind like it was basically math as opposed to, let's consider the risk of non appearance. Let's consider the risk of harm to cells or whatever saying that is one of the things that's considered. It's a minor point. Never mind.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, it's important. It's important. It

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: is important. We'll come back to that. That is actually at the root of one of our recommendations, is that the eligibility criteria doesn't necessarily get at who you might most want to have on this program.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions? For folks to be clear, then the referral process, how it gets referred. It's the court that makes the decision whether or not the person goes into the program. Correct.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I just don't remember why, then, it's not the courts or the prosecutors who are making the recommendation why DOC becomes involved so quickly. I remember we talked about it. I just don't remember how we came decision. We didn't come to this decision. The DOC is making the evaluation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's going be one of the discussions, I think, we're going to seek the report. And I'm trying to remember, because they do sometimes the pre sentence investigations. They look at the risk levels. And they have different, they have different practices in terms of how they supervise folks in the community.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: This is making the determination of supervision. Alan, did you talk at all about staff impact or administrative impact on DOC? Did you guys look at that at all?

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: We did. And you have the expert in the room. Gary Marvel in the room can speak But to that to be sure from our perspective, DOC is who you want doing this piece of the work, partly because the department of your department of corrections in Vermont is, very, very well trained and versed in risk needs responsivity, and they do a great job of assessing people. So rather than asking the courts to take that on where you'd be treating you'd you'd be training new people in how to do this work Yep. It you'd the efficient thing is to take advantage of the professionals who know how to do it right now.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Makes sense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then that translates into how they would be supervised. There was that connection there. The COC is still on the convention. Gary, do you want to identify yourself again?

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Hi, Gary Marble, deputy director of the services division. Yeah, could speak to

[Brian Minier (Member)]: the one of the things that

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: we wanted to keep in mind is the same principle we use for conventional supervision, the whole risk needs responsibility principle. You don't want to over supervise people that are low risk and you don't want to under supervise people that are highest risk, more unstable. We're the only entity in that formula that can do risk assessments. We're pretty well versed in that. And the tool we use helps us to determine whether or we'd be overdoing it or underdoing it with somebody who's coming back to this this program. So that's part of the reason why I think we're involved in the recommendation.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Fair point.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: That's a lot of

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: times, Gary. I wanna expand that a little bit. What the evidence shows and what DOC has seen in people who are involved in the criminal justice system, sometimes for some folks that are low risk to reoffend and low severity of crime, if you over supervise them, can do more damage. Is that correct?

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: That is correct. Part of it is you don't want to over pathologize or have them over involved in the correctional system. Know, if somebody's relatively low risk, you don't need them meeting with a probation officer twice a month necessarily. You're reminded that they have a court date.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then conversely, if someone is high risk, high severity, they're not supervised enough, you're gonna have problems. So it's finding that sweet spot. The

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: other thing I'll just jump in and say, I mean, I'm now skipping way ahead and you'll hear more about this from David and I when we get to recommendations. We think this referral process is a real logjam that could be cleared up. And actually, what we've recommended is instead of people being referred first by the courts, it's totally appropriate for the judge to determine if a person will be sent and and will be supervised on pretrial supervision. But we think that referring people to DOC through the court actors first is slowing down those referrals significantly, and so not many people are getting into this program. It exists, but there just aren't a lot of people going there. And so our recommendation is actually to flip it so that if there's a concern about failure to appear or risk of harm to themselves or others, that then that might be under consideration holding someone pretrial and detaining them, those individuals should just be referred to DOC for this assessment, and then DOC comes back to the court and says, we think of this pool, the most appropriate people for this program is this group, and we could successfully supervise and manage these individuals in this way. And that would sort of change it would flip the the process by which people are referred in and potentially allow the state to take more advantage of the program. But I can speak, and and I might have to pop off, but David and I will speak to that in greater detail. And Gary knows this. He knows and DOC knows that we've recommended this because we just think that, again, that might allow a quicker funneling of individuals who could benefit from the program into it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So right now, it is the defense or the prosecution or the court may request. So any one of those three. It doesn't need all three of them at the same time. Any one of those three. Keep that Okay. In So let's go to the supervision.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: So as you've noted, and as Gary was saying, the supervision is determined by a person's risk. And so those risk assessments that DOC conducts informs how they use their resources for this program, their supervision officers, and the degree to which they'll be supervising folks. And we've talked a little bit about this risk needs responsivity model, which we, or certainly David or Gary could talk about for days. And they have done so because they're both expert in this. But essentially, it is the concept of you you assess people using actuarial tools, that really look at static, fixed factors and dynamic factors in a person's life and where they're at to assess whether or not they are at high, medium, or low risk of reoffending. And the key here is that it's not risk of doing harm, right, which is how, just in an everyday setting, how I think of risk, right, is this is this potentially harmful person or situation. In this context, risk is really specific about reoffense. And so if someone's high risk of reoffending, it's because that assessment has found that the static and dynamic factors of who they are in that moment in their life, they're more likely to reoffend. The need component of an assessment process really looks at the individual factors or the individual needs of that person, and what they might require to be successful in not reoffending, and being safe and healthy under supervision. And it's important to note here that there are people who might be low risk of re offending, but have very high needs. And so the nuance and the tailoring of a supervision plan to that individual is really important. And responsivity speaks to just sort of making sure that there are certain barriers in people's lives that are accounted for in how that individual is supervised. So all of this makes up something that in criminology is called R and R, and it has really transformed a lot of how supervision practices and agencies are conducted across the country to reduce recidivism. And it's highly effective when done well. And like I said, your Department of Corrections does this very well, which is a huge strength for Vermont. And all of that informs I'm sorry, should I pause here?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I just had a question. Can we go back to those? Yes. Can you kind of explain a little bit when you say criminogenic area, how is that different? Or maybe Gary can explain it. How is that different than someone who has behavioral issues or substance use issues? Because some of the behavioral or substance use issues are acting out and being charged for a criminal offense, but it's not criminal thinking that's creating that. It's behavioral thinking or substance use that's driving it. Can one of you kind of explain the difference there or not? From what I've heard, it's really important to know the difference because if someone has got criminal thinking and you look at behavior or substance use as something's effective, or if someone does not have criminal thinking and you apply criminal thinking to their rehabilitation, it just doesn't work. So I don't know if Gary or Ellen could weigh in on that.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: I would defer to David or Gary, for sure. But David, do you have a thought there?

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: I'm happy to jump in. Things like substance use, Representative Emmons, are both a criminogenic and a behavioral health need. And so substance use can be criminogenic when it's connected to other criminal thinking factors, or it can be simply a behavioral health need that then gets them involved in the criminal justice system. And so, is possible that somebody would be low risk in all of the criminal thinking areas, antisocial personality, for example, pro criminal attitudes, etcetera, but still be high need in terms of the substance use area. And we sometimes think of the issue of substance use disorder as sort of a hinge thing, meaning that sometimes it goes under the criminogenic factors because there's the other criminogenic thinking going on, so you need to attack, so to speak, both the criminogenic thinking factors through what's called correctional programming, cognitive programming to change that criminal thinking, and the behavioral health need or the substance use and or mental health need. So sometimes you need to attack all of those as a group, and we'll actually talk about that a little bit later as well. And sometimes you just need to focus on one. And so it is very possible to have a significant substance use disorder and not have criminal thinking, or a significant mental health disorder, or co occurring disorder and not have criminal thinking. So in your system, you have people that have all those things combined, or many of them combined, and you've got folks that just have some of those. And the reason that these days we talk about that is that when we first started R and R thinking back in the late 80s, early 90s, we left out significant factors that could be driving people into the system. And so we focused solely on the criminal thinking side of things, and we didn't focus very much on the mental health and substance use side of things. Things. When we look at who are currently in community supervision and prisons in this country today, a very significant number of those individuals have as primary problems, either substance use or mental health disorders. And so we we, expanded the concept of RNR over the last now almost forty years, realizing we had sort of thrown the baby out with the bathwater, if you will, and that we needed to really loop back and bring in these other components in order to respond effectively to these individuals.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hope that's David, you

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: Okay. Sorry. I was just going to say, David, do you mind, David or Gary, giving an example of what criminal think an example of criminal thinking, and how that might present itself?

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Criminal thinking, the simplest way to talk about criminal thinkingand please, Garrett, jump in at any timethe simplest way to think about criminal thinking is that whenever there's a problem, the solution that the individual comes up with is illegal. And so if I'm having an argument with somebody else, my solution is to talk with them and to figure out how to reach a resolution. If I have criminal thinking, my solution is I want to hit them or I want to do something that will make me win and then lose. And so that's one type of criminal thinking. Another type of criminal thinking is, it's really okay for me to shoplift because whatever the reason is. Or it's really okay for me to break into someone's home because whatever the reason is. Criminal thinking essentially justifies an antisocial or illegal act based on the person's distortions about what it's okay for them to do that is typically against societal rules, whether those are legal or, for that matter, other societal rules. Pro pro criminal attitudes are, again, basically the thing that says, crime's okay. It's okay to do the wrong thing for me because it benefits me, and that's what I want. And it doesn't matter what this means for somebody else or for society in general.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: And I I I asked because I don't know, representative Emmons, if this is what you were thinking, but as someone who's not expert in this but has learned more about it, the distinction there, right, that it seems important is it's not the same as being motivated to shoplift or to break into a house or to commit an offense because of an underlying substance use disorder or because of an underlying mental health issue that you are grappling with. And so it's that is an it's a very fine line that can become blended in my own way of thinking about it, but it's always helpful to hear David, you, or or Gary, or anybody kind of explain the distinctions there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hey, Gary? Yeah. I can

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: offer an example of where we often get it wrong in the from the justice system. So with domestic violence, this comes up all the time where they'll you know, sometimes a defense attorney or a defender articulated as it's when I it's when I drink. It's the drinking that causes me to do this. But when you really dig into it, it's actually their thoughts about relationships, about how they're allowed to control people. Like, those things are basically what drives behavior. It's not their drinking that does it. That might be a component that facilitates the offense. But if we only address the drinking, we're not addressing what actually allowed the value system that allows that person to perpetuate the offense. That's why one of the reasons why you see such high offense rates in that particular crime.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's a good example. Thank you, Gary. So let's move on with Ellen because she's got about three or four minutes.

[Ellen Whelan-Wuest (Deputy Division Director, CSG Justice Center)]: And I'll just say, Tate, if you can possibly make it pos give sharing capacity to David. David, you and I are gonna have to do a little Zoom handoff where you take over the presentation side of things, I've got another few minutes. The last piece on this, and where the risk needs responsivity all factors into pretrial supervision, as Representative Emmons was saying before, it informs how DOC determines the levels of supervision that different pre trial supervision clients will receive. At the low risk end of things, they're identified as being in the P1 level, which means that they are monitored through telephone reporting system only, up to down to the high risk folks who are monitored through that same system, and then they get a call from their assigned probation and parole officer once a week, and they have one required in person office visit per month. So this is the rain, and then in the middle they're monitored through the phone system, and they get two calls from their officer every month. So this is sort of the allocation of supervision intensity and resources based on risk for folks on pretrial supervision. And again, just to preview where we're going, from our our standpoint, and this is in no way a criticism of DOC, this is a resource determination more than anything, but it's not sufficient, right? This is not the level of intensity that some individuals, particularly at the higher end of the risk spectrum, will likely require, even just based on having five pending dockets. So it feels like not quite enough supervision or interaction to suitably address both again on the accountability side, what you might wanna see for people, but also on the connections to care side, and how are people accessing and connecting to and remaining consistent with any supports or treatments that they need and they should be receiving in the community. DOC staff have to report to the courts every ninety days on how people are doing. If they're compliant, that's great. A judge can decide to remove someone from pretrial supervision at that point, or they can reduce their supervision level. But if clients violate a condition of their release, DOC notifies the defendant and they notify the state's attorney. And at that point, the state's attorney is responsible for deciding if they're gonna bring up a charge of a violation of conditions of release and submitting that to the court. And again, just to preview, for us, we think that's another sort of design flaw in this program because it logjams and prevents direct reporting between DOC and the courts. For people who are supervised by the Department of Corrections on probation and parole, when people violate their conditions of probation or parole, DOC is able to bring that directly to a judge and there's a much more immediate response and conversation that can happen. And so those consequences are more immediately felt by the individual, which makes, the impact a lot more, obvious and, impactful for people. But when it goes to the state's attorney, and you know, all of whom I would assume at this point are quite busy, and they have to take it up and decide what to do with it next, there can be a lengthy delay in how that does or doesn't advance to the court, which takes away some of the immediacy and the behavioral impact of attaching a consequence to violation behavior. So so we think that that's, again, a weakness in the design. I am going to transition things over, and forgive me if I do this in a in an awkward way, but that's Yeah, my this is how it goes. David, do you have sharing capabilities to pick up from here?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So while they're doing this

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: I think so. Just a moment.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: While they're doing this, any questions from the committee? Yeah, the

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: telephone call assuming integrity? So if the person who's pretrial release doesn't get caught and the telephone call says, Yeah, I haven't been drinking. That's what we assume.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So why don't we ask Gary

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: that question? Yeah, check-in, it's mostly to remind them of the things that they need to do. It's not really about surveillance. Checking in with them in the community or in the field site is really more of rolled out to how are things going. The phone call is more the telephone reporting system is that they let us know if they're not in trouble, they're not in a correctional facility somewhere else. It's sort of just updating us that they're stable, that they're accomplishing whatever they're doing to do by the court.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Remember, those are for low risk folks to reoffend. It's not for your high risk. It's your low risk. You got to remember that it's not for everyone. Right The

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: telephone reporting is added for everybody, in addition to that, we also do face to face check ins with the higher risk individuals.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then they could escalate up to electronic monitoring. At So some it's really dependent on what their risk level is and the severity of their crimes. You gotta look at those dynamics. It's not something we think, well, everybody should get one on one, they need to come in and see me and I need to check everything off. It depends on a person's risk level to reoffend.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: And to be frank, as Ella was saying, also resources, If we know that we're going to have lower caseloads or we're going to We can start to play around with a different profile, sort of different case management profile. And that's, I think, what they're going to get into as well are their recommendations.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's really individualized. You can't make one decision for everyone across the board because everyone is different. And I think that's what gets frustrating on the public's level because they see things and they automatically just think something. And that may be correct and it may not be. This is why we have these risk assessment tools and evidence based standards. So David, turn it over to you.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Can you folks see my screen?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Okay, perfect. So our initial plan was to assess how the Subversion Program was working in the pilot counties, and then to suggest strategies for a statewide rollout. And, I want to be clear that a number of our recommendations are the thinking about it has to do with if you roll this out statewide. They may not have been necessary. For example, some of the resource issues would not necessarily have been necessary or required if we were only talking about Orleans and Essex. But when we talk about rolling this out statewide, that changes it significantly. So, what did we do? Well, first of all, we had awe, meaning myself and some colleagues, did a number of on the ground assessments of the current operations in Orleans and Essex Counties, with an emphasis on availability of services and coordination across the agencies. We met with various stakeholders, judicial leaders, law enforcement, DOC supervision staff, community based service providers, DOC leadership. We looked at the current policies and procedures, including Act 138 and the other relevant statutes, and we found some really significant strengths during the first visit to Orleans County. Really, really liked the way the folks in that county were working together and thinking about this and the issues that they were facing. But we also quickly identified some core challenges that, from our perspective, would impede PSP success throughout the state as you move statewide, regardless of location or service availability. Because obviously, in some cases, one of the overarching issues is service availability. But even in places where that's not the case, there are some concerns that we found. So, some of the strengths that we found really included partner commitment to success and strong supervision staff, good training, good approaches in terms of the, the the, way that the supervision officer approaches the situation and the clients, strong commitment to PSP among the judicial leaders that we spoke with, and good coordination between DOC and the court staff. Continued, DOC's continued to, of course, hire and train and retain strong supervision staff, and they really do train them in evidence based practices. And when we talk about evidence based practices, what we're talking about is that there are certain methodologies that have been developed over the last forty five, fifty years that have shown to be effective in supervising individuals and helping support their change from problem behavior to good social behavior. And so there are a variety of those types of evidence based practices that people need to be trained in, very bluntly in a lot of places around the country. Folks have not been well trained. Vermont is one of the several states that we have worked with, that the training there and the thinking about all of that is is very good, very solid, and, honestly, probably in the top 10 states in the country in terms of how this is thought about and how this is looked at. In the pilot county that we visited, key stakeholders, were informed and they were certainly engaged in the process and in the program of PSP. But despite those strengths, there are some key problems in the design that will ultimately undermine its impact and its success if you roll this out statewide. Ellen's alluded to some of these already. The referral and reporting processes are not that conducive to effective supervision practices. There are too many steps, too many things in the middle from one part to the other, whether that has to do with how people get into the program, or when there's a difficulty, how DOC can respond to that and deal with the court about that. And if in fact you move the statewide and you have the appropriate folks, pretrial folks, in this program, the current DOC staffing simply would not allow for the adequate supervision intensity needed for the higher risk individuals in this population. You're going to need to have smaller caseloads than a regular caseload for this group of individuals, not the low risk people who are just doing telephone reporting, but those individuals who really require greater intensity of intervention. That right now, if DOC were to stick with their current three levels and not increase that intensity, it will not work for those higher risk individuals. And so, order to increase that intensity as you move this statewide, you're going to need to make sure that DOC has enough people to do that. We don't know what that number is. That's for Vermont to figure out. What we do know is that you need to make sure you have the number needed to have the right caseload size, to have the right intensity of intervention for those folks who you're the most concerned about in terms of getting back to court or in terms of harming themselves or doing something very inappropriate in the community that potentially impacts community safety. And then the third challenge is coordination across state agencies, as Representative Emmons knows. So, by the way, folks, my name is David Demora. I have been working in Vermont on a variety of projects, not just the ones Ellen mentioned, but a couple of others, for well over a decade, and I love working in Vermont. I'm a senior advisor here at the Justice Center where I've been for about fifteen years, and I mentioned this because one of the things that I have been talking about for all of my time working with Vermont is really how do you increase the coordination across your state agencies that serve this population? It really needs to be stronger to provide the necessary services and treatments. What happens is that very often, for this population, everything falls on the back of DOC. There's no DOC in the world that can do everything. DOCs, probation, community supervision, facilities programming, facility super facility control, all of those things are important in what DOCs need to do. In many places, DOCs or courts, depending on how the system is structured, have ended up then having to take care of all of the mental health issues, all of the substance use issues. They're not as good at that as the people that that's what they do day in and day out. And so, the most effective response is to have a better, degree of coordination between the agencies that are responsible for these different components. So, challenges that, need to be addressed to succeed across the state, and there's sort of three ways that, we've written this and three ways to think about this in terms of short, medium, and long term. First one is that the department really needs to doesn't, right now, have the authority that they need to effectively and more immediately respond to violations of conditions of release or to work collaboratively with the courts under current procedures. They need to be able to very quickly get people back to court. Now let me be clear here. We're not saying they need to be very quick to be able to put people back in or to put them in incarceration for the first time. A lot of times, you don't need to do that. You just need to have somebody you need the judge say this to say to somebody, no. Enough. This is not going to happen anymore. This is what you need to do. If you don't, they're going to be back, and then we are going to be talking about needing to incarcerate you. So that intermediate step happening quickly, happening swiftly, being certain, is much more effective than maybe the not getting back at all, or taking a very long time for them to get back.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So David, for challenge one, this is a short term fix. Does CSG recommend how we can give DOC more authority to do this and to quickly have a response to the court?

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Well, yes. It would require a tweak to use statute, and Gary can talk to this because they already have this ability for people that they supervise post conviction. So it's essentially taking what they already know how to do, or what they can already do post conviction, and giving them the ability to expand that to the pretrial population. And Gary can do a much better job than I can of the specific details of how that works for DOC, and so certainly, Gary, please feel free to jump right in, but that's what we're saying, is that that's a fairly quick, immediate fix. That's what we mean by short term, and and is not an issue of dollars per se.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, Gary, can you Yeah.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: I think it's a pretty, straightforward connection. Right now, we we have to file any violating behavior with the state's attorney. I think I it would make sense to file it with the court and the state's attorney. So the state's attorney is aware, but so that the court can respond. We already do that on probation that we'd be filing directly with the court. It's a violation of probations. We've done that for decades.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that would be one of the tweaks to the current statute that DOC would file that violation of conditions to the court directly and not to the prosecutor or the prosecutor to submit to the court.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Want the court we want the the state's attorney, of course, to be aware of this equally, but we want the court to be able to handle it directly. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: what's different with this than probation, just to put it out there on the table, probation is a sentence. Pretrial supervision is not a sentence. It's a condition of their release. They have not been convicted. In probation, they have been convicted. Probation is under the court. It's not under DOC. It's not under any community. It's under the courts. So when there is a violation of the conditions have been set by the court, DOC does the supervision of folks who are on probation. And if there's a violation, then DOC goes directly to the court because probation is under the court. So I just wanna put that out for people to process. Okay? If there's violation of furlough and the PMP is supervising a person in the community on furlough, DOC goes right to DOC because DOC is a control furlough. If parole is a violation to those conditions that have been set by the parole board, DOC submits that violation directly to the parole board because the parole board has jurisdiction over folks who are paroled. So those are the important distinctions to understand here. So Troy and Bennington. You bet. Joe?

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: I'd say, well, it makes sense that you can file that in court. It's a supervision that's granted by the court. But how many people specifically have been involved in this trial in Vermont? It's been a very small number. Well, we had six referrals in Burlington and we have one currently on supervision after trial and Burlington, I think we were still, I'm sorry, Newport, I think we were still in the single digits if we ever got over. So the itch is not being scratched somehow. Don't know exactly what it is, but we don't control the referral process. That's the other issue we're doing across is that we only get whoever we get from the court. So there's the courts do. So right now, there's one person in Burlington, right, on free trial. That's of the accountability court.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's through the accountability.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Lots of things. Lots of cases were resolved. The accountability court only one that we put on pretrial.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So in Burlington, it got shifted from Essex Orleans. For this pilot project. So it's only those folks that went through the accountability court. It's not for anyone else that's going through the court system which shouldn't count.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: All of them, by definition, have at least five charges. That's how you get to the accountability court or one of the ways. But of of those, there's one person. Thank you. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the question is, when we take further testimony on this, we'll bring in the defense, we'll bring in the prosecution and the courts. And why are the numbers so low? Because the governor's proposal is to expand this program to other parts of the state. I haven't seen the proposal. I'm assuming it's in the general fund budget because you're gonna have to increase the budget for this because you're gonna need more staff in those counties on DOC's part. That's what we need to look at. We need to know why there's a lot in terms of why more people haven't been available this program. What

[Brian Minier (Member)]: you're saying feels right to me, but at this point sorry, I did have a question. And it's probably for you, David. How do we know that there's insufficient resources with DOC if the numbers are so small? And then for the long term challenge number three, you speak about coordination among agencies. Is there a resource question there too? Or is that just about one hand talking to the other? Uh-oh. Did open it?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: David can really expound on that because over the years, we have found that our partners or providers in the communities are not always so willing to work with folks who have been incarcerated or in the criminal justice system.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I would like to hear about that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's happened for a long time. And that goes back to what David was just saying a few minutes ago that we fall back on DOC to provide mental health, to provide substance use, to provide transitional housing, to provide mental health services when our partners need to be providing this.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yes, I guess how do we know the degree of the resource issue and why is that happening?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So David, it's back to you.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Sure. There is, of course, not one simple answer to that question. There are a number of things that I'm going to talk about that will get to some of the things that you're saying, but, let me sort of loop back just a little bit in terms of your question about challenge two. The issue of resources that we're talking about is not what DOC needs for what it is that is currently structured and who they've gotten. The issue of resources that we're talking about is that if, A, you expand this statewide, and B, you get rid of the logjam that you've unintentionally developed by the way the statute is written and the way that people get or don't get to pretrial supervision, then your numbers will increase. And one, if those numbers do increase by making the necessary changes, which one would assume is what you would like, you know, that there's a concern about what's happening pre trial, in Vermont or what meaning what's happening with folks pretrial in Vermont and and concerned about the community. And then the simple physical issue of if you are going to expand this statewide, you can't and you have the numbers, you can't simply assume that whatever currently exists will meet that. And it sounds like, if I'm understanding what you're saying, representative Emmons, it sounds like in terms of the governor's thinking that that he and and his folks are indeed thinking about that, and that's maybe part of what is in the, fiscal note that you were mentioning that, in terms of the budget. I have not seen that. I so I don't know to be clear.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Either have we. So I haven't seen any language. I don't know what the budget request is at this point. We are waiting for our house appropriations committee to look over the governor's documents, and we will see. We have another question here, David. Brian? I mean, not Brian. Kevin, I'm

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: sorry. No problem. Brian's good, man. I'll take his name anytime. Is the low participation possibly because there's plenty of applicants, but they have not been referred? Is the the the pretrial they say no. We're not comfortable in releasing them pretrial. Do we have that data? Is what I'm asking.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: I'm trying to think sorry, I'm trying to think of how to parse out the answer here. We know that your pretrial population in terms of the incarcerated population has grown. DOC has those numbers, we don't. And we have not looked at those numbers since last summer, so DOC would have much more current information than we do about those numbers. But the pretrial population has been growing, incarcerated population. That's one. The second one is that you have a number of people, a significant number of people, with a number of dockets, maybe not five, maybe it's two, three, or four, but a number of dockets who don't get incarcerated, but still keep coming back again for whatever problem, and they're not being supervised at a pre trial level. So you have a group of individuals, some of whom are incarcerated, some of whom are in the community, that can benefit from pretrial supervision either by lowering some of the population in the prison that is costing you a lot of money or by limiting the number of times people keep coming back with new dockets because they're more effectively being monitored and supervised while waiting for the resolution of the current problem. As far as specific numbers right now, I would have to leave that to DOC to give you that information.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I want to put this program in perspective for folks, so you really understand what population we're looking at. We're not looking at folks who are detained in our correctional facilities. And that's one thing that David alluded to, because we are seeing a lot more increase in our detainee population because the courts feel that they're a flight risk or endanger to public safety. So they're being held before they go to trial. Then there's a group of folks, except in Burlington, that meet the qualifications of five dockets or have they violated conditions of release. They go to they've been charged with criminal activity. They go to court to be arraigned, and they are released back to the community with conditions. So what is happening across the whole state, except Burlington, through this project program, where there's only one person right now, there's no supervision of those folks right now in the community. And that's what the public says. A we arrest them the next day they're on the street. What's going on? There's no supervision of those folks right now. The only supervision is what local law enforcement knows and maybe they see at some point they may pull them over at a taillight in their car and then find that they've been, I don't know, drinking alcohol, and that was a condition of their release. That's the only supervision that's out there. So this was an attempt to really beef up public public safety. Now on the flip side of this, and be aware of this because this came out in testimony as we were looking at this, the more someone is supervised, the more times you're gonna catch them violating, and the more times they're gonna end up in corrections.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's the flip side. Just, you know, this is what we do as legislators. We have to balance this. It's not black and white. It's not right or wrong. There is it's like a balloon. You push it in one spot, it's going to come out somewhere And that's we were very, very cognizant that we could be increasing our prison population. We're very cognizant that without this program, there is really now no supervision. So it was an attempt to really beef up public safety. So I don't know if that helps in folks processing the program. I don't know if it helps, but that's the lay of the land out there. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but Mary and then Shawn? The ones who need to shout. Shawn?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It just seems that it it seems like there's very few people who have been able to be, you know, this is you know, if we're talking 15 or 20 people at

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: tops, right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One right now is But in the bottom

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: there are some people that it sound like Essex Orleans had more people.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: No. There was almost religious. Yeah.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So there's it doesn't seem like we're getting a whole lot of you know? And I guess, you know, when you look at these challenges, they're the challenges we have with everything else. So I'm not exactly sure. I I mean, it just doesn't seem like it I don't know how you get this thing off the ground.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, the governor wants to extend it. I'm curious to see what is being proposed.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Okay. Because

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I haven't seen any legislation in a bill for that. So it's gotta be through the budget. When will we likely see that? Well, I know House Appropriations Committee is going through the governor's budget to start breaking things up in terms of which policy committee looks at what. So they're in the process of working with JFO on that. If they're proposing it, we should be able to see our. Sure.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: And just one little follow-up. I mean, this first challenge, DOC does not have the authority. Does that mean we have to write a bill that gives them

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that authority? Have to amend the current law.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You gotta amend the current law. That's why you folks need to know the law, the language. What they're asking right now is amendment to the law because right now DOC reports those violations to the prosecutor. And the prosecutor may refer it to the court. And we put in a May based on testimony we received, the state prosecution, the defense counsel and the courts. We then just unilaterally put that language in. All the language in this came from some pretty in-depth testimony from all parties. So we have to balance that out too. James and then Kevin.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So this isn't really gonna add much, don't think. But to agree with Shawn, and I think I heard Mary right, I don't really have questions about what the program is. I mean, it's not complicated. But I have significant questions about what the heck they think it's going to do, like with the uptake of one or even if it's nine, that's an insignificant number for a project or program. And I really want to hear, and I know we will someday, what exactly the plan is, because if it's just staying this way, I don't know, it just feels like a waste. So I hope that there is some master plan and that it actually is successful. But I have a lot of questions about

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It was in the governor's speech. I understand. We heard it, right?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: But I mean, yeah, a speech, but I want to what is this actual plan that like, if there's not a real significant I just whatever. You guys don't

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: have any. Kevin and then Mary. And then Gary, I know you had your history. So Kevin. We know how many

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Forgive me. Representative Emmons, forgive me. I just need to leave for about a minute and a half. Okay. I I have to move my car, and I will be right back.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Know that feeling. I was

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: in New York City.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Know that feeling. Don't lose us.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: No. I'm in but my wife can't get out.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So I will be right back.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Kevin. Do we have a handle on how many people have been reigned but have not gone through the pretrial? Supervision program. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Gary, do you have that at all for the Essex Orleans? Because it's gonna be different there versus the accountability court.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: I can't give you the exact number of Essex Orleans. I know there's been six referrals in Burlington that kind of really quick. And it's been about, last I heard, I might be wrong with the number, but I think it was around 500 dockets or something, the result.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Those weren't individuals. I don't

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: know how big cases that was. I suspect I think the real question is the the court, the defense, and the state can do the referrals. So it's not meeting their needs, and I don't know why, but I think that's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not meeting whose needs?

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: The the individuals the the entities that can do the referrals for whatever reason, they're not doing a lot of referrals. We're not getting a lot of referrals. There's a need that's not being met. Detention. Correct. Was going say that's another example of a pre adjudicated status that has always been underutilized. And I think, again, it's because it doesn't meet a certain need and we don't we can't answer that. What that is, we don't control the referral process. If we did, then we'd have more people on or at least we'd have more people referred to it. So I think that's really the question that's been asked to kind figure that out with those entities.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So there's a hitch somewhere in the referral process that somehow it's not meeting either the defense counsel's need, the prosecution side need, or the court's need. So Mary and then Gina.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So madam chair, have we asked to see what the proposal is by the governor? I can tell you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I guess. That's It's $200 for more positions for parole officer two positions for probation and parole. Is it in Rutland or is it just It's shared to be taken. These positions will be dedicated to the Department of Corrections pretrial supervision program. That's it. It's not a lot of money. That's not a No, 600,000? Because we had seven permanent positions, but that's not enough to Is that building on the 600,000 we put in? Because that 600,000 was once in for f y f y twenty four. Because if we didn't add anything to it last year, and I don't know if that was base or if that was a one time. It says it says shall be added to the existed prior year funding.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Could we print that off? And the other question is, is if it's not working now, I don't care if you throw money at two more parole officers, it's not gonna work. So we need to have the, whatever this proposal is, it's an understanding how they think this is working now. Obviously, they don't have a sense of what it's doing or not, so we need to do that. And we can work in conjunction at the same time. The probes can look at their money piece, but we've got to look at the structures.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They will come here with the money piece for us.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We understand, but we should be doing our work now to see if it's even smart to go forth. Bring the administration in to explain how they think it's working now. James?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just really seconding Mary. And I realized we just got read the policy, if you will, the money and the position, but that doesn't answer the question what it does or what the hope is to do. And it just as a side, it reminds me of the DOC alternative program for the work group that also is not being taken up by other entities. So we need to understand why people, why entities, whatever you call them, aren't utilizing this stuff. It doesn't mean it could be a great program, but why aren't people prefer it? Why isn't it not being used? So that's where I stand anyway.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we'll get into this. I know when we looked at this two years ago when we first did this, the program to be carried out statewide was about a million two, I think it was. And Senator Sears was the one that thought of this program came out of his committee. He was also on the Appropriations Committee. And in conference committee with the appropriations bill, they found 600,000 to roll this out in one or two counties in the state, and then see how it worked. If successful, then we could expand the program and increase the funding. That was the thinking two years ago.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I would like to know what the administration thinks this is being successful. And obviously, it sounds like it's got significant challenges.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, I think we're all on board with that, Shawn.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah. Just like Carrie, I mean, like so you're close to

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: this. Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's POC.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Well, I mean, is it is it tell like, you know, tell us like you're I'd love to hear your kind of honest opinion about it.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: We got we got 4,000 people on probation and we've got a little actually. We've got

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Probation is different. Yeah, just

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: going through the different So we've got over 200 people, roughly a full level. And then you look at the pre adjudicated statuses, home detention, it's always been underutilized. Before that, concurrently we had home good finance also underutilized. So it seems like all these pre adjudicated statuses, they've never really given anything to the system in terms of benefiting the judiciary and the state's attorneys and the defense. So the question I guess I would ask them is like, how could we make this more favorable? So that it's more appetizing, so more referrals going into the park. Because I can't speak to that, I'd really just be speculating, but it's clearly not doing anything to advance their case or to make their work easier to improve the outcomes of their defendant in the eyes of the defense. So I don't know exactly what could be done to remedy that.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So do you just end it and be done with it?

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: It's up to us.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So my question is, can we ask for that today and then get the administration in here to explain what their thought process is on this? I mean, we're hearing firsthand from this gentleman that it's really not doing what it was supposed to do. So I look to throw more money at it.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Well, would offer that there's still a lot of unresolved dockets in the state. I haven't gotten the current numbers, thousands of unresolved dockets. We know there's a need in the sense that there's people out in the community that are unstable, that are not getting any supervision as represent them to spread out. So how can we come to a situation where we are providing that support? Because I know this is something the governor wants, and I think it's obviously an oppressing need for the communities because these individuals would benefit from additional supports and structures. But it also has to benefit the system and the individuals that are doing the referrals. And until that is met, I don't think we're gonna I think it's gonna continue to be underutilized. And I do think it's a great opportunity to support these folks and even from

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I agree, but we've got other system that works.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You get on there. And I'm just trying to think who from the administration on the 5th Floor is coming from the 5th Floor.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: mean, we could have the commissioner of corrections, but we also need Because, but

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: does he also have the background only been there a few months?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't know if it's the Secretary of the Administration. I don't know if it would be Jay Johnson. I just don't know. We can put a feel around, see who from 5th Floor could come in and explain what the governor's budget request and what they were thinking. Right. Because I can see us going further or even discussing money or positions without us knowing and they have in mind,

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: and what their knowledge actually is even of the program. Because, you know, I want to support whatever DOC is needing to, you know, sounds like, you know, how is the possible could be great for our communities, but it's got to work. Right?

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I'd love to hear from the judiciary in Essex and Orleans and prosecutors and defense in Essex and Orleans. Why this hasn't actually arrived in their pickup.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We've tried this without detention. We've tweaked it and tweaked it, and still one or two people or six. So let's move on. I'm looking at the time. There's more that David wants to share with us, and he can also get into our community partners and community programming. David has car successfully. It does car. Thank you, Gary. Feel free to come back anytime. Will So

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: maybe I can answer some of the things that are being discussed in this next section. Talk a little bit about the best practices and recommendations to improve PSP. The first, Representative Emmons, I'm gonna have to shut my pictures off again, so if there's a question or a hand raised, if you just let me know, thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, will do.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: But to pick up on what we were saying earlier, effective behavioral health treatment or intervention for folks in the criminal justice system addresses both the criminogenic and the behavioral health needs. And so if you look at this, you have sort of this spot in the middle, right? If you just deal with, and Gary was talking about this with substance, with domestic violence, if you just deal with the substance use disorder but you don't deal with the criminal behavior your thinking, then it will not be successful. Or if you just deal with the mental health treatment and not the criminal behavior thinking, assuming that it exists, to be clear, then you will not be successful. Should it exist, then you really need to be looking at these three areas in order to really address this effectively, which is why we keep hammering on about the issue of coordination between different systems for those individuals who are in the criminal justice system. The criminal thinking specialty is that of DOC, by all means. People who are experts in substance use disorder treatment and mental health treatment are far better at responding to those issues than a DOC can be, unless you end up creating, and this has happened in some states at ridiculous costs, they essentially recreate the systems in DOC. So now you have two mental health systems, one for the folks not in DOC or not in the criminal justice system is a better way to say that, and another one for those folks who are. And not only is that not as effective, plus you have the issue of resources and staff, but the cost is just amazing in terms of the extra cost that that brings to states. So, one of the things that we do know is the programming that's delivered in the community can be effective, and it's less expensive than programming in prison. And so, the cost of community supervision, for example, is about $4,400 Cost of prison, comparison is a little over $34,000 or almost $35,000 and it's not to say that you shouldn't have the availability of treatment in a prison if somebody is incarcerated, but to have somebody go to prison to get treatment is sort of a cost ineffective plan, right? It doesn't really make a lot of sense. And it's not that it's going to be more effective than community treatment, because when we look at treatment in the community, it's actually slightly better. The other difference that this doesn't show, but another slide mentions, is that while that prison treatment has a short term impact in terms of effectiveness, and so you certainly would want to do that, if that person is incarcerated because they are of a risk to the community and they have a substance use issue, you want to provide that substance use treatment for them. There will be a good degree of engagement. There will be initial impact, but there isn't a long term outcome. It doesn't tend to work over the long term. And so that's one of the reasons why, even if somebody does get treatment in a facility because they have been incarcerated, because they're a risk to the community. I'm talking about sentenced folks, to be clear here. You're gonna wanna continue that when they get into the community, but for many of those folks, assuming that they aren't dangerous individuals, treatment in the community is more effective and costs a lot less.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So David, we have a question on that screen.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: He answered that. I just like, 35 isn't the cost of incarceration,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: but it's

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: just for the

[Brian Minier (Member)]: treatment.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's just for the treatment. Yeah,

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: that was a little slow.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes, just for the treatment. Okay, David, you can keep going.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Okay. So one of the things, and this is something that we've been working on now for a lot of different states, which is that as folks with the behavioral health needs are identified, really need to think about how to have a better range of treatment and services necessary. Now, to be clear, there are sort of two issues here, right? One is whether they exist at all. But the second one is, if they exist, are they structured in a way that people can't access them if they're in the criminal justice system? So there's two different issues. In Vermont, you have some of both in terms of those difficulties. You have because you are, of course, a large state with a lot of rural areas. You certainly do have areas with more limited capacity in terms of availability of services, and then you have places with greater availability of services, although they sometimes get overwhelmed because folks end up being sent there even

[Brian Minier (Member)]: if

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: they don't happen to live there, and so then those services get overwhelmed. So that's one set of issues to think about. The second one is that often there's a lot of difficulty in accessing those services if you are a part of the criminal justice system, if you are on probation and on supervision, and that becomes problematic. And so you get on a waiting list, you wait weeks, months, in some cases. And the problem with that is that those are the folks that keep coming back with new dockets again and again. One of the things about, again, assuming that you do go to a statewide model and that you do tweak the program so that it does what the desire is to have it do, then you're going to want to make sure that those caseloads match in a way that the officer can really work on getting For people to where they need to example, where I live in Connecticut, I mentioned earlier, it involves sometimes transportation. It involves the officer actually taking the person to the appointment because they can't get there otherwise. And even in a small state like ours that is relatively densely populated comparatively, there are folks who simply don't have the capacity to get to certain parts of the state or to certain service providers because of where they live and their lack of a vehicle, etcetera, etcetera, or because their impairment is such that we probably don't want them driving to get to that particular service. There's a lot of talk these days around the country. You all know this, right? We tend to go back and forth in terms of how we respond, and we often go to the extremes on both sides when we make a lot of decisions about things. Right now, across the country, many folks are really questioning whether people with complex behavioral needs and substance use disorders can have reduced recidivism if they're compelled to seek treatment while they're incarcerated and awaiting trial. What the research basically shows is that involuntary treatment, and I alluded to this earlier, it can improve initial participant engagement, but the programs are significantly less effective over time when compared to voluntary treatment approaches, the use of engagement to get people involved to increase their motivation. There's also an increased risk with mandated treatment in terms of risks of harm, including heightened overdose risk and potential for abuse within the treatment settings. High quality and accessible programs that build on a person's internal motivation have proven to be more successful in achieving long term sustained recovery and reducing recidivism. So you might have a short term impact, but you won't have a long term impact, and that short term impact can be very, very expensive.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I just wanna stop right there to see if there's any questions. I'm not seeing any, but I want to make sure. Okay, David, you can keep going.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: Okay, almost done folks. Successful pretrial systems do tend to rely on supportive services, and I really need to be clear about that. Pretrial services that basically focus on bag them and tag them, if you will, right? Solely on supervision strategies, such as mandatory drug testing, which is much less effective than folks think it is, and reporting, they don't improve outcomes. Supportive pretrial services use strengths

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sorry, was there a question? No, did you freeze up?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Can you hear me? Yes.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: And

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: do you see the slide that says successful pretrials? Okay. Supportive pretrial services, we'll start there, tend to use strengths based counseling and address underlying challenges, such as housing, treatment, employment. They tend to be far more successful at improving court appearances and reducing re arrest. So that's a key issue. Support needs to be greater than supervision, and what that simply means is just supervision alone, just watching for people who have high risk and need, is not going to be effective, particularly. You've really got to engage with those individuals. That's the reason why we keep talking about for those higher risk and need individuals, you want to have that greater degree of contact. You don't want that greater degree of contact to increase their failure rate, and that's a genuine concern. As Representative Emmons mentioned, if you have poorly trained officers, if you have a construct that all we're doing is sort of watching and catching, then you will have a bigger failure rate, and it will not be very effective. But if you are utilizing what the science says will work best, then you can have these folks getting to court, having less dockets, reducing rearrest, reducing long term recidivism, which is, I think, everybody's hope when we talk about community safety. One of the other issues is the need for evaluation and data, and that's come up several times in the various committees that we've spoken with. Many pretrial service agencies don't collect basic data like court appearance rates, pretrial arrest rates, or successful service connections. So, there really needs to be documented and publicly shared. You do have some of this information in Vermont, but there there's additional information that you could gather, and part of the problem with some of the information is that different entities are collecting it, so you don't always have it in one spot. But you are in much better shape than many states are, quite frankly. It is important to get that data, among other things, to adjust the policies and practices. And I would argue that the reason that we're talking about making tweaks now is because of some of the data that weyou have been able to look at and have been able to gather, both quantitatively and qualitatively. And then last but not least, the hub and spoke model, which Vermont is very familiar with, with its substance use treatment programming, is that pretrial services work best with both court and community presence. Court based staff serve as the hub interviewing and accepting folks in the programs, whether it's at bail hearings or first appearances or wherever, depending on how each state works a little bit differently. They make voluntary referrals to the spoke agencies and help folks get in and get there, and the community organizations provide services as close to people's homes and neighborhoods as possible. Again, that varies depending on the particular way a state is structured in terms of the degree of rural area versus urban area in state. A So Vermont can immediately strengthen service, pretrial supervision programming for better results in a number of ways. One of which is the issue of as you move forward, again, if you break the logjam and you get the referrals, you want to make sure that your officers have caseloads of really no more than 20 folks, so that they can spend a lot of time with those individuals. People with five open documents tend to have significant mental health, substance use, housing, employment, and or criminal thinking needs that have to be addressed in order to decrease their court involvement. So more interaction, both frequency and intensity of contact, is necessary. We would argue that there are many people at a pretrial status that don't need to be bothered at all, so to speak. But there are a significant subset of individuals who do, and that the intensity that's required is greater than what DOC could do if the log jam gets broken. With the lack of the you know, with the with the lack of referrals at the moment, obviously, they have that ability. But if you actually get the folks into the programming that seem to be in the community based on what folks have been able to gather about volume and numbers and dockets, then you're gonna need to make sure that you've got the right number of folks. The second recommendation, again, has already been mentioned, authorizing DOC staff to make direct referrals to the courts in response to condition violations. And, we are not suggesting that that means they automatically need to be incarcerated. Sometimes that may be the case, but that's not the goal. The goal is to have folks be on the, if you will, straight and narrow so that the community is safe and that they do not get additional dockets or you are not spending additional money ineffectively. The third is referring people, and this is an issue of breaking the logic. Referring people to PSP based on relevant factors is kind of important. It needs to be a focus on risk and needs, including behavioral health and substance use needs, right? Five open dockets doesn't really address individual specific risks and needs that pretrial supervision could effectively manage. There are people with five open I would argue that probably anybody with five open dockets needs something. I would argue that there are many people that don't have five open dockets who still need something. And so that number was reached, again, trying to think about volume, trying to think about not overwhelming the system, trying to think about what would a pilot program look like. So, I don't mean that as a criticism, but I think one of the things that needs to be rethought is whether that is actually the most important eligibility requirement. We would suggest that anybody considered or recommended for pretrial detention should receive a risk and needs assessment, including behavioral health and substance use screens, and then a recommendation to the court as to whether they can effectively supervise those people with the appropriate intensity, or whether they can't, in which case that individual may indeed be detained pretrial. DOC recommendations need to specify the services and supports that the individual would need, and whether or not they are able to get those provided. DOC and the courts should establish a process for regular contact between the supervision officers and the judges to support client success and to monitor progress through less formal communications. In other words, you don't want to always violate somebody in order to have a discussion. That's not a great plan. And officers need greater flexibility to determine and adjust the service needs to make sure clients are receiving the appropriate treatment types and intensity for success. Again, we're talking about the people that have the greater needs here, not the people with the lesser or lower needs for these kinds of responses. And then back to something we've been talking about again, both today and in many other conversations, there really needs to be a directive to the relevant health and human service agencies to develop a streamlined method for referring PSP clients to behavioral health services. Departments of mental health, housing, substance use must work with DOC to identify the challenges, and I also need to be very fair here in saying some of this has started, and so I don't want to suggest that there have not been conversations or there is not some work going on, but I also know that I have been working in Vermont for well over a decade, and it still has not gotten to where it is that it needs to be, so there needs to be greater speed in the process, if

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: you

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: will. There needs to be the identification of the challenges in the population, accessing the available and necessary services that they need, and then develop an approach by which the DOC can immediately refer a person to those services in the short period of time they are being supervised, so that they don't end up with the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh docket, while waiting for whatever it is that's going to be happening in terms of their involvement with the court. Again, Vermont's already demonstrated that collaborations across agencies and systems can be effective, and one of the great things that you have is something called FACT, or Forensic Assertive Community Treatment, and it's a collaborative program that's administered by DOC and DMH, is done in partnership with Pathways Vermont, and it bridges both the behavioral health and the criminal justice systems. It provides wraparound services tailored to the needs of individuals with complex co occurring disorders, Caseloads for the DOC supervision of FACT clients is low, 20 clients. You can see where the recommendation comes from. It allows for dedicated time and focus to supervise and support those clients. And when you look at their results, first year Excuse me. When you look at their results, the first year results, fifty seven percent were successfully housed. Only two individuals were re incarcerated for new charges in the fourth quarter. They then looked further following to the second year through June 2024, forty two percent reduction in returns to incarceration, seventy five percent reduction in severity of criminal violations, sixty three percent reduction in crisis services and hospitalizations, eighty three percent increase in the social determinants of health, which is a measure that is utilized by DMH and really DMHs across the country. And when you look at the cost of that compared to the cost of incarceration, the cost of hospitalizations, etcetera, you have more effective outcomes at a lower cost, if you will, with less interruption of people's lives and good community safety component, which is always necessary when we're talking about these things. So the key takeaways. It's currently designed. It is not able to provide adequate supervision if the logjam is broken to ensure the success for clients. In the short and medium term, DOC needs authority over court referrals and more resources to hire services. That is if you move statewide. Again, I want to be clear that our recommendations are on the assumption that the law jam will be broken and that this will go statewide. There needs to be stronger coordination between behavioral health, housing and corrections actors and agencies, and the initial adjustments investments can help you avoid the continued growth of your incarcerated pretrial population and address underlying crime and safety challenges. And that, I'm sure you'll be happy to know, is the end Right of my

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right on time. So there's a lot of information here, David, and we really, really appreciate you coming in and presenting this. I know this is a lot of new information from many members of the committee. Half the committee members were here when we did pretrial supervision. Was it? February 15, right? When And we did Mary and Troy, Conor and me. They were the ones. And then I've got and there's, like, five new people to this whole world. It's bringing everyone up to speed. We're gonna have a committee discussion about this as we go forward. Haley did text me and recommended that it should be Jay Johnson that comes before us. I don't know if Jay or Jay may not wanna come back, but maybe she will.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Scared of you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. But we'll see if we can have Jay to come in to present what the governor's proposal is for this. I we'd at this point, David, we don't have any legislative bill. If the committee is interested in doing work on this, we could do a committee bill. We could add on a little bit to I don't know. We have some bills on the wall. We'll just have to figure out

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: to the $5.59. That's your main. I think it

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: No.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. I wouldn't do it to that. I'm just looking to be Maybe some of the state along. Maybe it's 380.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: And until we hear from other parties, we don't even have context of what would make sense to do.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we would hear from other parties. We've got to hear from the administration first in terms of the thinking. But you folks, we have the basis of what the current program is. And then we'll bring in the administration in terms of their proposal, which we'll have to weigh in on anyway for House Appropriations Committee. Then we got to bring in the respective defense, prosecution, courts, DOC, and voice these recommendations of councils, state governments, and see how how it works out in language. Mhmm.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: But that still hasn't gotten to point four in the presentation, which is the behavioral health services, which is a good thing that I stepped in. We can have more supervision. We can have direct referral by the courts. We can have her focus on the risks and needs from DOC, which she says they're already doing. But for armed services, this fact example is 54 people, and there is a focus on 24 of those. That's 24 over a year and a half. And they had a nurse, a peer specialist, housing reports, a psychiatrist. If we can expand that state by, how about our success rate on the way up? And nobody's funding that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think that's David's point.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: Yeah. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that's been going on for over twenty years.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: We can fund the officers, but yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There is a stigma in some of our providers of working with folks who are in the criminal justice system. We have to be upfront about that. And the one thing that I would emphasize for folks, off session, or even during the session, designated agencies have a day or a program for local legislators to come in. Our Turning Point Recovery Centers have opportunities for legislators to bring people's need in your local areas, our local hospitals. I think it's important as legislators in your community, if your hospital or Turning Point or criminal justice training accounts are not convinced as transferred your CJCs or your designated mental health agencies, have a morning or afternoon put aside specifically to meet with legislators. It's really important to participate in that. Ask them about the corrections population. Put it on the table. Put it on the table. It's not to say that it's going to solve it, but it's important for legislators to voice that, to participate in your local community partners. Because they reach out to us off session, meet with us, the group. And it's interesting, at least in my area, it's always the same folks that show up. I'm on the board and buried. But whenever you have a function, it's always a small handful of legislators who show up. But that's where you can really put questions on the table to pose.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Do we have any visibility of the population that was served in the there were only two individuals incarcerated in quarter four. Do we have any, can we track the people who have participated today? Do we have any idea how they're doing now?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: David, what year was this done? When was it? This says '24.

[David DeMora (Senior Advisor, CSG Justice Center)]: It was the '24. I don't think that the I don't know that the newest data is out yet, but I do know they are still tracking it. And we got this information from the department, so they've been tracking it all along. And I assume that there will be 25 numbers soon, but unfortunately, these things always lag a bit in terms of how that works. And Haley, I don't know if you have any additional information about that that I don't have.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, it seems, Rip Winter, like you're hoping for a more kind of in-depth analysis of their pathways, which would be individualized data. So we could probably get that for you just because the number of individuals are so small who are participating.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah, because the list is short. And if we know that they're all still doing well, that would be encouraging. But if half of them have now re offended, then short lived results, we got to wait that too.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Remember, we're dealing with human beings. We're not dealing with widgets. Sometimes we feel we might be, but we're dealing with human beings. And you never know what may happen in someone's personal life. They may be doing really, really well. And then they could be experiencing a tremendous loss, either a parent or a spouse or and then it triggers things. I think we just have to keep that in mind that we're dealing with individual folks. Yep. And what may work for one may not work for another. And there are triggers out there. We all know that. We all feel it in our own lives.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But we did move years ago from individual assistance to different people to inclusion and putting them all together. Certainly it happened in education thirty five years ago.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not quite following you.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Mental illness, drug addiction versus criminal behavior. We have gotten away from subdividing those groups and treating them individually. And personally, I think that's the major problem. We need to focus more on the individual, like you're saying, rather than having everybody lumped together and hope that they're gonna be taken care of.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, they're getting lumped together in DOC because our services are not out there. One of the big pieces was when we deinstitutionalized, they're showing up in corrections. Corrections just isn't trained So for we then approach this of while we see someone's behavior in the community that's not acceptable, let's put them in a directional facility and then we don't have to deal with it. But we are paying big bucks to deal with it. And how successful are we when we could deal with this out in the community? That bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. So

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: did we decide who's coming in?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It would be Jay. Haley recommended it

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: to be Jay Johnson. Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So let's quickly go to lunch. This afternoon, we have Laura Trishman here to go over the section in the capital bill that deals with historic preservation. It was more than that.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: All I had. Okay.

[Gary Marble (Deputy Director, DOC Field Services)]: That's all from me at the end.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: That's what I see.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Just spoke to the whole section. So will we'll go over the markers today. That will be real quick, but that may work out even better. Do it now while for a sleep Well, I I need to we need to do these reports. So let's take a quick lunch and come back at 12:30 for Laura. And, Laura, if you could work with Tate to figure out to do the rest of your section. Okay?