Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome folks, this is Health Corrections and Institutional Committee. It is Thursday, April 23. We are still going to be taking testimony here on S-four 93. Susan Aueranoff, I'm killed with names, with the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council.

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: Susan, welcome. Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Susan Aueranoff, I do the policy work for the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council. Every time I testify before a committee, but especially before a committee I've never been in, I need to explain that I am a state employee. If you get email from me, it's .gov. My office is in the Agency of Human Services, especially when I testify on an issue adjacent to or squarely on in AHS proposal. I really have to clarify that I work for a federally funded council. My council, the Developmental Disabilities Council, was created by a federal act of Congress, a civil rights law for people with disabilities. Every state and territory has council. By federal law, we have to be a majority, our council members are a majority of people with disabilities and their family members. We also have certain kinds of service providers and Department of Education or Human Services representatives. We have a Vermont Care Partners representative on our council. But our council, in exchange for that good federal money, we have a memorandum of understanding with the Agency of Human Services, we can advocate for things that are in accordance with our charter. So I am testifying here in my unique role representing the council. Before I get going, though, about the council, it's very rare that my personal lived experience is of really any relevance, but I want to share it here in case walking around the cafeteria or anything like that you guys have questions, I'd be very happy to be a resource. So I describe myself as a recovering lawyer. No one's paying my malpractice insurance right now.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I don't practice law. I work

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: as a policy analyst in the state, not as an attorney position in the state. However, prior to that, for more than twenty five years, I was an attorney providing legal assistance to low income adults with psychiatric disabilities. The only exception to the low income were veterans. Most of my clients were either in a hospital trying to get out or outside of a hospital trying to get in. As I said, they were low income. I dealt mostly with public institutions, or ones that filled the roles of public institutions serving low end clients. I did my first work as a staff attorney here in Vermont for what's now Disability Rights Vermont, then Vermont Protection and Advocacy. I was involved in investigating suicides at the Brattleboro Retreat. It was a big problem for a woman. That's where I first learned how to do death investigations. I then went and worked in Connecticut, where I was a staff attorney and a supervising attorney located on the grounds of Connecticut Valley Hospital, which is home to the Whiting Forensic Institute. One of the links I give you is about the recent history of the Whiting Forensic Institute in the real modern present, 2017, of 40 staff there literally losing their jobs and many serving prison time for patient abuse. So that's the point in the links I'll get to. But I was on the grounds of waiting for forensic institute, and sadly, the head nurse, some of the people involved, people who I thought were the good guys. The head nurse, really, I thought was like, they called themselves something, a therapeutic change agent. And he would teach the others to be therapeutic change agents, the ones who thought they were just there to be muscle. He was a good guy, and he did terrific things to patients there. Part of my background also is I taught mental health law classes at a master's level at the University of New Haven. Many of my students there, it was the Lee's Forensic School, where law enforcement, either current, FBI agent, state police, looked at mental health law was a required class in a lot of their work. And the thing about mental health law, you guys know this well, 50 states, you probably have 60 systems. Every state defines things differently, does things differently. What I sometimes say about this current proposal is I would give students midterms and finals things like design a commitment statute with all the bells and whistles, or compare five different states' commitment statutes. Who has the most due process? Who has the least? Where would you rather be a person with a disability? Tennessee or Vermont? And compare, contrast. When I look at what we've done here, it's a real mishmash. And at the outset, I want to say it's a real mishmash between these two primary roles of government, where government gets to deprive people of their liberty. It's usually either because of the duty to care, to care for people who locally will say cannot care for themselves. And that's a duty to care for people cradle to grave with disability. It used to be the mark of the high in society, how well it would take care of the people who did not take care of themselves. And that comes from that Latin parents patriarch duty of the state is the parent of all, the duty to care. There's also the public safety function of government. The primary role of what you all do is safety. And then what I see in this bill is really the clash, and what I see a lot in Agency of Human Services prior to my current role, I actually worked squarely in Dale. And the Agency of Human Services, in many ways, strives to be an agency of one, but frequently, it really works in its siloed ways. And you have the Department of Corrections, whose primary function is penile and corrective and public safety. And then you've got the Department of Children and Families and Department of Mental Health and Disabilities Aging and Living. Their primary mission is to make Vermont the best state in which to live with a disability. And we're old. We're not doing very well with that, but disability part. So those two missions, safety and taking care of people who can't take care of themselves, that they collide in this bill because we're trying to do two things: restore people the competency who can be restored so the public can get the satisfaction of a concluded court case for cases that warrant that. And then also provide public safety by providing for long term housing and support where the people the people have decided are not safe in the community. And the people that I am primarily concerned about here are the people who cannot be restored to competency. Why can they not be restored to competency? I work for the Developmental Disabilities Council. When you think of developmental disability, think down simply. Is there a medication? Is there a treatment you'll use that's going to restore someone who is not ever competent to competency? I will say our counsel in this role is also concerned with other people. So people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are widely considered because of their disability to not be restorable. That's a legal term, you guys will hear it. There's non competent, non restorable. There's not a restoration for many of the developmental disabilities. Likewise, there isn't restoration for traumatic brain injury, for Alzheimer's or other dimensions. So I don't want to pretend that just separating out people who are under Act two forty eight will solve the problem of the population of people who are not competent and not What I think Vermont needs for the people who are not competent and not restorable is, Hey, guess what? Your colleagues before you already did it for you. The very end of my testimony from Act 137 of 2024, the Department of Disabilities was going to look into community based secure residences. I worked very closely with Anne Donahue. I served on some of the summer study committees and I assume her great name. What we found, Ben, was that the hands of our community providers were very much tied in their ability to provide secure to the staff that start there, have to protect our staff. It's high risk, low reward. One thing that's interesting about this,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't you? I'm gonna say.

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: I'll come back. And if you guys read this, that would be great. But one thing that's really interesting to me about this is I've been listening to the testimony is when representatives and judiciary can I just say, do everything everywhere all at once?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not the greatest way to We're working it through. I know. You're doing

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: the best you can. All of you, thank you for your service. I get that. I'm trying to be of service too. Of the things that I've found very interesting in this discussion, and this is where where is AHS's leadership?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But what I'm sorry.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Didn't hear it.

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: Where is AHS's leadership? Is we had I heard testimony yesterday in response to really good questions from representative Rachelson about why corrections? It's because Department of Mental Health doesn't want this? I'm sorry. Is that an acceptable answer? I was really surprised to hear that Department of Mental Health doesn't want the responsibility for people who are mentally ill and because of their mental illness are not competent to stay on trial or not guilty by reason of insanity? I implore you to exercise your oversight. That leaves her there. Why corrections? I keep saying to myself, back in the wayback machine, Senator Sears was doing and then Commissioner Monica White was doing everything humanly possible to get one person we knew of with a developmental disability out of corrections. And I was saying, We, the Minier guys, didn't follow the ADA too. But really, what I said about the personal legacy PAD procedure, it's really hard for people who run correctional facilities to meet the individual needs that some of these people present with, whether it's communication needs. A lot of people need someone else in order to communicate. Who needs toilet need? And we're gonna put some of the people with the highest support needs all together in this facility. Anyway, we have a huge concern. This is your guys' role, I know, is the oversight of AHS. If there's anything that's I think, the most important point in all of my testimony, it was what Commissioner Chris Wimber said after coincide. What he said, not what I said. He says, There must be transparent oversight and accountability for the entire system, but more so for the higher levels of care, particularly any loxides and drum roll. The state cannot be both the ultimate regulator and the provider. And AHS itself? I work in one little area having to do with Medicaid funded home and community based services. We are the last state out of 50 to come into compliance with rules that were passed in 2014. If you gave me an hour, I could tell you about our lack of compliance with safety, with quality, with quality, a quality report sent to the Feds that wasn't true. It goes on. So AHS, not the place right now I would entrust all of the people to in corrections without an out out there. It's all within AHS. The rule making all these sections is all AHS. There should probably be some independent oversight, and I would love to come back. So, other thing I want to say about the council, though, I didn't say these really important things at the beginning is that we're charged under federal law with engaging in advocacy at the state level. But one of our main things that we focus on is the government's activities. There's a lot the private sector does that impacts people with disabilities, but when it's a government program, service, benefit, special education, any of the government, that's really what we focus in on. And this is a government program. One of the questions in judiciary is why is this such a disability rights issue? Because anyone, the only people who are ever going to be incompetent with SAM file are going to be people with a disability. Not all people with disabilities are going to be incompetent. Not all people with developmental disabilities are going to be incompetent. But the only people If you're incompetent to stand trial, the definition of a disability, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, is you have a significant impairment of a major life activity. So if you're not competent to stand trial, you can't engage with your lawyer, if you don't understand the court system, there's some major life activity, could be thought, speech, cognition, that has a significant impact. So only people with disabilities are going to be in the chute. That's why it's the disability rights issue.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you have four minutes, and we do have a question.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thank you. Susan, thanks so much. That's so helpful. I hope we could have you back at some point because like yesterday, the superintendent was talking about a group, like it's only a handful who just might not belong in a prison setting. And I'd love to talk more about what we do with people with like TBIs, you know, with different disabilities who might not fall under this specifically. Question for you though, and I know you're short on time. So I agree with everything you said there. I also wanna move the ball forward on this session, if we can, right? Yes. I worry about doing more study groups because we sort of know everybody's position. We know how the movie ends. When we put these study groups together, if you've got the pen, what do you write in statute to keep moving to close this loophole there, have security, but also give people the access to justice? So what would you write in legislation?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: first really good question. I think that there were a lot of improvements in access to information that the crime victims and their families are absolutely entitled to. And I think one of the frustrations in this process, and one of the things driving the impetus to do something, has been the disregard and disrespect that the system, the way it's designed now, has afforded the family members. So I think I would start there and represent it right. And I think there are some provisions that can be pulled out that would change those procedures, that the state's attorneys are on board with, that the Center for Crime Victims are on board with, you could start there. I think that where Act 100, whatever that is, of 24, let's do that. I mean, that could be done. What I found with the study committee that I was on last summer was that when the legislature asked really specific questions and brought together a smaller group of specific people and gave a shorter timeline. We had to have a report by November 15. The information is now driving legislation. So I wouldn't say do a study group to do a study group, but I've heard some really specific questions, like what would this cost? And what are alternatives? And should it be a hospital or not a hospital? Hospital, can get independent oversight from the Jamaica Commission. You speak about Chacon, now I'm the junk. Anyway, someone took I heard Representative Arseneau ask questions that have actual answers, like, What do other states do? So I think if the leadership came up with, What are your questions that have not been answered to your satisfaction? And either contractor or study group, I have no that idea of bringing all the stakeholders together, to your point, no. This process alone had so many dysfunctional groups because everyone let it be heard. I would advise to not do that.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thanks so much.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's almost 09:00, so if I can come back at a time, we can speak to you today. We've got some time.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Yeah. I

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: do wanna say that my understanding from, Cheryl, judiciary is that they are working on a third draft and actually incorporating some of the comments from mine and other people's testimony tomorrow. That said, the testimony that I just sent to Kate was up to date, except for my comments on this second draft. But those real overarching principles, it's all in there, if you could take some time to read it. I also have the links to the Seven Days article about Woodside. I know some of you lived through it all, but what I heard someone say is, Well, if we're doing the wrong thing, don't fix it with a lawsuit. I just want to say Woodside was wrong. Seven judges later. Seven judges later. And why? Because these cases come up on the backs of individuals, and then all the department has to do is release that individual. Matt Valero is a great testimony about that case is gone. The issues don't go away. So I wouldn't give yourselves the peace of mind of, Oh, if this is illegal to put people who committed a crime and could never be held accountable in a prison, if that's troubling you, I think a lawsuit's gonna fix that, it could take a while. Thank you, Susan. That's great. And what I've asked out is the main thing I do in this building is bring people with disabilities and their families around, but also I answer your guys' questions that come up from constituents. So if you have any questions about this or anything else, I want to leave the call.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Thank you, Susan. Thank you. You.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thank you so much.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're here for 09:45. Right? That's perfect timing.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Oh, really?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Perfect. I will just squeeze you in now if that works. Sorry, it's a lot of accessories. Are you going to be putting something up on the screen?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Just quickly. And Tate sent me the Zoom link already.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We'll give you time just to Okay, thank you.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: And I'll say too, I mean, I'll I can get into this, but we're not often in this committee. So if you guys, while I'm setting up, wanna introduce yourselves, that would be great too.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm Alice M. I'm in Springfield,

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: and I'm in the chair.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Shawn Sweeney.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I am the representative from Saint George and Shelburne. Kevin Winter, a representative from Buffalo, Rutland, Papa.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Good morning. Troy Headrick. I represent Portia and Burlington.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: There's no drone's not there. Brian Minier, Southern South Burlington.

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

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: a fan of that. It's getting there. Well, it's something weird because it's the new pain. And when you get older, if there's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a pain that's connected

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: to something that you've had before, you're like, oh,

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: no big deal. But when it's the strange new one,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So those concrete mushroom chairs, last year was my sciatica that seems like it appears to be my snack. You. So

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: my name is Laura Carter. I'm an analyst in the Division of Racial Justice Statistics, which is in the Office of Racial Equity. And I did want to do a little level setting because we're not often in this committee, but why we felt it was important for us to be heard on the record of this. And I just want to say extra thank you to Rep. Sweeney for letting me interrupt your street conversation.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Quite all right. I'm glad you came up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes, right. All the time.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Thank you. So just for a little context on the division. So the division was established in the Office of Racial Equity in Act January 2022, and our mission is outlined in three VSA 5,011, which is essentially to collect and analyze data relating to racial disparities with the intent to center racial equity throughout these efforts. And the purpose of the division is to create, promote, and advance a system and structure that provides access to appropriate data and information, ensuring that privacy interests are protected and principles of transparency and accountability are clearly expressed, and this data is used to inform policy decisions. So that's part of again why we're here. And we have asked recently the judiciary committee to consider expanding our capacity to include additional analysts for policy, because at this time it is myself and my colleague, Jeffrey. Pinch it in the criminal legal space, so I follow your committee and other related committees. Yeah, so that's why we're here. So I'm really grateful that we're going after Susan Aronoff because a lot of her points previously that she'd made and currently I'm sure that you've heard this morning already, we also plan to echo our testimony. We gave testimony in house judiciary last week. Not much of what we're going to say has really changed, even though there is a new bill draft. I understand that that has primarily just added crime victim language, which we support. And as Susan mentioned, there'll be a third version by the end of this week or early next week. Yeah, and I can share that. We probably won't really get into this. I'll just have this up, but we'll talk about this closer to my presentation. Okay. So just a couple of big bucket things, essentially. Do we want a system that focuses on public safety or human care? Prisons and jails are not therapeutic environments. We have to decide if we actually want this to be extension of the Department of Corrections. And I know these are some concerns that you even raised yourself, Chair Emmons, when you had discussion the other day when you walked through the new version of the bill. And we really want to emphasize that that's something that obviously with corrections being in your jurisdiction that you should really consider. To echo some of what Susan was saying when we walked in, General Counsel Barber from the Department of Mental Health, her comments earlier to you guys is basically saying that the setting will be therapeutic in its nature because the programming is therapeutic. But the bill doesn't change the fact that this is going to be in an impartial setting. And despite those individuals already being in that setting, doesn't really negate the fact that, again, it is not therapeutic by nature. Prisons and jails are also known to deteriorate mental health and exacerbate existing conditions. So, we either want to provide care to these individuals or we want to just essentially incarcerate folks in perpetuity. And we are responsible as a state to protect the people, not the birthing systems that exist within the state. So we really want to echo what you just heard from Ms. Aronoff, from the ACLU, from the Defender General, that this really needs to be disconnected from the Department of Corrections to be able to actually provide a therapeutic setting to provide this level of care and restoration that this bill attempts to do. And I want to just hearken back to something that Susan Aronoff actually said in really early testimony that she gave in house judiciary, which is, Of all the proposed solutions to the particular problem of what we do with people who are not competent to stand trial, this is the worst proposal that I have seen yet. And again, we feel that if this is connected to DOC, this is not the right proposed solution to actually address the gap that we are seeing. And we can acknowledge as an office that there is a gap of care that needs to be filled, but we do not feel like this is the appropriate way to fill that gap. Additionally, this creates a system in which some individuals may never be released. I understand in the newest bill version, there have been timeframes and things added to that. However, we do feel to borrow a term from Defender General Valerio that this could still result in warehousing certain individuals. Again, indefinite confinement is definitely possible, even with the parameters that have been set in place to review individuals' competencies. Some initial testimony from the Department of Aging Disabilities and Independent Living indicated that usually in these kinds of forensic facilities, only about fifty percent of these individuals will have their competency restored anyway. So that kind of begs the question of, again, what happens to the individuals whose competencies cannot be restored? And again, Susan brought that up in her testimony regarding individuals with Alzheimer's, dementia, things like that, or traumatic brain injuries, etcetera. Our next kind of big bucket is just addressing some these are really early comments. If you guys can even remember back to your joint hearing with house corrections and judiciary, your house corrections, sorry, about DOC's vested interest in doing this. We have some concerns, and I think those were also raised by you, Chair Emmons. So we wanted to kind of expand on that. DOC has one of the largest budgets in state government. You know that. They're your jurisdiction with about $240,000,000 in the well path budget between 40 to $44,000,000, it costs around 120 to $150,000 per year per person to incarcerate somebody in the state of Vermont. And the taxpayers pay for that. We are paying for that. This expansion would drastically increase their budget and would require obviously potential construction or even a new facility. As a related side note, and again, all of you are very familiar with this because you've been working on it for several years. The women's facility was allocated over $15,000,000 and has been on hold due to a lack of building site for over three years. So are we really expecting this to be any different regardless of what the plan ends up being if we're expanding in Southern State or for building a standalone facility. And could the committee consider all of the committees that are considering this bill upstream support? Could this money that we plan to allocate to the Department of Corrections be repurposed in a way that could be used in the community to bolster community supports that prevent people from getting into these systems in the first place? Additionally, we have concerns about WellPath, which again was brought up in the joint hearing. I know that across all of the committees hearing this bill have been raised concerned. Obviously, you know that they're a private contractor with a vested interest in maintaining their contract with the Department of Corrections. And we were doing a little bit of additional research. The company filed for bankruptcy in November 2024, and in January 2025, were given permission by a federal judge to actually sell their behavioral health division for about $395,000,000 to eradicate some of that debt, which now exists in its own new private company called Recovery Solutions, which is also a private entity. So we have some concerns there. Obviously, if these are the folks providing just general care, if they've sold off essentially what would be providing the care, how can we trust them? Also, just want to acknowledge that the prisoners rights office within the Defender General's office and Disabilities Rights of Vermont have a responsibility in statute to investigate medical concerns. And we've been hearing as an office from impacted community members. As recently as April 14, we had a racial disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Advisory Panel meeting where a community member shared that they have a family member who is housed at Northern State Correctional Facility who is in stage five kidney failure where they are not getting the medical care that they need. We also know that there were two deaths last month at the March. VPR reported on this, an individual named Jose Luis Gonzalez, who was only 51 years old, and another individual named Jonathan Stone, who was only 37. And these were all related to medical complications. Also wanted to highlight that folks who are formerly incarcerated experience mortality three and a half times higher than the general population due to poor health and health care related issues. So regardless of the population that we're talking about in this bill, incarcerated health care is already not what we're getting in the community. Capacity issues, you guys have heard a lot about. So despite the commissioner saying that they do have the capacity to do this work, we do know that DOC is overcapacity at all of their facilities. Their daily population reports indicate that daily population is increasing with over 1,600 people in the department's custody. I did not check this morning, but when I checked last night, I know there's 185 women at Chittenden. I also know that you guys are hearing testimony tomorrow from the superintendent at Chittenden, but I imagine there are probably still sled beds and people sleeping on the floor in the gym. People are dying essentially, which I know sounds really flippant, but we're really serious about this. And if resources are already stretched thin, are we furthering the limitations of their actual capacity to do this work, opening ourselves up to creating further disparities and exacerbating existing disparities, causing more harm to these individuals that the competency program is supposed to be restoring, essentially. If the DOC already has too many people with acute needs, then this is just contributing to expanding the gap and not closing, opening essentially the door for requiring more money and less accountability, essentially. And additionally, I know this has come up in some of your committee discussion without addressing how the facility will actually separate these individuals and guaranteeing minimal staffing level, which we know is already at a crisis. So you've got mandatory sixteen hour shifts independent of the prison within this facility will be housed. How will this added function exacerbate their already existing capacity shortage? And then to kind of bring in the racial equity component, we know that people of color, specifically black men are sentenced more often for violent crimes than their white counterparts and wanted to highlight that we already operate within a racially inequitable system. And as of 2025, about 19.6% of Vermont's total in and out of state incarcerated population identify as people of color. More than less than 10% of our state population are people of color. Do you see racial dashboard race and gender dashboard has not been up since late December, early January, which also raises the flag of general accountability and transparency when we're talking about oversight and any kind of racial disparities that may exist. Yes. And so the last piece of that, before I jump into our final big bucket, is this external accountability outside of AHS, which is what I believe Susan Aronoff was saying right when we walked into the room. But essentially, this bill really focuses on AHS doing all of the things, very AHS focused, but we need an external entity to ensure that things are actually being done appropriately and that there's some additional accountability and ensuring that we're actually implementing equity in a therapeutic setting versus just warehousing people. And then our last big bucket, and again, I know that you just heard this, but AHS operating in silos despite presenting as one agency. While Dale has testified on this, we feel that they should have been kind of leading this conversation since we're primarily talking about their population. Obviously, there's like some intersectionality between Dale and DMH. And they actually led a working group on this same topic in 2023. So act 27 of 2023, they led a working group on this. The Department of Practice was not part of that working group. They were not part of those conversations.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why I do have to season the bill.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: And we feel that DMH has led much of the conversation, even though they are emphatic, that it is not their responsibility. And again, I know that y'all have been talking about this a lot. Recent committee discussion of yours also identified a similar working group in 2022. And obviously, Aronoff just mentioned Act one thirty seven of 2024. Additionally, if we can consider expanding capacity for the Department of Corrections, why could we not also consider expanding capacity for DMH and Dale? Because they have their mandates that actually include protecting these individuals from themselves and others, which is language that is used in the bill. And while that's not a direct public safety charge, putting all the onus on the Department of Corrections eliminates the responsibility that these departments have for their own populations that they are custodially responsible for in statute. Again, DMH and Dale also operate locked secured facilities themselves, either through themselves or through designated agencies. And this bill could be a vessel instead to expand the capacity of the departments who are already statutorily responsible for these individuals. This is something that Defender General Valerio testified on in House Judiciary, and that no matter what, it's gonna cost money to do this. The visual that I've had up this whole time, so this kind of first segue into that, we have a deep history in Vermont of institutionalization, and we know that it can look different than punitive incarceration. And so that's what this chart kind of indicates. It's literally all of the historical and some of them are present institutions in the state of Vermont that were not in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The light green would be the equivalent of the Department of Mental Health responsibility. The yellow would be DCF and the blue would be Dale. The red one is kind of like an outlier. That's the VDH Department of Health. And then the terminologies above them are all terms in statute that either currently exist or did exist to use to call the individuals housed at these facilities. So not that this is an appropriate term, but you can see the criminally insane and insane persons were housed at the Vermont State Hospital. And again, this is in more appropriate terms what we're talking about now. So DMH was responsible for that. I'm not saying that any of these were good models. I'm just saying that they existed outside of the Department of Corrections and served a similar purpose. We had the opportunity to talk to someone in the community who provides this work, mental health work, and they brought up the deinstitutionalization of the Brandon Training School, which closed in 1993, and essentially raised that a promise to community members were made about doing our due diligence as a state to bolster community supports so that we don't have to rely on institutionalization or incarceration to protect these individuals again from themselves or from other people. And as stated in a report issued in 1999, I understand that's a little old, but sponsored by the National Institution on Disability Rehabilitation Research, the philosophy and mission were based on a simple ethic that in Vermont, everyone should be in the community. And so again, I wanted to really echo that if we are thinking about expanding capacity, considering bolstering upstream factors.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you. All of us have lived through much of this in this community realm. Questions?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Two, only because the first one is, I think, pretty simple, which is you said post bankruptcy, WellPath, spun off, there's like outputs here, BluePush. What was the new output called?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: It's called Recovery Solutions. Recovery you for that. It passed, so I believe. Yeah, it was 2025. So they lost the federal suit was in 2025 to sell it off. But I think, yeah, in June or July in the summer.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Recovery Solutions is still in support of that or are they separate? Technically,

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: they're separate and they fit within the parameters of whatever is allowed once you file bankruptcy. But I do think that there probably is some kind of connection there.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And do we contract with them? Do you assume?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I don't know if we contract with Recovery Solutions. I do know that we contract with all of them. Yeah. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I think too. We talk about how much this will cost within corrections. There is no dollars that go along with this piece of legislation. Fact the testimony we have received from the Department of Corrections, they can absorb all this because they're doing it now. So I just want put that on the table.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, that gets to the second part. You spoke about instead of expanding what I think we have an idea of what DOC would do, because I think we've heard that in testimony. Send some more of the folks who are currently in DOC to Mississippi. You've got perhaps a wing or some portion of the facility open now. Folks go in by providing therapy, becomes therapeutic, and you don't have do anything. You talked about expanding capacity at the end of the day instead of doing this with NDOC. What do you mean by expanding

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: there?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: What would that look like?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: So two things. Will say, I don't know if sending folks to Mississippi would be a good solution considering understanding the contract with the out of state facility is for 150 beds. And based on population count, we're at 146.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So I don't know. That's good one.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: No, totally. I just want to say, too, that I think that that if if the department is considering that, I hope that they reconsider because four people is not really going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. I say about expanding capacity for Dale and DMH because, again, we've heard General Counsel Karen Barber say repeatedly that it is not a DMH problem and that DMH does not have the capacity. Why can we not give them the capacity to do this? What does that look like? They do run locked facilities. Does that mean that they need maybe additional security, that that building needs to be retrofitted in a way that maybe Southern State would also be? Similarly to what Susan Aronoff was saying about the folks who fall under the Act two forty eight criteria, that's a locked residential facility. Could then we expand it to be even more secure or something like that? So again, rather than saying like, yeah, sure, DOC, we'll give you all this money to blow out a wing in Springfield. Could we not, with the existing mental health or disability facilities, expand their capacities there?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Physically and staff.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Physically and staff. Okay. Thanks.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thanks so much, Laura. And kind of following up on some of the points you guys made. I have a real concern, everybody on this committee knows, privatizing what I see as essential state functions, like having people in the state's custody down in Mississippi for a big private entity. You work in data a lot, and they mentioned you file public records requests, that type of thing. I'm wondering if you have concerns, because I do, about there's HIPAA, of course, and there's exemptions for the person in this forensic setting. But if you want to learn more about WellPath, their policies, their finances? My understanding is you can't file a public records request directly to WellPath or directly to CoreCivic. I'm wondering if you've run into this at all, just in trying to collect data on any of these.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Candidly, I used to actually work for the Department of Corrections, and the only way to get information about WellPath is to ask the medical director in DOC, the one that manages the contract. I have never had to make a direct Request for information from well path, because all of that is facilitated through the. Health services division within the department, and in my current role, we are actually working on an MOU with DOC. To obtain some data, but none of the health care pieces have actually come up. Our division has been around for a very small second in state government, and so we're still working on building up our full capacity. So we haven't had as much ability to get that information, I guess, I would say. Thanks. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So one of the things that's become very clear in the testimony we've been taking here, and I think it's becoming clear in some of our policy committees as well, is that in this world of forensic, that there's a real gap in the state in terms of restoration of competency. And that keeps coming up and saying, well, we gotta deal with this. So the plan is S1P3 to deal with. In a perfect world, whereas as we look at this, it's a real opportunity in a way to start with a blank chart. How would we design a facility that would restore someone's competency? Policy, that was the state policy. If we were to fill in that gap, what does it need to be built on? Do you have any thoughts

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: to that? I definitely have thoughts. I think can't that be in corrections. I think to echo a lot of the testimony that you've been hearing again from the Defender General, from the ACLU, again from Susan Aronoff, that if we are talking about a truly therapeutic rehabilitative environment, it has to be apart from the Department of Corrections.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But how would the structure be? I mean, we don't have So anything in what would the structure be? Who should be at the table? How should it be structured? Well, I

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: think to echo something that Susan Aronoff said was I don't think that we should make this another study group. Think I can't remember which one of you representatives said this, but about how Karen Barber has been talking about this for fifteen years. So she probably doesn't want to being another working group. But I do feel like it's really the Department for Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living and the Department for Mental Health. I think their powers combined, we can find kind of the perfect solution. And I understand the concern on one hand is the public safety aspect, and that's where corrections is coming in. But I do think the excuse that these folks are already in DOC custody is not an excuse to use DOC as the vessel to provide care individuals. And I wish had more of a background to give you better information, but that is what I would say. And then quickly, sorry, Casey, I just want to go back to you about access to records generally. That's something that our office actually wrote a report on, more about individuals who are no longer in custody having access to their information, which we did just recently publish an addendum brief to. That would be something that we'd want to consider too, because obviously these individuals deserve autonomy and to have access to their own information.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Could you set us up?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Yes, I can. I

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: actually had a bill dropped for that.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I was working with you all.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I forgot your amendments, Alice and Edwards. But a lot of this is on me because I didn't get it done by the time our deadlines were introduced to new bills. Still have all of that, and I hope to be here

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: again next

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Yeah, I would love to work with you on that. I was the principal drafter for that. And my background in records and information management and access to information and accountability and transparency are very big deals for me personally, but also obviously in the work that I do within the division and the office. So sorry. That's okay. Thank you.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'm of saying I don't know for that and I did, but it didn't. I just.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: No worries. There's always time. But yeah. So I just wanted to add that as well. Thank you so much. Mhmm.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Good questions. Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Campus?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Why doesn't AHS wanna take responsibility for closing this gap?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I don't know if I can answer that question.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think that

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Fair answer.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Someone who is not part of the Agency of Human Services, I don't know if I can answer that. What I think is that DOC is the easy solution. I think that's why that the other departments are why they're presenting again as this message of one agency and all agreeing that this is the avenue, because I think that we believe as a state or a may believe that this is going to be the most cost effective way as those individuals are already being housed there. But I think that would be a great question for either, again, General Counsel Barber, for the Commissioner John Murad, for Secretary Samuelson, or the Commissioner Dale, as I said, who has been really absent from a lot of these discussions and conversations, which is, in our opinion, kind of disappointing, considering, again, their leadership in so many of these other previous legislations about forensic facilities. And your testimony is the first testimony that I remember putting a number on 50% competency restoration,

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: maybe others have had those numbers, but this is the first time I'm hearing that. So, how we handle those individuals that can't be restored is certainly an issue that also needs to be addressed. Definitely.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: And that comes from Doctor. Jill Bowman, I believe is her name. She's the commissioner of Dale. So she's where I got that from, from her previous testimony in custody. She has actually quite an extensive background in forensics. Great.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So one thing that's swirling around is trying to look, the bill is very narrow. That's the intent, but we know over time that can be increased. But as it stands now, bills very very narrow in terms of who would go through this door, a forensic facility. Knowing how narrow it is, part of the thinking is if there was an ability to do a complete separate entity on a DOC campus that DOC would operate the security, but the programming and the actual work inside the building with those folks who are either incompetent to stand trial or not guilty, guardians, and considered, who would be able to be in a therapeutic setting that's not a correctional wing or a correctional facility. But the building is on a campus, correctional campus, so you have that security. Would that be applicable and how do we ensure that when we say it's the agency of human services will provide those services, it's not by default being DOC, because DOC is part of the agency. Yes. Do have any thoughts on that?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: That is actually one of my or our concerns as well, is that if it is something even adjacent to or on the campus of a correctional facility, that eventually all of these things will fall to the Department of Corrections to kind of fill those gaps that aren't being filled, especially if there's no external accountability agency to provide oversight, again, to Susan Aronoff's point, because I think historically the Department of Corrections ends up absorbing a lot of what the rest of the agency feels like it may be unable to do.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So then the next question is if it's an entity if it's the agency of human services that's doing this, and they wanna house do this in a community in Vermont. How do we work with those communities to ensure that they come on board with not fighting a proposal like this?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I think that's a great question. I think that there's a lot of there's obviously a need for this. And I do want to emphasize that, that we can acknowledge that there is a need for this. And there's a lot of not in my backyard, folks. So there's going to be pushback, I think, regardless. Something that I would encourage would be working with other state partners who have more direct ties to the community and how that would work. For example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I mean, their whole charge is essentially repairing historical harms. I know that they put out a press release when the Green Mountain Youth Campus was being considered being built in Bergen's, which is where the Week School was. So there's those historical components. So I think it's about engaging state partners maybe that aren't typically thought of. I mean, that could essentially engage in the community in a way that we're making sure folks are fully understanding, I think. And that would be to also incorporating equity. We do a lot of community work, and it's really important to our impacted communities that we're hearing them as well, because a lot of those impacted communities end up in these systems.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Another thing that's been in and out of this conversation is potentially using facilities in other states, Upstate New York, New Hampshire as a facility coming online. Do you have any thoughts or reaction?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I have. So if the intent of JRI and JRI two were to bring folks back, I don't know if sending folks out would be something that we would want to do. However, I do feel that if those states and I'm not as aware of how those operate, if those states are doing a good job. And that is, I would say that is a better solution than incarcerating them in our system here. But again, wanting to remind everyone that we had these other initiatives over the last several years of bringing folks home, which is why I believe also the Mississippi contract only has 150 beds now, etcetera.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's up to 300, but we've only budgeted for a 100.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. My apologies.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah. Laura, that was that was something that we looked into last week is it because there's a there's a facility over in Marcy, and it's run by the Department of Mental Health in New York. And what I've gathered, it is a world class recovery facility. And I'm just looking for something. It's it it to me, and I I to all of us, it's not something we're we wanna do forever. Right. But it seems to me for now until we get a facility, it seemed to but I, you know, I also don't wanna start that, and then it that's what happens forever. That's not our intent. So that's why, you know, we were we just seemed like it's only four hours away. It's you know, so it's it it seemed like it could it could help us do something for these people where they're not getting anything right now. Definitely. And it's not DOC. It's not run by DOC.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: And I think that's definitely the important distinction. Right? It's not connected to the Department of Corrections or, like, a punitive agency. Institutionalization, obviously, is adjacent to incarceration. However, I think that therapeutic care can actually be provided by a mental health agency or an agency like R. Dale versus what we are seeing in our carceral system in Vermont. So I guess if that is what the committee is thinking today out of those options that perhaps yes, but not forever. Right. Yes. But then again, really thinking about if we're building a new facility, what that looks like again with pushback from different towns and really being sure again, our office really feels like this should not be connected to the Department of Corrections at all.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One thing that has come up is how do you balance folks who are charged with real violent criminal charge. Either the charge, the alleged crime could be punishable by life imprisonment and a person could be held without bail. So how do we balance that when we're trying to figure out the person's competency to stand trial can even be restored? How do we balance that? Because I know there's that concern as well that while they should be incarcerated because hey, they did a criminal act. Well, it's been alleged. Hasn't been evicted. It's an alleged innocent until guilty, which I think people lose that within our constitution. That's the foundation of our country.

[Susan Aranoff (Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council)]: How

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: do we balance that?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I would agree. I think I just want to go back to something that we mentioned is bolstering really those upstream supports. I think a lot of these folks would not end up in these situations or committing the violent acts that they are committing if they had the appropriate resources in the beginning. Anecdotally, I can say one of these individuals that I know would be considered under this bill reached out to their local mental health agency multiple times before they committed their violent act that ended them up in DOC custody. I believe they were at the state hospital for a while, but now I do believe they have been transferred. So I think really we need to consider about where we're expanding those resources. Right. And that there are upstream factors that lead people into these systems. Obviously, we all come from different backgrounds and have different experiences. Not to excuse the behavior. Obviously, these are really horrible. We heard lived experience testimony from a crime victim, and they themselves even said that they did not feel like this should be in corrections, that their father didn't receive adequate care and that they belonged really somewhere where they needed to be monitored, but that the mental health piece was really important. So again, I think I don't know if that really answers your question, Chair Emmons, but again, really thinking about the upstream factors and how we're using those to support these members of our communities.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's for some questions. James and then Kevin.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So you just mentioned something, Alice mentioned it, and then you mentioned earlier too. So we have to be cognizant of this amazing thing called the constitution. It kind of limits us in many ways. Most ways for good benefit and other ways kind of screws us, honestly. Because there's people who will want help, right? And we don't necessarily have the systems to help them. But there's other people who we know need help. And unless they're in a certain setting, I. E. Arrested, charged, convicted, put in prison, we can't make them do things. But even then, we can't make somebody get healthcare. So you look at somebody who may be in the correctional facility, they need healthcare, want, can't make, right? When you think about the people in society that need care and we can't get them care because they don't want it, and it's just, I'm not advocating that

[Conor Casey (Member)]: we force people, by the

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: way, I'm just saying that's just a reality that you guys all know. It just kind of makes it hard because you wanna help people. And I'm always just keeping reminding myself that as much as I wanna help somebody, sometimes they don't want to be helped and that's not everybody. I wish, part of me wishes like I can make them and the other part of me is glad that I can't, but it's that thing that we all wrestle with in life, you know what mean?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Totally. I think that it's important to consider root causes and barriers to access, too. So someone who might not want something may have skepticism with the medical system because of So poverty or other I totally agree. It's definitely a balance and it is really complicated. I do not envy your jobs right now. Along

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: that line, my concern is, personally, I don't think we'll ever get there. So that's not a viable option to follow the problem. We think that Conor is using the CPAP because he doesn't want to use the CPAP, even though my I'm dad is lightening it up, but I mean, I'm looking for at least a bridge to a solution. The world's never gonna be perfect. Right. So I'm sorry to push back on that, but I don't see that as being an option.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I think that it's a yes and. I think that we do really need to bolster community support so that people aren't getting stuck in these systems, because I do think that there's a lot of things that could be prevented, just generally. Agreed. But I do think that, yes, there is something that needs to exist to address long term issues, which is what we're talking about. I think it has to be both because we want to also prevent individuals from getting to their psychotic breaking points to committing these heinous crimes, right? So

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I don't see us doing that, though, because we

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: But you have the power to

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: do that. No, we don't. Do. No, Even within the correctional facility, we can't force people to take help. So, in the community, it's even less. So, that to me is not a solution. That's not a viable option for a number of reasons. I want to solve the problem, but I've got to push back on the concept that if we give everybody everything, nobody will do anything wrong. Don't think that's I didn't say that. I'm sorry to make that point, by going to an extreme, which is the only way we're gonna get to understanding the full picture. That's where James, I think, is coming from, that we-

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: are reminiscent. It's pretty nice that there isn't purity and there never will be, that's not sure. That's

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: all. Yeah,

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: and I think too, again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have heard testimony from, again, General Counsel Barber and the commissioner from Dale about orders of non hospitalization and all of these other things. So there are methods through the judicial system in which to force essentially these folks to do things like involuntary medication and stuff like that. So I can't speak more to that because I'm not as familiar with those things, but I do know that those exist. But I do think, again, it is a yes and that we need to really support the communities that are doing this work so that we can have that preventative measure so that folks are not getting to the point where they're breaking and committing murder, essentially.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yes, if we can bolster that, I totally agree. But I don't think that that's a solution that will solve these four or five cases. So, we still need to solve the four or five cases, is what I'm saying. I agree with Totally. Philosophically, but the problem still exists because everybody isn't going to take the help that might be available, much less make it available to everybody. So that's why the gap continues to be there, is because we can't make it perfect. So what do

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: we do in between is my question. We're incarcerating, and their health is deteriorating.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: No, I wanna do better than that. What can we do now better than incarcerating them? That's the question that we're trying

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to Keep get a hands incarcerating them through S-one hundred ninety three.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Currently that's the plan. And again, the piece that's missing is that competency restoration program, that therapeutic piece. The housing piece is a whole separate thing. Again, I think that this is the easiest way that we are trying to figure out and address this. But I think that, again, even if you feel like you don't have the power, you do have the power in this legislation to say that this is not Okay for this population, essentially, and that you want to bolster. And again, to your point, Chair Emmons, I know there's no appropriations in this bill. So who even knows what can happen? But to support the community, the upstream factors, the folks that are doing this work on the ground in their communities and addressing these individuals' needs at that level versus warehousing individuals and giving them the same basic level of care and then deteriorating further. I mean, even individuals who are incarcerated who have a clean bill of mental health leave with less than they came in with. So I do think it's a yes and.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Conor. Sorry. No, I just want to

[Conor Casey (Member)]: it's Something happens. I think this question is related to that, but it's just good to have you on that seat there, because, you know, system questions. It's obvious that people of color are incarcerated at a higher rate. You can see it in the correctional facilities. Without getting into a discussion about bias or systemic racism, do you have data that would suggest people of color are involuntarily hospitalized at a higher rate? Or would that be similar?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I don't have data on that. I'm wondering if that would be probably something that we could get from the judiciary because those are where the orders come from, I believe, or the Department of Mental Health. Our division is really scoped just for the criminal legal system, so haven't really talked about other forms of institutionalization in this sphere. However, that is something that I think would be great to look into.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I'd be interested to see those rates.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: But I can tell you that there has been monthly segregation data reports and that we are segregating Black and brown individuals at a higher rate for longer than

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: segregation within DLC. Correct. Yeah. Yeah, we do get most.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Yeah. So you can see in that data that we are segregating people of color more frequently than we are segregating, not people.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, so I've got a whole different issue that's connected to this. Okay. So if someone is either non hospitalization or a hospitalization order. They're not gonna be held in a correctional facility. They have been, either it's a civil or it's a criminal, it doesn't matter. There's been an order by the court. So say it's a hospitalization order for a person to be evaluated at time. When the hospital releases the person back to the community, is there notification to the community or the victim right now that the person has been released?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: So from my understanding of how the Vine system works, this is not DOC. Okay. I'm not talking DOC. You're talking about third DMH or those kinds of systems.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right now, they would not be going into a correctional facility, but they're being ordered by the court for an evaluation. And it could be a criminal charge. It doesn't mean they're going to be helped at DOC. They could be just like a regular Okay. Just like someone who is competent goes in with a criminal charge. They're gonna be released back in the conditions. But there's an extra layer here that the court wants an evaluation to see if the person is competent to see a truck. So they would go to a hospital setting for that evaluation, and then they'd be released after sixty days or ninety days. Is there a notification of the community and the alleged victim in that situation?

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: So I think this is a great I think this is great and something for our division to consider because part of our charge actually is doing a gap analysis of the criminal legal system and identifying all of the data systems, all of the memorandums of understandings and data sharing agreements. And obviously, there's going to be some external because we're talking about a lot of intersectionalities here. I have not talked to DMH because that hasn't been part of my survey of understanding this gap analysis, but I think that's a really important question. Yes, because obviously I know that the Department of Corrections does have the vine system. I know that there's been a vine working group. No, but I'm not sure, I guess, that in that world if they do have a similar system. But that would be a great thing to find out. So my understanding,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: because it's within mental health and health care, community and the victims are not helpful. That's my understanding from testimony over the years. Okay. So by putting a person to the DOC, then you have notification. And how much of that is the driving force with my corrections? I keep coming back to that. I keep coming back because I've heard the testimony over the years. Why is this from the case from the state hospital and we're not told? And it's protected. Protective health information. But by shifting that person into DOC and the language here is to notify the victims, which is fine. States attorney shall provide victim or prior notification of any hearings. And that's true for the competency piece, that's true for the AGRI. And I'm wondering that's valid here because the person's in DOC, would that also be valid if the person was in the hospital setting for evaluation and then released into the community? I think that's where there's an issue in why DOC is being used.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: This is towards your question, Chair. I don't know the answer to this one. But in your example of someone being hospitalized for the restoration of competence, is that necessarily medical information? Know the hospital setting makes it interesting, I but just the competency itself is a legal issue. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: know testimony we've received that talks about this. Notification of the person who's released from the hospital is not public.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: But is it I mean, you see where I'm going, but that's not necessarily medical information, is it?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't know. I mean, it's not our lane,

[Brian Minier (Member)]: but we

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: just know in testimony, joint justice committees has heard this over the years because that's where some of the rub is, where the victim the community is. How come we don't know? They went in for an evaluation and we're not told that when they're released from state hospital, how can we not be told? And the answer, well, that information is protected information. It's not the whole information because it's in a different arena.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: It's a

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: health arena.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: I'm going to just offer, I'm just thinking out loud here to your point, because I think this is really great. And I definitely want to go back and do my due diligence to kind of identify what this might look like, especially as we're considering and again, in the division's capacity, like what these gaps are across our systems. I know that Jen Coleman, the executive director of the Center for Crime Victim Services, was one of the leaders of the working group on Vine. And I understand that Vine is connected to DOC. However, how could we we could consider potentially expanding that creating an MOU with DMH Or I don't think we

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: can't because it's the DOC contracts out for

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: We can't.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Well, I don't know. They would

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: the contract, and just like we're talking about with the other

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: We have to be able to provide different access. I mean, for example, like with the judiciary. Right. So like what we've found again as a tangential side note, related, the judiciary is kind of the hub for all of our criminal legal data in the state. But there are different access points from other places. So DOC owns Vine, for example. Right. And we know that an individual is who has been hospitalized, but has criminogenic behavior and they have crime victims associated with their behavior. I feel like there has to be some potential to expand DMH or Dale's access to that system in order to send out that information. If that information can be sent out, if

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you off base on that. But I'm just recalling a lot

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: of this morning. My understanding too. I mean, it wouldn't even have to be potentially that detailed. It could just be like so and so was released into the community. I don't know what those vine notifications look like on the receiving end. It's not a system that I'm as familiar with, even though, like I said, I did do records management for the department for a hot second. But I think that as we're considering expanding the capacity to Vine anyway, that could be a potential solution to those notifications. And again, just because DOC is the owner of that system doesn't mean that there can't be other points of access.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: This would get at a concern that we've been starting to wonder about as well. So put this in your thought machine. There's problems with getting data into Vine as well. And right now, DOC inputs that data, but it's only based on the data that they get upon booking, upon input. So if more people had access to importing into Vine, we would automatically have a more robust system of who needs notification, who the bookings are, if we weren't reliant on whatever DOC gets from the arresting agencies. So it's on both ends of that. Who takes it out? Who puts

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: it in?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And if everybody had access to Vine. Yeah.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: And I do think, too, again, I don't know if this has come up in the working group conversations. Obviously, are some challenges even just with obtaining information because some of this crime victim information is coming from the CJCs and they all have different processes. So another part of the division's charge essentially is like creating consistency across the state in all of these places so that we are having the best data quality, so we are having the most robust information that we have so that we can make these decisions and make sure that people are being informed and government is being as transparent as possible.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This has been very, very helpful. I'm glad that you and Shawn ran into each other.

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: Yes, thank you again for letting me

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: bother you.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thanks a

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Thank you so much. Could we ask the question of to say, is HIPAA prohibiting us DMH. It's DMH. So you know that that's the case.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I've heard it in testimony.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I don't know. Good. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the first time I heard about putting it in corrections is it's notification of the community.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: And is is HIPAA federal? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Protects your information.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So it's out of our it's out of

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: our information. Yeah. And you can

[Laura Carter (Office of Racial Equity, Division of Racial Justice Statistics)]: only have access technically once somebody has been deceased for fifty years, I think is like the time frame for that level of information. But I do think that again, that there could be components that could be expanded in Vine. And that's something to think about. And maybe Jen Coleman could speak to that or Meredith Pelkey, who is the director of Crime Victim Services.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know what you're saying. But I think we do need to ask DMH for more clarity. I could be totally off base in what I understood. But it's been your human services. Are you aware of that?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's what we've heard. But mean if I heard wrong,

[Brian Minier (Member)]: you and I do so.