PLAN TO REDUCE CORRECTIONAL COSTS
AND ACHIEVE SAVINGS FOR REINVESTMENT

Vermont Department of Corrections
December 12, 2007
In compliance with
Act 65, Sec. 153a
of the 2007 69th Biennial Session
of the General Assembly
of the State of Vermont

TO:

Members, Joint Corrections Oversight Committee
Members, Joint Fiscal Committee

The Vermont Legislature has asked the Department of Corrections (DOC) to
identify ways to curtail the growth in Corrections spending and Vermont’s
incarcerated population. The charge was:
ƒ
ƒ

To reduce cost increases by $4 million, and
To reduce the number of non-violent offenders in prison by 10%, or 100
beds.

In response, the DOC has elicited input, suggestions, and commentary from a
large number of people and organizations: the 1,160 DOC employees, the
Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont State Employees Association,
the Chittenden County law enforcement agencies, and from others in Vermont
State Government.
This report presents a wide variety of difficult choices. If there were an easy way
to save a single million dollars it would have been acted upon by now. Saving
four million dollars will entail tradeoffs that will be unpopular with various
constituencies and will be challenging to implement. Before anyone criticizes
either the Legislature or the Department of Corrections for considering these
choices, I urge them to offer better suggestions for how to limit escalating
correctional costs that have escalated on average by 10% annually.
This study underscores the difficulty of finding savings that are simple,
immediate and certain, in a system whose population has been growing for
decades. The investments, which are described, may have to be made in
advance of realizing certain anticipated savings.
Many of the options described here are multi-year strategies, which will bear fruit
over time. Other options, which provide more immediate fiscal savings, may
have less desirable side effects.
We look forward to reviewing these options with you and analyzing the more
promising concepts in greater detail.
Sincerely,

Robert D. Hofmann
Commissioner of Corrections

i

Vermont Department of Corrections
PLAN TO REDUCE INCARCERATION AND
TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS FOR REINVESTMENT
December 12, 2007

Executive Summary
Given the unsustainable growth (74% increase between FY2000 and FY2007) in the
Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) budget, the Legislature directed Corrections
to develop a plan to reduce the cost of incarcerating offenders. The legislation directs
that the plan consider and recommend a variety of options to reduce incarceration costs
by $4 million.
The department recognizes that:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

these are serious issues
DOC is funded at the expense of important programs in other critical areas of
state and local government
the reduction of $4 million is a reduction in the growth of the corrections budget,
not an actual reduction to the $130 million Corrections budget.

This document is a comprehensive response to that charge. Numerous options have
been described and their feasibility examined. DOC solicited input from a variety of
stakeholders. Many suggestions were received. No one of these is a silver bullet and
some are frankly counter-productive to the overall mission of the Department of
Corrections and the system of Criminal Justice in Vermont. The largest costs in
Corrections are in personnel for directly supervising offenders, both in correctional
facilities and in the community. This document includes all options, to allow the reader
to assess the full array of possible actions, even the most unattractive choices.
Part I of the document analyzes the complex history of the growth of incarceration in
Vermont over the past two decades. Vermont has:
• Increased criminalization of behaviors and increased penalties
• Increased the capacity, efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement and the
criminal justice process
This has resulted in an increase in the:
• Volume of people under correctional supervision
• Duration of that supervision
• Accountability for violations of the law, and
• Use of the Corrections’ system as the response to a changing array of social and
human service issues
ii

Part II of the document presents the structural limits to change. The section examines
the levels of severity of offenses committed by persons under community supervision
and in prison, their risk to reoffend, and their legal status. This section also presents the
distribution of crime, risk and supervision levels of the offenders.
Part III of the document examines the Options and Tradeoffs in a set of strategies to
achieve savings.
Strategy One: Reduce Facility Costs
In the first Strategy, each facility is described in terms of its function in the criminal
justice system, and the population housed. The feasibility of expansion, renovation,
capacity reduction, and change of role are examined. This same framework is used to
assess the bedspace contracted with Corrections Corporation of America and the
population assigned to it. This leads to a discussion of three options for renovating,
closing and re-tasking correctional facilities to reduce costs.
Strategy Two: Reduce Services
The second Strategy examines the services provided by the Department in relation to
the potential for savings. These savings include the reduced field and facility
operations, curtailed community services, release of offenders in prison, shortened
duration of supervision, elimination of treatment programs, and reduced facility costs.
Strategy Three: Partner with Others
The third Strategy examines opportunities to create or expand partnerships with other
government agencies and the Vermont communities. The capacity of these entities
can help meet the service needs of offenders and reduce recidivism. Opportunities for
expansion of the successful infrastructure of community justice are also presented.
Strategy Four: Do Things Differently to Increase Efficiency
The fourth Strategy examines a wide variety of options and changes to current
practices, including extensive use of electronic supervision, establishing new kinds of
correctional facilities, creating alternative housing, reducing the duration of involvement
in supervision, limiting violations, creating alternatives, and reducing the demand for
incarceration at the front-end.
Strategy Five: Construct More Efficient Facilities
The fifth Strategy describes the alternatives to the population reduction strategies
described above, which are to establish more efficient bedspace, requiring either capital
expansion on existing or new sites or partnering with private providers.
iii

ADDITIONAL IDEAS AND IMPLICATIONS:
Sixth, the plan presents a number of “out of the box” options and proposals that have
been suggested from a variety of sources.
Finally, the plan presents the suggestions made by Corrections’ staff to the
commissioner in response to his solicitation of ideas.

******
FINDINGS:
1. Corrections’ spending has been growing in excess of 10% per year.
2. There are virtually no low re-offense risk, non-violent offenders in prison.
3. The detainee population has been reduced due to increased efficiency in the
courts.
4. Sentencing is the primary driver for growth. Sentences for violent felons and all
misdemeanants have increased and the volume has doubled.
5. The Vermont Crime Rate has not increased over the past two decades, yet the
inmate population has nearly tripled.
6. The current projection for the Vermont prison population is 2,600 inmates by the
year 2012. The Council on State Governments is producing a sophisticated
projection which is expected to show slower growth (but still far faster than the
increase in the Vermont population).
7. The number of violent felons, sex offenders, drug felons, and high risk property
felons exceeds the bed capacity of the Vermont system.
8. In addition to the violent, sex, drug, and high risk property felons, there are about
500 moderate risk, non-violent offenders in prison now.
9. Any alternatives for the non-violent population should have the capacity for
housing, accountability, and supervision, as well as treatment.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is clear that no single one of these strategies will suffice to reduce the growth of
incarceration and its attendant costs. Any resultant plan will likely require combining
several options.
The population in prison poses too much risk to randomly release to the existing array
of services. Therefore it is imperative that any release be selective or accompanied by
significant reinforcement in supervision and community intervention. The complexities
presented by the cases of the inmates in prison make the logistics of simply removing a
large number from a Vermont facility and closing it, extremely disruptive to the system.
This document presents options for austere, direct budget cuts to achieve the savings
target requested by the legislature. However, in the long run, the most effective way to
reduce the demand for increased prison capacity is to increase the effectiveness of
iv

efforts at responding to crime and misbehavior in the community. Given the
unlikelihood that DOC will continue to receive 10% annual budget increases, it is
imperative that stakeholders forge a workable consensus on how to best deploy the
available resources.
To accomplish this last task will require the leadership of all branches and all levels of
Vermont State and local government.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE LEGISLATIVE CHARGE ...........................................................................xiii
PART I – BACKDROP: THE PRISON POPULATION, GROWTH, AND CAUSES
A. Increased Criminalization of Behaviors and Increased Penalties........2
B. Increased Criminal Justice Processing ..................................................2
C. Demography, Social Policy and Justice .................................................3
D. Increased Use of Corrections to Respond to Social Ills and
Criminal Acts.............................................................................................5
E. Increased Emphasis on Accountability..................................................7
F. Comparing Vermont vs. National Trends ...............................................7
G. Bed Space Projections.............................................................................8
PART II: THE STRUCTURAL LIMITS TO CHANGE
A. Offense Severity .....................................................................................14
B. Risk to Re-Offend ...................................................................................15
C. Legal Status and Risk ............................................................................16
D. Supervision in Community: Combining Risk, Offense Severity,
And Legal Status ....................................................................................17
E. Incarceration ...........................................................................................21
PART III: OPTIONS AND TRADEOFFS
Strategy One -- CLOSE WHOLE FACILITIES .............................................25
A. ANALYSIS OF FACILITIES ...................................................................28
1. CRCF (Chittenden) ............................................................................28
2. MVRCF (Rutland)...............................................................................32
3. NERCF (St. Johnsbury).....................................................................34
4. NWSCF (St. Albans) ..........................................................................36
5. SSCF (Springfield) ............................................................................38
6. NSCF (Newport).................................................................................40
7. CCWC (Work Camp)..........................................................................42
8. SESCF (Windsor) ..............................................................................44
9. DCF (Dale)..........................................................................................46
10. Out of State Contract Beds (CCA) ...................................................47
B. OPTIONAL SCENARIOS FOR FACILITY RESTRUCTURING ..............50
1. Convert Northwest State into Women’s Facility then Close
Dale and Windsor ............................................................................50
2. Close Dale and Northwest State ......................................................51
3. Close Northwest and Limit Demand ................................................53
Strategy Two – REDUCE SERVICES
A. Reduce Field Supervision Expense.................................................55
B. Close Field Offices, Consolidate Staff ............................................57
C. Curtail Detention ...............................................................................57
vi

D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.

Stop Housing Incapacitated Persons ..............................................61
Reduce Management and Administrative Costs ............................62
Curtail or Eliminate Treatment Programs .......................................64
Reduce Custody, Release Offenders in Minimum Custody ..........65
Provide Incentives for Positive Behavior in the Community.........66
Reduce Facility Per Capita Costs ....................................................67

Strategy Three: PARTNER WITH OTHERS
A. Place Greater Reliance on AHS Capacities........................................71
1. Build Treatment Capacity for Non-Violent Offenders with
Substance Abuse and Mental Illness...............................................71
2. Shift Youth to Family Services (DCF)..............................................72
3. Examine Title IV-E Funding for Youth .............................................72
4. Create Intensive Community-Based Services for Inmates
with Children .....................................................................................72
5. Expand Treatment in Community Mental Health Centers .............73
6. Expand Substance Abuse Treatment in Community.....................74
7. Expand Drug and Mental Health Courts (Pre-sentence)................74
8. Increase Transitional Housing.........................................................75
9. Provide Housing Support and Assistance......................................76
10. Build Treatment Capacity to Reduce Recidivism...........................76
B. PARTNER WITH COMMUNITIES ..........................................................77
1. Community-Based Restorative Reentry..........................................77
2. Restructuring Community Justice...................................................79
Strategy Four: DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY
A. Use Electronic Monitoring .....................................................................81
B. Reduce Custody and Accelerate Release ............................................86
C. Create an Alternative Housing Continuum...........................................90
D. Reduce Duration of DOC Involvement with Offenders........................92
E. Limit Violation Returns for Non-violent Offenders ..............................94
F. Reduce Demand (Mostly out of DOC control)......................................95
Strategy Five: CONSTRUCT MORE EFFICIENT FACILITIES
A. Expand Capacity, Close Less Efficient Units.....................................100
B. Reduce Facility Centralized Costs ......................................................102
C. Establish a Prison Siting Authority.....................................................102
ADDITIONAL IDEAS AND APPLICATIONS....................................................103
APPENDICES
A. Legislation History Concerning Crime and Justice...........................119
B. 4/19/2007 Letter to House Institutions and Joint Corrections
Oversight Committees ........................................................................121
C. What Works and What Doesn’t Work – The Research on Evidence
Based Corrections ...............................................................................129
vii

D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

Vermont Criminal Justice System Data..............................................131
Department of Corrections Offense Type Definitions .......................132
Vermont League of Cities and Towns Memorandum ........................133
Conceptual Example of a Correctional Facility Closure ...................137
South Burlington Police Department .................................................139
Chittenden County Sheriff’s Office .....................................................140
Colchester Police Department.............................................................143

viii

THE LEGISLATIVE CHARGE
“Sec 153a Corrections; Correctional Facilities and Services:
(a) The general assembly finds that spending on corrections facilities and services is increasing at an
unsustainable rate. Therefore, the department of corrections shall develop a plan to decrease the cost of
incarcerating offenders.
(b) The plan shall consider and recommend a variety of options to reduce facility costs, including but not
limited to:
(1) Closing the Dale women’s facility and changing the use of the southeast state correctional facility
in Windsor from a women’s correctional facility to either a work camp or a minimum security prison for
men.
(2) Renovating the Chittenden regional correctional facility in South Burlington in order to make it into
a women's correctional facility.
(3) Using one or more correctional facilities as detention facilities.
(4) Seeking contracts with public and private correctional services at out-of-state facilities that are as
close to this state as possible.
(5) Using existing facilities more efficiently by closing some facilities and replacing lost capacity by
expanding others.
(6) Establishing a dedicated substance abuse treatment facility.
(c) The plan shall also consider and recommend a variety of options to reduce incarceration costs by
$4,000,000, one-half of which shall be reinvested in reentry services. Options considered shall include at
a minimum:
(1) Recommending changes to department policies and practices that will result in a reduction of at
least 10 percent in the number of inmates incarcerated for nonviolent offenses by June 30, 2008.
(2) Using less costly community-based alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.
(3) Amending the eligibility criteria in order to expand the use of electronic monitoring through a global
positioning system as means of reducing the nonviolent incarcerated population.
(4) Providing in communities a continuum of treatment approaches for substance abuse, ranging from
intensive outpatient services to secure treatment, for nonviolent offenders with mental health and
substance abuse problems.
(d) As the department develops the plan, it shall:
(1) Track the progress of the justice reinvestment initiative conducted by the Council of State
Governments and use the information gathered to inform its work; and
(2) Consult with the police chiefs, sheriff, and state’s attorney of Chittenden County regarding the
impacts of having no facility for incarcerating or detaining the male population in Chittenden County,
and include a proposal to address these impacts.
(e) The department of corrections shall report the plan to the joint fiscal committee and the joint
corrections oversight committee no later than November 1, 2007.”*

*Subsequently changed by Corrections Oversight Committee and its Chair to December 12, 2007

ix

PART I – BACKDROP: THE PRISON POPULATION,
GROWTH, AND CAUSES
Incarcerated Population Growth
Average Population Monthly

2400
2200
2000

HOUSED
POPULATION

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800

Capacity

600
400
200
2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

0

Month/Year (Year marked at July)

The number of inmates incarcerated in Vermont Department of Corrections’ prisons has
been growing for more than two decades. In the mid 1990s, the rate of increase
accelerated, and the population began to exceed the capacity of the system. The rate
of growth has continued, despite a prolonged reduction in property crime and relatively
stable rates of violent crime committed in the State, though violent crime has increased
in the past two years.
*The crime data is not indexed to population growth, which would tend to depress the crime rate per 100,000 residents.

Number of Part I Property Crimes Reported

Number of Serious Part I Violent Crimes Reported

In Vermont, 1987-2006
25.0

In Vermont, 1987-2006

Thousands of crimes



1000







20.0



800









15.0







600




400

Number of Crimes






























FBI Report
VCIC Report

10.0
200

5.0

22.8 22.4 23.7 21.8 18.8 22.2 18.3 19.4 17.0 16.7 17.9 16.1 17.5 16.3 14.9 13.8 14.6 14.7 14.4

Calendar Year

2006

2004

2005

2003

2001

2002

1999

2000

1997

1998

1995

1996

1993

1994

1991

1992

1990

1988

1989

1987

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

22.7

1988

1987

FBI Report

1995

0

0.0

FBI Report 748 791 753 716 662 624 658 562 692 714 705 628 676 691 644 658 707 713 782 852
VCIC Report 752 784 738 717 732 647 728 618 713 743 670 736 687 747 696 754 738 737 712 800

Calendar Year

1

The causes of population growth are complex, but can be summarized as follows:
A.
INCREASED CRIMINALIZATION OF BEHAVIORS AND INCREASED
PENALTIES
Since the late 1970s, the Vermont General Assembly, with support from various
Administrations, has responded to increased demand for criminal accountability from
the general public and from victims’ advocacy groups. The responses have included
increasing penalties for a wide variety of offenses, decreasing the discretion of courts
and corrections, and increasing resources for law enforcement, prosecution, defense,
courts, and corrections in a spiral of cost escalation.
Appendix A outlines changes in laws affecting corrections since 1980. They include an
increased focus on crimes involving violence, including crimes against women and
children, vulnerable adults, and other categories. They also include crimes of public
order involving motor vehicle violations and substance abuse. The penalties and
definitions also increased accountability for repeat offenses.

B.

INCREASED CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESSING1

1. Felony Sentencing – While the lengths of sentences given for specific charges
have remained stable, the number of persons convicted of a felony charge has
doubled since 1990. In addition, the percent of convicted persons sentenced to
incarceration has increased, particularly for violent felony convictions. More than
half the growth in population is attributable to Felony Sentencing practices.
2. Misdemeanor Sentencing – Both the length of sentence and the number of persons
sentenced have increased, resulting in doubling bed-years of incarceration imposed.
The number of beds used to house misdemeanants has not increased, but the
volume of traffic through the corrections facilities has increased dramatically,
creating significant obstacles to providing quality service. The volume of traffic has
been offset by the use of alternatives to incarceration: many sentenced offenders
were placed on intermediate sanctions to serve their sentence in the community,
saving costly prison space for more serious offenders.
3. Pre-trial Detention – While the number of beds used by detainees has declined in
recent years, the volume of persons lodged continues to increase (more people for
shorter stays). Even with the recent decline, the number of detainees housed is
more than double the numbers from pre-1995.
4. Returns – Violators of release conditions including probation, parole, and furlough
comprise one-sixth of the increase in population.

1

For a fuller explanation, see Appendix B, 4/19/07 Letter to House Institutions and Joint Corrections
Oversight Committees

2

C.

DEMOGRAPHY, SOCIAL POLICY, AND JUSTICE

Over the past 20 years, the criminal justice system has been increasingly engaged to
respond to citizen behavior. The justice system has only a limited array of options to
respond to expansion of criminal behaviors. The application of criminal sentences
responding to inappropriate behavior forces the increased use of the bottom line of the
system, incarceration. As individuals cumulatively fail to abide by conditions
established to control behavior, the response to failure has been to increase the
sanction. This, in turn, has resulted in a greater number of persons who are at risk of
further sanction for repeating inappropriate behavior or failing to abide by restrictions
placed on them for the previous behavior.
Frequently, persons with difficulties (addictions, mental illness, cognitive limitations, and
personality or learning disorders) have been placed under supervision and failed to
abide by the required conditions, and are eventually incarcerated.
The accumulation of these policies has led various parts of the State to use incarceration disparately. It has also led to unanticipated and unplanned consequences. Over
the past five years, the growth in incarceration by various counties has varied, with
Bennington, Franklin, Windham, and Windsor counties growing at twice the statewide
average, while Addison, and Essex counties have grown at much less than the average.
Washington County has had an actual decline in incarceration.
Incarceration Rates per 10,000 residents
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
Statewide

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

16.4
41.4
28.4
36.9
23.6
22.8
7.6
25.4
10.0
28.3
28.2
26.9
33.3
14.2
27.7

15.5
46.2
30.9
37.4
29.6
21.1
5.7
26.8
9.2
28.0
27.9
24.6
33.6
16.1
28.0

16.3
46.1
32.9
41.6
36.3
27.1
10.5
26.0
11.5
31.3
32.6
22.2
36.1
18.2
30.6

17.6
53.9
34.1
41.4
31.9
28.4
10.8
25.9
12.5
32.5
30.6
19.3
37.9
17.5
30.9

16.8
52.3
32.6
41.4
25.9
29.9
9.2
28.4
12.1
33.1
33.1
19.6
43.3
19.7
31.6

2005/2001
% Increase
2.4%
26.3%
14.8%
12.2%
9.7%
31.1%
21.1%
11.8%
21.0%
17.0%
17.4%
-27.1%
30.0%
38.7%
14.1%

Based on court of most serious charge. Population estimates from Vermont Department of Health,
extrapolated. Average Daily Population Incarcerated per 10,000 residents

As seen from the following table, counties vary greatly in incarceration rate.
Bennington, for example, incarcerates at 52% above the State average, while
Washington County is at the State average. Both Counties experienced a crime rate
near the state average.

3

Vermont Criminal Justice System Data

County
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor

Police Actions (2004) DOC
Pre-Trial
Arrests
Detention

Crimes

31%
103%
84%
131%
39%
111%
78%
79%
72%
71%
98%
97%
115%
83%

24%
120%
95%
127%
53%
123%
63%
89%
45%
75%
108%
56%
161%
78%

45%
116%
92%
131%
61%
98%
106%
84%
55%
80%
108%
78%
124%
110%

Rates per 1,000 Residents as a percent of Statewide Rate
Court Data (CY2005)
FY2006 DOC Data, Unique Persons
Intermediate Prison Felony
Misdemeanor Diversion Reparative Probation
Furlough Parole
Sanctions
Sentenced

63%
137%
73%
136%
61%
128%
65%
117%
41%
77%
78%
85%
117%
66%

67%
125%
109%
107%
51%
103%
67%
97%
60%
81%
76%
103%
167%
93%

88%
87%
108%
88%
22%
76%
78%
115%
68%
94%
194%
99%
122%
70%

38%
62%
104%
176%
24%
127%
151%
113%
76%
53%
87%
129%
53%
51%

100%
167%
133%
92%
108%
120%
117%
99%
84%
108%
101%
80%
137%
98%

23%
89%
223%
83%
169%
69%
100%
149%
94%
226%
109%
120%
106%
89%

65%
152%
115%
123%
74%
102%
94%
82%
58%
106%
108%
98%
132%
58%

30%
157%
137%
137%
40%
127%
90%
83%
83%
117%
147%
143%
103%
27%

38%
213%
100%
117%
46%
129%
92%
79%
63%
96%
113%
129%
67%
54%

The table above shows that Vermont counties also vary greatly in rates of crimes,
arrests, convictions, and the use of community strategies, as well as the use of
incarceration. They also vary widely in their use of alternatives to incarceration. For
example, the table shows the variance from the rate of “crimes” to the rates of “prison
sentenced” and “detention”. All things being equal, the proportionate use of court,
correctional, and alternative resources should be similar to the incidence of crimes and
arrests by law enforcement. To develop an example: Addison County experiences
crime at 31% of the State crime rate given its population. It arrests at 24% of the State
arrest rate. Addison County detains people at 45% of the State detention rate. Addison
County places people in prison at 65% of the State prison usage rate. Addison County
is well below the state rate, which is 100% in all categories.
Addison County places people on probation at 100% of the State probation usage rate.
So, Addison could be said to use Probation far more than its crime rate would suggest,
and Prison about the same as its felony crime rate.
However, differences in reporting mitigate this (some police agencies have not
consistently reported crime to VCIC).
Changes in Bed Utilization from FY2003 to FY2007
Northwest Courts
Northeast Courts
Status of Inmate Chittenden
Franklin
Grand Isle Caledonia
Essex
Lamoille Orleans Washington
177
58
6
-15
-6
2
24
-1
Sentenced
-23
7
-1
5
1
1
1
4
Detained
154
65
5
-10
-5
3
25
3
Net Change
Southwest Courts
Southeast Courts
Addison
Bennington Rutland
Orange
Windham Windsor
Total
4
41
40
3
67
3
391
Sentenced
-1
-18
11
-1
-5
6
-26
Detained
3
23
51
2
62
9
365
Net Change
Table displays the differences (along the trend line) calculated for a 5 year period.

The table above shows a change in bed utilization from various courts over the past five
years, with Chittenden and Bennington showing a reduction in detention, while at the
same time Chittenden County is the leader by far in the utilization of expensive
sentenced incarceration.
4

D.
INCREASED USE OF CORRECTIONS SYSTEM TO RESPOND TO SOCIAL
ILLS AND CRIMINAL ACTS
•

Drug Abuse

In the past five to seven years, Vermont has seen a dramatic increase in the number of
arrests, prosecutions, and convictions in State courts for drug crimes. The crimes which
result in incarceration usually involve trafficking in serious drugs – notably heroin and
cocaine – and various regulated pharmaceuticals. The number of inmates incarcerated
for felony drug offenses has increased from an average of 20 in 2002 to 176 in 2006.
This has been a major component of the growth in incarceration. Another factor
contributing to growth in incarceration rates is the increase in the number of property
crimes committed by addicted offenders. In a recent study of the prevalence of mental
illness among inmates, a total of 345 of 566 inmates with a mental illness diagnosis
were found to have a co-occurring diagnosis of substance abuse disorder, primarily for
opiates. This does not include other inmates with abuse issues that have not been
clinically identified. Most other classification studies show a similar ratio of drug
use/abuse among all inmates with up to 2/3 of inmates with drug problems, and 3/4 with
alcohol abuse issues.
African-Americans under DOC by Residence
Residence
unknown
Nonresident
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
Totals

Incarcerated
Birthplace
Vt Born
Not Vt
2
7
51
1
7

8
1
63
3
1
2

1

1
12

2
14
3
8
3
166

In Community
Birthplace
Vt born
Not Vt
3
9
1
42
3
1
6
7
7
105
2
1

3
5
2
25

5
1
6
2
1
18
13
18
9
245

A significant side effect of the focus on opiate trafficking has been a dramatic increase
in the number of African-Americans incarcerated in Vermont prisons. Since 2000, the
percentage of VT prisoners who are black has increased from 5% to 10% of the total.
Black inmates comprise 10% of all inmates and 32% of those incarcerated for drug
crimes. There were 196 persons of African-American descent incarcerated in Vermont
corrections on September 10, 2007. Of the 178 for whom a place of birth and
residence is known (18 not recorded), 51, or 26.7% were not residents of Vermont when
first lodged. In addition, over 93% of the black inmates were born outside Vermont,
versus 100% of Asians, 38% of whites, and 27% of American Indians.
5

•

Substance Abuse (Alcohol)

In the 1990s, Vermont began to crack down on drivers who were found to be under the
influence of alcohol. In 1995, the third offense for DUI was made a felony. While the
number of convictions for DUI has remained fairly level since 1990, the number of
persons under correctional supervision for repeat offenses has nearly doubled. Some
195 inmates are in prison for a primary offense of DUI.
•

Sexual Abuse

No crime has dominated the attention of the public and the media (and consequently
the legislature and the criminal justice system) more than that of sexual abuse. This
population has been one of the primary drivers of growth in incarceration, in spite of the
relatively level number of convictions for these crimes since the late 1980s (there was a
substantial drop in convictions in 2006). In 1990, there were 134 sex felons in prison in
Vermont. In 2007, there are 436.
•

Domestic Violence

Increasing attention to the crime of domestic violence has also led to increased
utilization of corrections as both a treatment response and for protection of victims.
There is an expectation by many in the system that the threat of incarceration for failure
to abide by program requirements will deter further violence. The primary assumption is
that the consequence of prison is sufficient coercion to mandate participation in
programming. There is significant evidence nationally that this program model is not
effective in reducing recidivism. (See Appendix C, What Works….)
•

Mental Illness

The number of offenders with diagnosed mental illness incarcerated in Vermont is
significant. In a recent study by the DOC Mental Health provider, 566 inmates, or 34%
of all inmates housed in Vermont prisons were identified as having clinical diagnoses2 of
mental illness. The incidence of diagnoses differs substantially between women and
men. Women inmates are twice as likely (56% vs. 34% of the males) to have a
diagnosis of some form of mental illness, as are men. While there is a significant
portion of offenders in prison who have a diagnosis of mental illness, only a small
number (3-4% of all inmates) are at any one time classified as Seriously Mentally Ill.
With a newly expanded definition of Serious Mental Illness, that percentage will
inevitably increase.

2

Axis 1 diagnosis of a major mental illness as defined in the DSM-IV, the standard manual of psychiatric
diagnosis.

6

E.

INCREASED EMPHASIS ON ACCOUNTABILITY

Committing a new offense while under supervision of corrections usually results in an
additional period of incarceration. This has manifested in the number of offenders being
returned to incarceration for violation of release conditions, and in sentences handed
down for repeatedly offending (DUI-3, Domestic Abuse, etc).
The failure to abide by instructions of the court or furlough by corrections is the source
of significant numbers of violations and returns to jail. In fact, the furlough program
(Conditional Reentry) is designed around the use of short periods in jail (Graduated
Sanctions) as a response to failure to comply with rules or misbehavior short of
committing a new crime.
In calendar year 2006, there were 2,260 furloughees returned to incarceration for
violations of release conditions. The violations were predominantly graduated sanctions
and suspensions of furlough due to substance abuse or rules violations, with very small
numbers of new criminal acts.
However, cumulatively, these returns currently account for approximately 350 beds
annually and account for about 16% of the growth since 1990.
Similarly, Vermont Courts have responded to community interest and legislative
direction by sanctioning offenders who are under supervision with incarcerative
sentences to serve far more frequently (more than two times as likely) than those who
had either completed prior supervision or (more than six times as likely) than those who
had never been under supervision3.
The result of this practice is that 97% of the sentenced inmates in prison on a given day
are persons who have been under correctional supervision prior to their latest offenses.
F.

COMPARING VERMONT VS. NATIONAL TRENDS

The incarceration rate for Vermont has been increasing, but since about 2000, the rate
of increase has been faster than either the US rate or rates of similar (size, rural nature)
states. Our comparison uses the National Bureau of Justice Statistics Prisoner Rate,
which includes only inmates sentenced to maximums of more than one year. This
comparison does not include detainees and inmates serving shorter sentences, who are
housed in County Jails in most other States. In that regard, Vermont still has one of the
lowest rates of overall incarceration (jail and prison combined) in the nation.
The disparity in the rates is the underlying issue in this analysis. The reason that
Vermont’s rate is increasing for inmates serving longer sentences is that more Vermont
inmates are serving longer sentences. While the US rate of growth has slowed
substantially, Vermont continues to grow. It may be a lag effect, that Vermont is
3

See Appendix B., 4/19/2007 Letter to House Institutions and Joint Corrections Oversight Committees

7

“catching up” to the rest of the nation, or it may be that Vermont has not implemented
the strategies that have reduced growth rates elsewhere.
Sentenced Prisoner Incarceration Rates
National Rate
Vermont Rate
Vermont Rank
VT Rate % of US
States Lower
than Vermont

Inmates per 100,000 residents
1985
1990
1995
2000
201
293
409
478
82
99
143
218
47
47
46
43
41%
34%
35%
46%
NH
MN
ND

WV
MN
ND

WV
ME
MN
ND

WV
RI
NH
ND
MA
ME
MN

2005
491
247
43
50%

2006
497
258
42
52%

NE
MA
ND
NH
RI
MN
ME

NE
MA
UT
ND
NH
RI
MN
ME

Inmates are sentenced prisoners serving more than one year; rates are per 100,000
residents. Source of data -- US Bureau of the Census, Prisoners in (1985,1990,1995, etc.)
report using the year end count (Dec.31). Does not count Jail population (less than 1 year),
or not sentenced. National rate includes state and federal systems.

G.

BED SPACE PROJECTIONS

The projection of bed space demand is more art than science, although the math is
straightforward.

Population Growth Trend
Total Housed vs. Administrative Capacity
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200

InState cap
Trend
Total housed


13-year trend slope = about 106/year

3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000


























































































































































800
JanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJulJanJul
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Month/Year

The regression of the growth trend continues at the rate of about 106 beds per year.
Further analysis of that trend shows some variation in the type of offenses that are
expected to grow. This is largely a function of changes in the system over the past five
or six years. As discussed elsewhere4, the components of growth are detention (19% of
the growth), sentencing (58% of the growth), retention past minimum release date (5%
of the growth), and return (revocation) (17% of the growth). A more sophisticated model
4

See Appendix B. 4/19/2007 Letter to House Institutions and Joint Corrections Oversight Committees.

8

of projection for Vermont Corrections is currently being developed by the Council on
State Government’s Justice Center and will predict slower future growth (but growth still
vastly outpacing the increase in Vermont’s population).
Pre-Trial Detainees

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

In examining the populations in
Average Daily Population
500
prison over the past seven years










 

(2000-2007), and the admissions to
400
























 











prison, several factors are evident.












300



1. Detention has grown, nearly
















doubling from 2000 – 2003, but













200









 








decreasing somewhat in the

































































years since.
100
2. Sentences for violent felons, drug
0
felons, and property felons are
longer.
Month/Year
3. More property and drug felons are incarcerated.
Inmates in Junes: 1989 - 2007
June
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Sentenced

Sentenced

Year
Detainees
121
115
140
107
117
130
128
124
207
182
218
225
281
329
431
382
342
378
347

Pre Min
241
280
318
424
389
424
470
371
486
607
608
686
688
798
953
1045
1085
1139
1186

Past Min
230
271
290
337
342
349
388
522
474
476
629
718
734
588
554
563
515
586
592

no data
23
7
3
5
30
38
37
35
9
41
51
55
71
53
45
43
29
36
40

Total
615
673
751
873
878
941
1023
1052
1176
1306
1506
1684
1774
1768
1983
2033
1971
2139
2165

% Pre Min
49%
50%
52%
55%
51%
52%
53%
40%
50%
54%
47%
47%
46%
55%
61%
63%
67%
65%
65%

The number of persons held in prison as pre-trial detainees grew from 1989, peaked in
2003, and has declined since. The number of persons held prior to reaching their
minimum release date has increased steadily, and is nearly five times as large as in
1989. The number held past their minimum increased until 2001, when the impact of
Conditional Reentry began to be seen, and has remained fairly steady since then.
The impact of these effects has been the accumulation of beds which are encumbered
into the future. The table above shows the impact of one year’s admissions on future
beds needed. Analyzing a recent population (September 26, 2007), the numbers of
beds encumbered into the future for each crime type depends on the minimum
sentence. Looking five years out, there will still be some 40 felons who were admitted
9

in 2006, who will still be in prison in 2011. If the rate of admissions remains the same,
the average daily population will accumulate some 240 beds.
Impact of New Admissions on Future Beds Needed

Offense Type

Felony-Serious
Felony-Person
Felony-Property
Felony-Drug
Felony-Motor Vehicle
Felony-Other
Misdemeanor-Person
Misdemeanor-Property
Misdemeanor-Drug
Misdemr-Motor Vehicle
Misdemeanor-Other
(unknown)
Total
Felony Total
Misdemeanor Total

Beds Encumbered
Average
Remain. Persons
Minimum
Five Years'
Annual
Bed-Years Remain.
Sentence 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year Accum'ted
After 5
Admits
Needed
to Serve
ADP
Years
until Min
(Years)
319
3.9
241
115
78
56
39
529
590
30
132
1.5
84
38
21
9
7
160
11
3
523
1.1
298
97
46
18
10
468
75
5
178
1.1
97
32
17
7
3
154
3
2
339
1.1
206
52
18
6
3
285
0
0
69
1.2
32
6
3
2
0
43
0
0
284
0.5
100
12
2
0
0
113
0
0
96
0.5
29
3
0
0
0
32
0
0
53
0.3
13
1
1
0
0
14
0
0
228
0.4
52
7
3
0
0
61
0
0
68
0.3
12
1
0
0
0
14
0
0
35
0.6
13
1
0
0
0
14
0
0
2323
1.3
1177
365
189
98
61
1890
679
40
1559
729

958
206

340
24

183
6

98
0

61
0

1640
236

679
0

Average
Years
Remain.
to Serve

40
0

19.7
3.2
16.6
1.9
1.0

17.1

Adjusted
Accum'd
ADP

Beds in
Use PreMin
09/26/2007

1119
171
543
157
286
43
113
32
14
61
14
14
2568

437
104
265
94
109
20
58
18
12
20
12
7
1156

2318
236

1029
120

As shown in the table below, the average minimum sentence for all inmates who have
not reached their minimum release date has increased from just under 4 years to 5.4
years. The volume of felony (particularly violent felony) admissions has increased
substantively since the mid 1990s, while the average amount of time served by those in
prison has declined somewhat.
What has changed most is the amount of time still left to serve. On average, in 1989,
the inmate who had not reached his or her minimum term had served about 2.5 years,
and had about 1.5 years still left to serve. In 2007, the average inmate had served
about 2.9 years, but has 2.5 years left to serve.
Im p a c t o f M in im u m S e n te n c e s o n E n c u m b ra n c e o f B e d s

June
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

E n c u m b e re d
R e m a in
b y M in im u m
U n til M in
B e d -Y e a rs
B e d -Y e a rs
928
346
967
421
1168
531
1937
803
2092
933
2616
1203
2858
1249
2793
1191
3108
1411
3585
1622
3632
1655
4061
1938
4489
2242
4819
2429
5172
2528
5549
2818
5709
2935
6043
2837
6333
2949

H a v e S e rv e d
B e d -Y e a rs
%
583
63%
546
56%
637
55%
1134
59%
1159
55%
1413
54%
1608
56%
1602
57%
1697
55%
1963
55%
1976
54%
2122
52%
2247
50%
2389
50%
2644
51%
2731
49%
2774
49%
3205
53%
3384
53%

# P re M in in
c a lc u la tio n
234
278
312
422
384
420
467
366
474
592
590
674
669
784
940
1034
1068
1122
1167

Av g M in
L e n g th
4 .0
3 .5
3 .7
4 .6
5 .5
6 .2
6 .1
7 .6
6 .6
6 .1
6 .2
6 .0
6 .7
6 .2
5 .5
5 .4
5 .4
5 .4
5 .4

Y e a rs
Av g T il
M in
1 .5
1 .5
1 .7
1 .9
2 .4
2 .9
2 .7
3 .3
3 .0
2 .7
2 .8
2 .9
3 .4
3 .1
2 .7
2 .7
2 .8
2 .5
2 .5

Av g
S e rv e d
2 .5
2 .0
2 .0
2 .7
3 .0
3 .4
3 .4
4 .4
3 .6
3 .3
3 .4
3 .2
3 .4
3 .1
2 .8
2 .6
2 .6
2 .9
2 .9

C alculations only include "P re M inim um " inm ates ; Inm ates w ith m inim um s enten ces > = 100 ye ars are rem oved ; Inm ates w ithout
rele ase d ates bu t no senten ce lengths are rem oved. Lifers and pers ons w ithout data rem oved from ta ble

10

This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of bed-years encumbered into the
future. The 1,167 inmates who are in prison now and have not reached their minimum
release have served a cumulative 2,949 years in prison, and have 3,384 more years to
serve.
A significant part of the encumbrance is of serious violent felons. In 1989, 84 serious
violent felons in prison had encumbered some 271 bed-years. By 2007, the
encumbrance has grown to 2,172 bed-years by 676 serious violent felons. In fact, preminimum serious violent felons had an average minimum of about 8 years in 1989. The
average minimum for violent felons in 2007 is 11.2 years.
The data are point-in-time, and are weighted toward the more serious, longer serving
inmates.
An examination of the characteristics of the flow of sentenced inmates during a year is
instructive. The table below is complex. The inmates being released are not always the
same people as the inmates admitted (the shorter the sentence, the more likely they
are). In fact, of the 1,757 new admissions last year, only 757 will encumber a bed
beyond one year. Thus, the average length of stay of the inmates released is
significantly less (particularly with more serious crimes) than the average sentence of
the inmates admitted, because the longer sentenced inmates are not as present in the
average.
The flow of admissions contributes to growth when the time to be served by the inmates
coming in is longer than the time served by those coming out.
In fact, this difference is a primary source of growth in the population. For example, of
the 284 serious violent felons admitted last year, 30 of them will still be in prison not
having reached their minimum sentence five years from now. Moreover, those 30 will
have an average of 19.7 more years to serve. It is the accumulation of these offenders,
whose sentences are considerably longer than the inmates they “replace” in the
population, which is a significant component of growth.
This analysis looks backwards. It does not reflect the impact of changes to the criminal
code in the recent past. These changes are cumulative. Recent legislation has
substantially increased penalties for future sex offenders, and barring changes in
conviction rates, will very likely create increased demand for bedspace beyond the
trends.
While the total number of sex offender convictions in 2006 was down from the year
previous, it is not significantly different than the average number over the past decade.
As such the predicted impact of the new sex offender legislation on bedspace continues
to be estimated at hundreds of additional beds within five years.
As a result, a projection of future demand uses past practice differentially for the
populations with longer sentences and with crimes that are more serious. Using
11

differential trends for the empirical data from 2001-2007, the following can be used as a
projection for bed space demands, with trends for detainees, sentenced offenders preminimum sentence and post-minimum, and returns.
Fiscal Year 2007 Incarcerated Population by Offense type
Offense
type

June 30, 2006

Avg.
New
Time
Sentenced Average
Admissions Minimum Releases Served

Felonies
Serious
Person
Property
Drug
Motor Veh
Other
Misdemeanors
Person,
Property
Drug
Motor Vehicle
Other
uncat
total

Years
Sentenced Detained
676
119
192
25
430
70
112
50
120
20
41
29

June 30, 2007

Years

269
111
407
126
215
61

4.4
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1

285
110
471
123
237
65

1.4
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5

Sentenced Detained
660
122
177
35
419
51
130
32
155
12
45
37

95
35
10
23
9

25
10
4
9
7

212
78
43
163
57

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3

253
99
49
148
62

0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

104
38
25
39
14

19
7
3
12
10

15
1758

13
381

15
1757

0.6
1.4

6
1908

0.3
0.6

12
1818

5
345

Numbers do not add precisely due to multiple releases for many offenders, changes in charges from time of
admission to time of release, and many other factors.

This projection is consistent with the overall trend above, but disaggregates it by offense
type.
Vermont Prison Population Projection: Fiscal Year (FY) 2012

12

Total Beds in Use

Felonies
Serious
Person
Property
Drug
Motor Veh
Other
subtotal
Misdemeanors
Person,
Property
Drug
Motor Veh
Other
subtotal
uncat
Total

Actual

Actual

FY2001

FY2007

Projection
FY2012

664
203
387
32
131
68
1485

794
228
509
177
152
75
1935

901
228
603
321
175
75
2303

2000
% of total
39%
12%
23%
2%
8%
4%
87%

110
32
8
41
19
210
19
1714

123
41
18
39
24
245
22
2202

136
49
27
41
30
283
20
2606

6%
2%
0%
2%
1%
12%
1%
100%

Increases and Proportion
2007 vs 2000
2007
2012 vs 2007
2012
% increase % of total % increase % of total
120%
36%
113%
35%
112%
10%
100%
9%
132%
23%
118%
23%
553%
8%
181%
12%
116%
7%
115%
7%
110%
3%
100%
3%
130%
88%
119%
88%
112%
128%
225%
95%
126%
117%
116%
128%

6%
2%
1%
2%
1%
11%
1%
100%

111%
120%
150%
105%
125%
116%
91%
118%

5%
2%
1%
2%
1%
11%
1%
100%

Projection is based on 2002-2005 admissions, length of
minimum sentence, and releases of offenders during the
same period. It does not take into account recent changes
such as sex offender sentencing laws.

Felony sentencing is the primary driver of growth, and will continue to be the driver.
The fastest growing component of the projected population is drug felons. Projecting
the arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing practices of the past five years, this
population will continue to grow more rapidly than any other component. However, the
component of serious, violent felons will continue to grow for the next fifteen years.
The projection is an empirical analysis. A more sophisticated model for projecting the
impact of changes to the system contemplated by the legislature and by this plan is
currently being constructed by the Council on State Government’s Justice Center. This
more sophisticated projection will also project continued growth (but at a slower rate)
and the need for hundreds of additional prison beds.

13

PART II: THE STRUCTURAL LIMITS TO CHANGE
A.

OFFENSE SEVERITY

Criminal offenses in Vermont are not categorized (in statute) by level of severity. One
can infer a degree based on the maximum penalty allowed, but it is clearly subjective.
There is no criminal code that provides a severity of different offenses ranking. In
theory and in fact, the law applies the same limited choice of punishment to all
offenders, regardless of the differences in behavior, motivation, condition, and
culpability of the offender, or the consequences of the behavior on the victim(s) and
community. The court is thus constrained to look at all crime through the same lens,
and limited to the same limited array of responses.
Nearly all criminal justice agencies categorize offenses and offenders for operational
management purposes. Police agencies generally use categories of the National Crime
Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for reporting. Vermont police
use the Vermont Incident Based Reporting System (VIBRS) system. Corrections uses
two systems, one descriptive of type, and the other of severity. Each system has its
drawbacks, but is useful for classification of the response, and for resource allocation.
In many states, the major classification of offenses into felony and misdemeanor
categories results in differential response. In most states, felonies are a state
responsibility, while misdemeanors are handled at a local, city, or county level.
•

Misdemeanants

A whole class of offenders is incarcerated for misdemeanor offenses. While these are
usually recidivists and many are incorrigible offenders with very lengthy records for
repeat misdemeanor offenses, their sentences and stay in prison tend to be very short.
Prison for these offenders serves very little in the way of reduction in recidivism. In fact,
incarcerating these offenders may well be counterproductive in that the period is not
sufficient for treatment intervention, but is long enough to disrupt any stability factors
such as employment. Prison does serve as a labeling function to place them under
higher supervision after release.
Among those with similar profiles, those low risk offenders who are incarcerated are
more likely to reoffend than those who are placed on probation or in intermediate
sanctions. A significant predictor of recidivism is association with persons with attitudes
supporting criminal behavior.
There are about 240 beds (12% of the average daily population) devoted to
misdemeanants on a typical day. About 500 more misdemeanants are lodged each
year for a total of about 750 different misdemeanor offenders serving time in jail each
year. The average length of stay for these offenders per episode is about 60 days,
though violent misdemeanants tend to be lodged for six months.
14

Elimination of incarceration for misdemeanants would currently create savings of
approximately $5 million annually. This could be offset by strategies in communities to
manage these offenders. Such strategies are discussed in subsequent sections.
However, such a change might have a counteracting effect on the practice of charging
and plea inflation by prosecutors.
•

Felons

Eighty-eight percent of the inmates in Vermont prisons are serving on felony charges.
Ninety percent of the increase in population over the past 15 years has been comprised
of felons. If the projections above are realized, by 2012 there will be more felons than
there are inmates today. There will be more property and drug felons than serious
violent felons. Drug felons currently account for 8% of the beds used. Property felons
account for 23% of the beds used. Males are much more likely to be in prison for a
violent crime (55% of the men, vs. 29% of the women).
B.

RISK TO RE-OFFEND

Corrections departments across the nation are increasingly employing risk assessments
as a primary tool in determining placement, services, and release recommendations.
Vermont has been a leader in the development of risk-based approaches to corrections.
The graphs below demonstrate the efficacy of the instrument used by Vermont DOC to
assess risk to reoffend. The graph represents the actual reconviction rates of about two
years of Vermont inmates (males and females) who were assessed using the Level of
Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), a nationally-recognized risk assessment and caseRisk Assessment Validation Study: Males
Reconviction rate by Risk assessment level -- Incarcerated Male Offenders
Risk Score Range
70%

0-13

14-33

Risk Score Range

34+
70%

56.9%

60%
50%

14-33

34+
59.8%

60%

43.5%

40%
30%

23.2%

20%

20%

10%

10%

18.3%

0%

0%
N
Reconviction

0-13

50%

44.3%

40%
30%

Risk Assessment Validation Study -- Female
Reconviction rate by Risk assessment level -- Incarcerated Female Offenders

Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

663
23.2%

3,483
44.3%

598
56.9%

Population includes all (4,829) sentenced Male inmates with Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R)
assessments completed in 2002-2003, tracked through 2006 for reconviction of a new offense.

N
Reconviction

Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

60
18.3%

421
43.5%

117
59.8%

Population includes all (598) sentenced Female inmates with Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R)
assessments completed in 2002-2003, tracked through 2006 for reconviction of a new offense.

planning instrument developed in Canada. This study was completed in August 2007.
There is significant difference in recidivism rates between those offenders assessed at
low, moderate, or high levels of risk, which is important in validating the use and utility of
the instrument to sort Vermont offenders by the risk of re-offense. It should be
emphasized that the instruments measure the risk of committing and being convicted of
a new criminal offense, not the risk in terms of violence or severity. There is no
significant difference between the rates for males and females, using the same cut-off
15

scores. The instruments are not perfect, and are actuarial in outcome; that is, they are
predictive of the behavior of groups, not, with certainty, individuals.
C.

LEGAL STATUS AND RISK

Examining the entire population from the perspective of risk category by legal status
reveals a direction for the use of sanctions. Vermont clearly allocates resources based
on the severity of the crime. The preponderance of violent felony offenders are in
prison, or have been in prison.
Legal Status and Offense Type
Risk Management Probation
Response Supervision Probation
Intermediate Sanctions
Reentry
Parole
Incarceration
Total

Violent
450
162
30
250
159
888
1939

Felons
Prop/drug
300
1008
74
375
294
535
2586

Misc
94
201
137
167
273
207
1079

Misdemeanants
Viol
Misc
513
197
560
2837
35
93
76
62
25
68
97
95
1306
3352

Total
1554
4768
369
930
819
1822
10262

Legal Status and Offense Type: Column Percentages
Risk Management Probation
Response Supervision Probation
Intermediate Sanctions
Reentry
Parole
Incarceration
Total

Violent
23%
8%
2%
13%
8%
46%
100%

Felons
Prop/drug
12%
39%
3%
15%
11%
21%
100%

Misc
9%
19%
13%
15%
25%
19%
100%

Misdemeanants
Viol
Misc
39%
6%
43%
85%
3%
3%
6%
2%
2%
2%
7%
3%
100%
100%

Total
15%
46%
4%
9%
8%
18%
100%

Legal Status and Offense Type: Row Percentages
Risk Management Probation
Response Supervision Probation
Intermediate Sanctions
Reentry
Parole
Incarceration
Total

Violent
29%
3%
8%
27%
19%
49%
19%

Felons
Prop/drug
19%
21%
20%
40%
36%
29%
25%

Misc
6%
4%
37%
18%
33%
11%
11%

Misdemeanants
Viol
Misc
33%
13%
12%
60%
9%
25%
8%
7%
3%
8%
5%
5%
13%
33%

Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

There are a large number of violent offenders on probation, but if they are on that
status, they are nearly all under intensive supervision, on a risk management caseload.
Examining the risk level posed by the offenders at the different statuses is instructive in
explaining the different placement by the courts.
The following analysis does not include probation, because the instrumentation for risk
assessment is currently different for probation and not strictly comparable. Subsequent
sections will analyze this further.
16

The recidivism percentages on the above table are the actual historical recidivism of
Vermont inmates who scored in the ranges of assessment as determined by reconviction after placement in the community or release from prison.

Summary of LSI-R Score Ranges and Status
Recidivism Rate
Prison
Reentry
Parole
Intermediate Sanctions

Low

Low-Mod

11.7%
73
35
101
45

31.1%
463
276
389
152

Low
Prison
Reentry
Parole
Intermediate Sanctions

4%
4%
12%
12%

LSI-R Re-Offense Risk
Moderate
High
48.1%
845
452
262
119

57.3%
359
136
61
50

Highest

Total

76.0%
82
31
6
3

1822
930
819
369

Percent of Row (scored only)
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
25%
30%
47%
41%

46%
49%
32%
32%

20%
15%
7%
14%

5%
3%
1%
1%

Total
100%
100%
100%
100%

Does not include 292 inmates (mostly detainees), 23 Reentry, 121 Parole, and 373 Int. Sanctions persons not scored

D.
SUPERVISION IN COMMUNITY: COMBINING RISK, OFFENSE SEVERITY,
AND LEGAL STATUS
Offenders supervised in the community are on different legal statuses, including
Probation, Intermediate Sanctions, Furlough, and Parole. While there are high-risk
offenders in each status, they are all predominantly non-violent offenders with a high reoffense risk. The preponderance of high risk violent offenders are either in prison or
under more intensive community supervision of furlough, parole, or intermediate
sanctions. Examining the intersection of the offense type, the risk profile, and the legal
status provides further opportunity for analysis of resource utilization.
•

Probation

Probation is the legal status for an offender whose sentence is not imposed, but
suspended by the court. The offender must comply with conditions of probation,
supervised by probation officers in the community. The majority of persons on
probation demonstrate lower risk. They are also generally convicted of less severe
crimes.
Offenders on Risk Management Probation (supervision in the community with smaller
caseloads and services that are more intensive) are convicted of more serious offenses,
as well as having high re-offense risk levels. As mentioned earlier, the assessment
instrumentation for Probationers is the Ryan-Johnson risk assessment (R-J), which is
different than the LSI-R used for all other statuses. While not strictly comparable, it is
broadly equivalent for purposes of this discussion.
17

Offense
Level

Offense
Level

Offense Seriousness vs Risk
Probation - Response Supervision - July 27, 2007 (no score--> 492)
RJ Risk Level
% of Whole Population
Low
Moderate High
Total
Low
Moderate High Total
77
49
36
162
2%
1%
1%
3%
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
481
379
148
1008
10%
8%
3%
21%
62
112
27
201
1%
2%
1%
4%
F-Misc
M-Violent
279
207
74
560
6%
4%
2%
12%
1148
1308
381
2837
24%
27%
8%
60%
M-Misc
Total
2047
2055
666
4768
43%
43%
14% 100%
Probation - Risk Management - July 27, 2007 (no score--> 389)
RJ Risk Level
% of Whole Population
Low
Moderate High
Total
Low
Moderate High Total
158
154
138
450
10%
10%
9%
29%
F-Violent
55
104
141
300
4%
7%
9%
19%
F-Prop/Drug
24
25
45
94
2%
2%
3%
6%
F-Misc
166
174
173
513
11%
11%
11%
33%
M-Violent
M-Misc
52
76
69
197
3%
5%
4%
13%
455
533
566
1554
29%
34%
36% 100%
Total

Offenders on Response Supervision Probation (larger caseloads, limited services) have
committed less serious offenses, and pose lower risk. Seventy-two percent (72%) of
the Response Supervision population is misdemeanants. While 54% of the Risk
Management population is felons, 21% are high-risk felons, but only 9% are high-risk
violent felons.
•

Intermediate Sanctions

Intermediate sanctions are penalties that are more restrictive than probation, but less
intrusive (and expensive) than prison. These sanctions are sentences to the
community, with intensive supervision, and required treatment program participation.
They include programs like the intensive substance abuse program (ISAP) and the
intensive domestic abuse treatment program (IDAP).
Very few of the intermediate sanction offenders are violent felons (most of the IDAP
offenders are misdemeanants), and only 1% is high-risk violent felons. This is due to
the design of the program, which includes offenders on ISAP and IDAP sentenced to
this status, as well as those placed on alternative short sentences to serve on
community service work crews.
The population on intermediate sanction status is comprised of higher risk offenders
than probation, with 73% in the low-moderate or moderate risk category (compared with
34% of Risk Management Probation assessed in the moderate range above). While
they are higher risk to reoffend, it is generally with a non-violent offense.

18

Offense Seriousness vs. Risk -- Intermediate Sanctions

Offense Level

Offense Level

Recidivism
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

11.7%
Low
2
6
21
29
6
10
16
45

F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

Low
1%
2%
6%
8%
2%
3%
4%
12%

LSI-R Re-Offense Risk (no score:373)
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
16
8
4
27
23
17
1
71
37
7
1
114
68
28
2
14
10
5
24
41
17
1
38
51
22
1
152
119
50
3
% of Intermediate Sanctions Population
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
4%
2%
1%
0%
7%
6%
5%
0%
19%
10%
2%
0%
31%
18%
8%
1%
4%
3%
1%
0%
7%
11%
5%
0%
10%
14%
6%
0%
41%
32%
14%
1%

Total
30
74
137
241
35
93
128
369
Total
8%
20%
37%
65%
9%
25%
35%
100%

• Parole
Offenders who succeed on Conditional Reentry are usually recommended by the DOC
Offense Seriousness vs. Risk -- Parole

Offense Level

Offense Level

Recidivism
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

11.7%
Low
26
30
38
94
3
4
7
101

F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

Low
3%
4%
5%
11%
0%
0%
1%
12%

LSI-R Re-Offense Risk (no score: 121)
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
76
48
8
1
125
101
34
4
135
90
9
1
336
239
51
6
12
6
4
41
17
6
53
23
10
389
262
61
6
% of Parole Population
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
9%
6%
1%
0%
15%
12%
4%
0%
16%
11%
1%
0%
41%
29%
6%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
5%
2%
1%
0%
6%
3%
1%
0%
47%
32%
7%
1%

Total
159
294
273
726
25
68
93
819
Total
19%
36%
33%
89%
3%
8%
11%
100%

to the Parole Board, which may place them on parole, at lower supervision intensity
than Conditional Reentry. The parole population is even smaller in proportion of highrisk offenders than any other status, and substantially smaller in violent offenders of any
risk level. This is indicative of the release practices of the Parole Board, which
generally require a period of successful furlough prior to parole.
19

•

Conditional Reentry
Offense Seriousness vs. Risk -- Reentry

Offense Level

Offense Level

Recidivism
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

11.7%
Low
13
7
7
27
4
4
8
35

F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

Low
1%
1%
1%
3%
0%
0%
1%
4%

LSI-R Re-Offense Risk (no score:23)
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
73
124
32
8
85
194
71
18
68
70
17
5
226
388
120
31
27
34
11
23
30
5
50
64
16
276
452
136
31
% of Reentry Population
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
8%
13%
3%
1%
9%
21%
8%
2%
7%
8%
2%
1%
24%
42%
13%
3%
3%
4%
1%
0%
2%
3%
1%
0%
5%
7%
2%
0%
30%
49%
15%
3%

Total
250
375
167
792
76
62
138
930
Total
27%
40%
18%
85%
8%
7%
15%
100%

The Conditional Reentry population is those offenders released from prison after
serving their minimum sentence, but who have yet to be granted parole. The population
mirrors the incarcerated population in terms of risk profile, but is somewhat lower than
those in prison in proportion of high risk, and somewhat lower in terms of violence. This
is due to the longer sentences served by high-risk violent felons, in general, and the
requirement for participation in treatment.
This population also includes those on Reintegration Furlough, 90 days prior to their
minimum release. They represent about 70 of the 930 offenders on reentry.
The size of the reentry population is a function of sentencing, since most (80%)
offenders are released on reaching their minimum term.

20

E.

INCARCERATION

The incarcerated population is comprised of much higher proportions of high risk and
violent felony offenders. Half of the incarcerated population is violent felons, and only
ten percent are misdemeanants, almost none of whom are low risk to re-offend. In fact,
the majority of the few low risk offenders who are in prison (55 of 73) are convicted of
violent felonies but assessed unlikely to re-offend.
Offense Seriousness vs. Risk -- Incarcerated

Offense Level

Offense Level

Recidivism
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

11.7%
Low
55
4
10
69
1
3
4
73

F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
F-Misc
Felony Total
M-Violent
M-Misc
Misd Total
Total

Low
3%
0%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
4%

LSI-R Re-Offense Risk (no score: 272 Mostly Detention)
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
Total
226
390
178
39
888
118
263
121
29
535
66
99
25
7
207
410
752
324
75
1630
20
51
22
3
97
33
42
13
4
95
53
93
35
7
192
463
845
359
82
1822
% of Incarcerated Population
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
Total
12%
21%
10%
2%
49%
6%
14%
7%
2%
29%
4%
5%
1%
0%
11%
23%
41%
18%
4%
89%
1%
3%
1%
0%
5%
2%
2%
1%
0%
5%
3%
5%
2%
0%
11%
25%
46%
20%
5%
100%

This characteristic is significant in planning for any reduction in incarceration. To have
any real impact on bed space demand and the resulting financial cost to Vermonters,
the offenders released to alternative placements would have to be selected from a
population who, while perhaps non-violent, pose a higher degree of recidivism risk than
those currently in the community.
The vast majority (86%) of persons released in a given year in Vermont were sentenced
to minimum terms of less than one year. In fact, two thirds were sentenced to less than
90 days. In most other states, these offenders would not be in State Prison, but in local
Jails or supervised in alternatives in the community. In addition, Vermont facilities hold
pre-trial detainees, who would in most states be in county or local lockups.
There are several observations that can be made from these data that influence
planning to achieve savings through alternatives to incarceration.
•

The number of offenders who are low re-offense risk and in prison or in an
alternative to incarceration, is very low. Those in prison who are low risk have
generally committed violent offenses (Non-violent low risk offenders rarely
receive prison sanctions, and are mainly given probation – see table below)
21

•
•
•

Diverting larger numbers of offenders from incarceration will necessarily require
placement in the community of offenders with some increased risk of re-offense.
Consequently, increased measures will need to be taken to manage that risk.
These offenders are already returning to the communities from which they came;
the vast majority who are in prison will return home within six months.

Many offenders of moderate risk are currently supervised in the community. The
question posed in this analysis is whether the offenders who are under more restrictive
sanctions can be supervised better in the community earlier, and prevent recidivism.
This can reduce the penetration into corrections and reduce the drain on resources.
Most Serious Crime -- Prison Admissions -- Fiscal Year 2005

Felony
Data
# Start as Detainee
Avg Detain Stay (mo.)
Avg Min length (mo.)
Avg Max (no lifers)
Avg Stay (any)
Avg PreMin stay
# Stay past Min
Avg PastMin Stay
# Stay <= month
# Stay <= Quarter
# Stay <= HalfYear
Avg Age (admit)
Avg Age (end)
Avg LSI-R
# Male admissions
# Female admissions
# Episodes

Serious Person
134
47
5.1
3.5
32.7
16.1
95.2
56.0
12.9
9.6
8.6
6.3
115
41
4.0
4.8
114
62
164
83
202
97
31
32
32
32
26
27
321
135
40
10
361
145

Property Drug
167
59
2.2
3.8
12.8
10.9
58.5
32.4
6.8
5.7
4.8
4.0
155
47
2.1
1.1
266
113
354
141
427
165
28
32
29
32
28
22
450
163
142
45
592
208

Misdemeanor
MV
56
1.8
12.8
40.2
3.6
2.9
55
1.3
268
317
346
39
40
23
384
34
418

Oth Person Property Drug
23
84
34
17
2.0
1.2
1.8
1.3
10.9
5.4
4.8
3.2
37.4
13.7
10.7
6.4
5.9
2.7
2.2
1.8
3.5
1.8
1.4
1.4
32
87
34
14
0.9
1.3
0.6
0.3
25
206
91
64
43
283
112
79
58
316
118
85
28
31
28
31
28
31
28
31
27
25
27
23
58
302
109
82
12
38
18
10
70
340
127
92

MV
32
1.0
3.8
10.9
1.0
0.8
47
0.3
192
219
229
34
34
23
198
35
233

Oth
16
1.6
2.7
5.6
2.2
1.5
25
1.4
74
88
93
30
30
22
88
10
98

Total
676
2.8
12.6
41.8
5.6
3.9
656
2.0
1480
1892
2147
32
32
25
2304
395
2699

The table above has a great deal of data. It is a look back at the people who were
sentenced in FY2005, cumulating the months served during the year. There are a
number of findings of note.
•

•

•

Only 676, or 25% of the total admissions, remained in incarceration from
detention through sentencing. (There are many more persons detained each
year – about 4,200 – but only 676 were sentenced from detention with time to
serve beyond the time spent in detention. In other words, about 3,300 persons
per year are lodged as detainees and subsequently released on bail or at
arraignment, or sentenced at trial to time already served.)
Of the 2,699 persons admitted as sentenced inmates, 80% stay less than six
months including time as a detainee. More than half of these stay less than one
month.
The average age of most offenders is about the same (28-32) with the singular
exception of Motor Vehicle felons who are a decade older (40) than the others.

22

Part III: OPTIONS and TRADEOFFS
The options within the current Vermont criminal justice system necessarily involve a
series of tradeoffs and compromises. Without significant public policy change, the
means to make significant savings are narrowly limited.
There are a very large number of options that can be imagined, that have been tried by
other jurisdictions, or that have been suggested to the Department as this study has
progressed. This document will examine several of these options, as a general
overview. Detailed analysis of each option would have required many more pages. We
look forward to working with the Legislature in more expansive discussion and
consideration of the most promising options.
Vermont’s correctional system is a patchwork of small facilities built over decades,
reflecting evolving concepts of corrections. Some of the facilities are tiny, built on a
human scale, designed as multi-purpose regional responses to the need to detain and
release inmates into a community-based system. Other of the facilities are modern and
fairly efficient campus designs, with high security and program capability. Some are old
and in need of major renovation or replacement. The absence of sufficient prison
capacity in Vermont has resulted in contracting with out-of-state corrections providers to
house the excess population.
The options to make major savings are also limited by the nature of Vermont’s
correctional facilities. The economies of scale that are present in many other states are
not available in Vermont due to the small size of our correctional facilities, and the
architecture of the buildings (e.g., the population of all nine Vermont facilities would fit
into a single facility in many other states). To achieve savings of a single million dollars
(let alone of the magnitude of $4 million), incremental reductions in operations are
inadequate. Whole programs or operating units (facilities) must be eliminated or
replaced with less costly options. This has been the essence of the strategy of the
Department during the last two Administrations, and the Legislature over the past ten
years, creating sanctions and programs in the community that are more restrictive than
probation, but less costly than prison.
The response of the State of Vermont to growth in incarceration has been incremental.
In the early 1990s, the primary strategy was to create a set of sentencing options short
of incarceration. That strategy was highly successful, and continues to divert some
40% of the incarcerated demand to community-based alternatives. Since 1998, that
strategy has been increasingly inadequate to keep pace with the rate of growth. Since
1998, despite creating additional bed space (Springfield and Dale facilities), incremental
growth has been accommodated with contracted bed space out of state, first in public
facilities in New Jersey and Virginia, and then with a private contractor, Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA, www.correctionscorp.com ).
Currently, each inmate sent to CCA facilities has a fixed daily cost. Both the additional
cost of expansion and the savings from contracting are incremental. The capacity for
23

expansion is literally a function of budget. The capacity is there, and utilization only
requires funding. The consequence is the $21,199 annual per capita cost. In contrast,
the per capita cost of Vermont facilities ($45,702 in FY2007) is relatively fixed.
Additional utilization of that capacity may result in overcrowding, but also in an actual
lower per capita cost.
Reducing the utilization of CCA contracted bedspace and returning inmates to Vermont
is far more complex than simply bringing offenders back. The inmates who are in
Kentucky and elsewhere are not generally ready for release. They will either displace
inmates in Vermont, who would need to transition into structured release mechanisms,
or require additional Vermont prison capacity. The capacity to place the returning
inmates is not currently available. The difficulty then is in timing the reinvestments in
capacity, program, or housing with the savings from bed reduction in prison. If
reinvestment is to work, the savings must be achieved as the new approaches are
developed. We must implement strategies in concert with one another. No single
approach will suffice.

24

Strategy One: REDUCE FACILITIES’ COSTS (Capacity
Reduction)
There are a limited number of ways to lower facility costs by the target four million
dollars.
•

Plan A: Bring Some Back, Release Some Others

The first option is simple on the surface: bring back 200 inmates from CCA facilities.
(I.e., 200 inmates x $21,199 = $4.2 million). To bring them back in sufficient numbers to
create savings would require that alternatives be in place for housing either them or 200
other inmates (most likely a blend of the two) currently housed in Vermont facilities, who
would be released to make room for the inmates returning from out of state.
This requires the release of 200 inmates to occur at the same time other capacities are
being built. These capacities could be either additional or expanded Incarcerative
facilities or alternatives or other mechanisms.
This approach involves a wide variety of possible strategies, no one of which stands
alone in providing the necessary savings. These will be discussed later in this report.
•

Plan B: Close Entire Facilities

The second option is to close a facility and send the population out of state. This is
fiscally straightforward, but has a number of challenging operational complexities to
implementation.
Closing only part of a facility does not achieve significant savings. Savings are not
generated from single bed reductions, as the unit must be staffed at the same level
whether it has one inmate or is full. There are only three facilities (Chittenden, Marble
Valley, and Northwest) that would generate $4 million in savings without sending even
more inmates out of state. For example, one can’t reduce either Newport or Springfield
by 200 and still have actionable savings, because the plant still operates – the only
savings are per diem costs for individual food and sundries (about $2,000 annually per
bed), and correctional officer staff assigned to any units closed. Administration,
program, medical, perimeter security, and operational security staff must be maintained.
The closing of a facility is a complex endeavor. The DOC guidelines for placing inmates
out-of-state would need extensive reexamination. These include the requirements for
treatment, the current exclusion of youthful inmates with educational requirements, and
the exclusion of inmates who are exemplary workers in correctional industries. Also,
staff job retention rights under the State labor contract would need to be analyzed
relative to possible relocation or displacement. The result is that savings will certainly
not be as direct as the table above implies.

25

Hypothetical Cost of Contracting by Facility (FY2007 Expenditures)
Facility
Chittenden (S. Burlington)
Northeast(St. Johnsbury)
Marble Valley (Rutland)
Work Camp (St. Johnsbury)
Northern (Newport)
Northwest (St. Albans)
Southern(Springfield)
Dale (Waterbury)
Southeast (Windsor)
TOTALS (Instate)
Out-of-State (CCA)

Average
Daily
Population
181
141
143
98
362
245
346
60
105
1681
519

Total FY2007
Expenditures
$
8,583,779
$
6,843,708
$
7,068,527
$
3,969,879
$ 14,350,428
$ 11,898,637
$ 14,994,612
$
4,024,916
$
5,091,211
$ 76,825,696
$ 11,002,508

Per capita
Cost
$
47,424
$
48,537
$
49,430
$
40,509
$
39,642
$
48,566
$
43,337
$
67,082
$
48,488
$
45,702
$
21,199

Cost if Outsourced
@ $21,199 per
cap
$
3,837,019
$
2,989,059
$
3,031,457
$
2,077,502
$
7,674,038
$
5,193,755
$
7,334,854
$
1,271,940
$
2,225,895
$
35,635,519
$
11,002,281

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Net Savings
4,746,760
3,854,649
4,037,070
1,892,377
6,676,390
6,704,882
7,659,758
2,752,976
2,865,316
41,190,177
-

Rough Costs -- does not address unforseen expenses including transition costs and costs of mothballing facilities

Projected Contract Costs (CCA -- New England Option @$80/Day)
Hypothetical Cost of Contracting by Facility (FY2010 Projections)
FY2007
Average
Estimated
Estimated Cost if Outsourced
Daily
FY2010
Per capita
@ $29,204 per
Facility
Population
Expenditures
Cost
cap
Chittenden (S. Burlington)*
181
$ 10,360,011 $
57,238 $
5,285,200
Northeast(St. Johnsbury)*
141
$
8,259,869 $
58,581 $
4,117,200
Marble Valley (Rutland)*
143
$
8,531,210 $
59,659 $
4,175,600
Work Camp (St. Johnsbury)*
98
$
4,791,362 $
48,891 $
2,861,600
Northern (Newport)*
362
$ 17,319,948 $
47,845 $
10,570,400
Northwest (St. Albans)*
245
$ 14,360,810 $
58,616 $
7,154,000
Southern(Springfield)*
346
$ 18,097,432 $
52,305 $
10,103,200
Dale (Waterbury)*
60
$
4,857,787 $
80,963 $
1,752,000
Southeast (Windsor)*
105
$
6,144,730 $
58,521 $
3,066,000
TOTALS (Instate)*
1681
$ 92,723,161 $
55,160 $
49,085,200
Out-of-State (CCA)**
519
$ 12,022,737 $
23,165 $
15,154,800
*2010 costs estimated at 6.47% growth per year for VT facilities
**2010 costs estimated at 3.0% growth per current contract

Estimated Net
Savings
$
5,074,811
$
4,142,669
$
4,355,610
$
1,929,762
$
6,749,548
$
7,206,810
$
7,994,232
$
3,105,787
$
3,078,730
$
43,637,961
$
(3,132,063)

Of course the cost differential between Vermont-based prisons and out-of-state
providers could change. If Corrections Corporation of America raised its rates from the
current $58.08 per diem, any savings would decrease. If the costs of Vermont’s Union
contract escalated, the savings would increase. CCA has expressed an interest in
siting a facility in New Hampshire. If CCA were to build a facility for Vermont inmates,
CCA estimates per diem costs will be in the vicinity of $80, to include amortization of
new construction.
A single facility to house all of Vermont’s overcrowding would involve consolidating all of
the out of state population in a single facility. Were that the solution, the inmates who
are currently in Kentucky would be relocated to this new facility, at a new higher rate,
reducing potential savings.
26

Percapita Cost Comparison
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010

Vermont vs Corrections Corporation of America
Vermont (1)
CCA (2)
CCA - NH (3)
actual
$
46,207 $
20,200
est
$
49,197 $
21,170
proj
$
52,380 $
21,805 $
28,470
proj
$
55,769 $
22,458 $
29,382

(1) Vermont est. at avg growth last 4 years 6.47%
(2) CCA at contract inflation of 3.0%
(3) CCA NH est for new facility in, e.g., New Hampshire

The rate of growth of Vermont per capita costs has been 6 ½ % over the past several
years. The CCA contract inflation rate is 3%. However, at renewal of contracts, that
rate is subject to negotiation and subject to supply and demand.
The Out-of-State contract rates are subject to supply and demand and have dropped
when prison capacity was plentiful and risen substantially when capacity was scarce.
Nonetheless, the 2007-2008 CCA rate of $58.00 is below the New Jersey County and
State of Virginia rates paid in the late 1990s.
Given the cost comparison, the issues then become: which facility or facilities to close,
modernize or expand? What are the collateral effects? Can eligible inmates be
identified, and what current selection criteria must be altered?
•

Plan C: Re-Task Several Facilities

The legislative charge suggests the third approach. This requires consideration of not
simply closing, but re-tasking facilities with new populations or missions in response to
the changing demands for incarceration and in conjunction with the closing of some
capacities, expansion of other capacities, and community alternatives.
There are a number of different understandings of the problem. The correctional
facilities serve multiple populations and functions, and intersect with the interests of the
criminal justice system, law enforcement, cities and towns, victims, families of offenders,
advocates, and taxpayers. Each of these stakeholders has a valid interest in
Vermont’s current and future correctional system.
Each correctional facility has its own patchwork of idiosyncrasies of structure and
operation that make it more or less feasible to expand, re-task, or reduce capacity.
There is no single standard. In addition, simply moving populations around does not
create any additional capacity.

27

The next section of this report examines the possible changes for each facility and the
resulting consequences or complications. At the end of this section we present three
specific scenarios for facility savings.

A.

Analysis of Facilities – Population and Potential for Change
Intakes at Facilities, 2005

Name
Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility
Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility
Northeast Regional Correctional Facility
Northern State Correctional Facility
Northwest State Correctional Facility
Southern State Correctional Facility
Dale State Correctional Facility
Southeast State Correctional Facility

Abbreviation
CRCF
MVRCF
NERCF
NSCF
NWSCF
SSCF
DSCF
SESCF

Location
% Total
% Total
Women
Men
S. Burlington
384
41%
1435
30%
Rutland
168
18%
966
20%
St. Johnsbury
92
10%
715
15%
Newport
28
3%
213
5%
Swanton
5
1%
433
9%
Springfield
129
14%
877
19%
Waterbury
42
4%
74
2%
Windsor
95
10%
0
0%
totals
943
100%
4713
100%
Counts only earliest intake of unique person during year.

This table depicts the flow of inmates and detainees into the facilities of first lodging.
Both women and men are lodged by law enforcement at the closest facility and
transported to the appropriate facility at State (DOC) expense. It should be noted that
there are only 1,716 beds available in the nine Vermont facilities, 1,551 for men and 178
for women. Clearly, the population of these facilities turns over many times during the
year.
1. Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CRCF) in S. Burlington
The facility is significantly under-built to serve the substantial needs of the county. In a
representative recent count, only 19% of the inmates sentenced in Chittenden Court
were housed in CRCF (S. Burlington). Chittenden County generates far more inmates
then it has prison beds. The following table counts charges, not individuals, so inmates
with charges in more than one county will be multiply counted.
Inmate Population by Court of Charges, September 26, 2007
Chittenden
Franklin
Grand Isle
Northwest

CCCC
151
12
4
167

NECF
153
22
6
181

NESC
41
6
1
48

NWCF
80
85
5
170

RCCC
5

SJCC
11
2

SSCF
47
15

5

13

62

OOS
214
55
10
279

DSCF
35
11
2
48

WCF
41
13
54

Total
778
221
28
1027

Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle Courts have contributed 1,027 charges for inmates
of the system. This level of court activity requires a capacity for processing that far
exceeds that of this facility.
CRCF was opened in 1975 and has a rated capacity of 156 beds. The gymnasium,
which was converted to a housing unit, has held up to an additional 38 inmates under a
court-ordered cap of 197 inmates. The “house” unit (54 beds) was renovated in the
late 1990’s. The general condition of the remainder of the facility is poor. The housing
units are small, requiring costly higher staff ratios. Lines of sight on corridors are
terrible, requiring additional posts. With an average annual population in FY2007 of
181, per capita annual costs were $47,424.
28

•

Inmate Risk Profile

Very few low risk sentenced offenders are housed at CRCF. The distribution of violent,
property, and drug felons is similar to the total incarcerated population, but the number
of “miscellaneous” (including offenses like perjury and escape) felons is somewhat
higher, likely due to a larger population in community supervision, resulting in more
furlough violations for escape.
The recidivism percentages indicated below is the relative risk of offenders with LSI
scores in the risk range committing and being convicted of a new offense, not risk of
any particular kind of behavior.

Offense Level

Offense Level

Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (So. Burlington)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->47)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
2
8
21
7
3
F-Prop/Drug
8
14
4
3
F-Misc
1
5
9
3
Felony Total
3
21
44
14
6
M-Violent
2
5
1
M-Misc
2
4
1
Misd Total
4
9
2
3
25
53
16
6
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
2%
8%
20%
7%
3%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
8%
14%
4%
3%
F-Misc
1%
5%
9%
3%
0%
Felony Total
3%
20%
43%
14%
6%
M-Violent
0%
2%
5%
1%
0%
M-Misc
0%
2%
4%
1%
0%
Misd Total
0%
4%
9%
2%
0%
3%
24%
51%
16%
6%
Total

•

Total
41
29
18
88
8
7
15
103
Total
40%
28%
17%
85%
8%
7%
15%
100%

Function: Detention

As a regional facility, CRCF’s role is to serve the needs of the northwest region for
detention. There were 47 detainees from Chittenden Court in the facility on the day
surveyed. There were 19 elsewhere in the entire system.
DETAINEE POPULATION BY FACILITY AND COURT

COURT
Chittenden
Franklin
Grand Isle
NORTHWEST

Chittenden St Albans

7/27/2007
MALE HOUSING
Work
St.
Newport
Camp
Johnsbury

47
1

7
16

1

48

23

1

8

FEMALE HOUSING
Marble
Valley

Springfield

Dale

Windsor

3
2

8

3

2

Total
66
19
0
85

29

While the facility serves primarily male inmates, admissions and booking of women
creates an average of one or two female beds occupied daily. Detainees from
Chittenden Court are also housed in other facilities, but recent improvements in court
processing efficiencies have greatly reduced detainee housing demand in Chittenden
County.
•

Function: Reentry

CRCF provides a transitional unit for offenders reentering the Chittenden County area
after serving sentences or periods of sanction for violation of furlough. Offenders in this
unit are nearing release and are spending their time finding housing, securing work, and
reconnecting with the community.
•

Expansion of Capacity

CRCF’s facility footprint does not allow for expansion. According to the Vermont
Department of Buildings & General Services (BGS), the foundation construction does
not allow expanding by adding stories on top of the existing building. The facility is
located in a highly developed, dense area of South Burlington. There is no additional
land available on site.
•

Renovation

CRCF is in relatively poor shape. The design of sight lines and security structures
make it barely functional from a correctional perspective. Other major maintenance
necessary for the facility’s continued use includes security fencing, roof security, and
sewage. There is a significant problem with the sewer lines under the facility,
contaminating shower drains. Windows in many areas need replacement. Major
kitchen renovations estimated at $150,000 to $300,000 would be needed, plus an
extensive security upgrade to glass and locks.
Currently, Sheriff’s transportation vans will not fit into CRCF’s garage, so the door must
be left open while offenders are being unloaded from the van. A transport escape last
year occurred partly as a result.
The camera system is in need of replacement with digital systems.
•

Reduction of Capacity

Closing CRCF would eliminate the entry point for a large portion of the inmates in the
Vermont system. CRCF is unquestionably the busiest of the facilities, with fully one
third of all inmates entering Vermont’s corrections system there. Each bed at the facility
is occupied by the equivalent of 25 different people during the year. The two other high
volume facilities, Marble Valley (MVRCF) and St. Johnsbury (NERCF), have fewer beds
and significantly lower turnover. CRCF also functions as the male detention center for
Chittenden, Franklin, and Grand Isle District Courts.
30

•

Change of Role

The legislative charge to this report includes the possible change of role for Chittenden
to serve as a Women’s Correctional Facility, housing all of the women incarcerated in
Vermont. From the opening of the CRCF in South Burlington in 1975, nearly all of the
women incarcerated in Vermont were housed in this facility, co-located with men. This
was increasingly untenable. Dedicated female capacity was added when the Dale
facility was opened in 2002, and after the Southeast State Correctional Facility (SESCF)
was converted to a female facility in 2003.
CRCF provides male detention capacity for law enforcement and the courts in
Chittenden County. Should the facility role change to a women’s correctional facility,
renovation would be required, particularly for the smaller units. The male inmates and
detainees could be moved to Northwest State Correctional Facility (NWSCF) in St.
Albans, and an equivalent number of men from other parts of the system moved to out
of state contract beds. This would require maintaining NWSCF and changing its role
from a central, high security facility to, at least in part, a regional, short term and
detention center. This would further mix long term inmates with a transient population,
creating significant security and contraband issues.
There have been as many as 183 women housed in Vermont facilities as recently as
November, 2006. Absent a significant reduction in the trend of incarceration of women
seen over the past ten years, capacity for women beyond that of CRCF would be
required. Complicating this further is the inadvisability of maintaining the use of CRCF’s
gymnasium as a dormitory, further reducing the useable bed space at the facility as a
women’s facility. While women inmates pose a lower escape and security level than
men, several of them have long sentences, and loss of the program opportunities currently available at SESCF (Windsor) for extended periods would have deleterious effects.
Were the detention function for men reduced or eliminated, detainees would be
transported from various facilities to court in Burlington by Sheriffs. Incapacitated
persons (CRCF provides housing for 50% of all incapacitated persons lodged
statewide) would be transported to NWSCF (St. Albans) by the lodging authority. The
lodging authority, however, would not be likely to return to the facility the next day to
pick up the incapacitated person, requiring transport by family, friends, communityarranged transportation, or DOC personnel. Release planning for reentering male
inmates would be accomplished at a distant facility, making community reintegration
more difficult for these offenders.
Selected Comments of Chittenden County Law Enforcement Relative to Converting the
Chittenden Facility to a Female Facility (see Appendices for full texts)
From the Colchester Police Department - “A quick calculation estimates our department alone would
have traveled an additional 6,515.4 miles and spent 111 additional hours travel time to Northwest verses
CRCC. With the amount of lodgings and incaps needing transport from Chittenden County police
Agencies it seems counterproductive to further deplete our resources by these significant drains.”
From the South Burlington Police Department - “ …I calculated the impact to my budget at
approximately $18,000 to $20,000 for arrested individuals. “I am strongly opposed to this suggestion and
worry what the trickle down effect would be to other agencies…”

31

From the Chittenden County Sheriff’s Office - “In 2006, the Chittenden County Sheriff’s Office
transported approximately 3,000 inmate transports to Vermont District Courts in Vermont, the majority of
those to the Burlington Courthouse.” “I have spoken about this proposal to the Chittenden County State’s
Attorney, T.J. Donovan and he feels the same as I do…Without going on forever, this is a bad move…”

This facility has an inadequate medical and mental health space and limited work and
program space.
2. Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility (MVRCF) in Rutland
MVRCF (Rutland) was opened in 1979 and has a rated capacity of 118 beds. The
facility is rated as a medium security facility with one minimum-security unit. It has
housed as many as 170 inmates under extreme crowding conditions. With an average
annual population in FY2007 of 143, per capita annual costs were $49,430. With
significant overcrowding, the costs per capita decrease. For example, if the population
were reduced to 118, and expenditures and staffing remained the same, the per capita
cost would be nearly $60,000.
Inmate Population by Court of Charges, September 26, 2007
CCCC
7

Addison
Bennington
Rutland
SouthWest

2
9

•

NECF
16
23
32
71

NESC
5
11
21
37

Male Housing
NWCF
RCCC
3
12
21
41
11
83
35
136

SJCC
1
2
1
4

SSCF
12
37
48
97

OOS
34
51
59
144

Female Housing
DSCF
WCF
2
4
1
6
4
25
7
35

Total
96
193
286
575

Offense Level

Offense Level

Inmate Risk Profile
Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility (Rutland)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->39)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
2
8
17
6
F-Prop/Drug
7
13
3
1
F-Misc
1
3
6
1
Felony Total
3
18
36
9
2
M-Violent
1
1
1
M-Misc
4
1
1
1
Misd Total
5
2
2
1
3
23
38
11
3
Total
% of Facility Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
3%
10%
22%
8%
0%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
9%
17%
4%
1%
F-Misc
1%
4%
8%
0%
1%
Felony Total
4%
23%
46%
12%
3%
M-Violent
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
M-Misc
0%
5%
1%
1%
1%
Misd Total
0%
6%
3%
3%
1%
4%
29%
49%
14%
4%
Total

Total
33
24
11
68
3
7
10
78
Total
42%
31%
14%
87%
4%
9%
13%
100%

32

Inmates at MVRCF are predominantly felons but also of moderate risk levels. This is in
keeping with its role as a reentry facility housing offenders who have completed most of
their sentence. Many of the offenders are returns from field placement on violation or
graduated sanction.
•

Function: Detention
DETAINEE POPULATION BY FACILITY AND COURT

COURT
Addison
Bennington
Rutland
SOUTHWEST

Chittenden St Albans

7/27/2007
MALE HOUSING
St.
Work
Newport
Johnsbury
Camp

1
1
1

1

1
1

FEMALE HOUSING
Marble
Valley

Springfield

3
21
19
43

1
10
30
41

Dale

Windsor

Total

3
3

1
4
5
10

5
36
59
100

The facility serves as the detention center and pre-release center for Bennington,
Rutland, and Addison counties. However, many of the detainees from southwest courts
are also housed in Springfield at the Southern State Correctional Facility.
•

Expansion of Capacity

The facility is built on the grounds of the old House of Correction for Women in Rutland.
As such, it is located in a residential neighborhood and has no room for horizontal
expansion. The Department of Buildings and General Services (BGS) has examined
the potential of vertical expansion, but the costs would be prohibitive.
•

Renovation

MVRCF is in relatively good shape. The vocational training building was built as
temporary housing in 1986 and is in serious need of replacement. It was originally
designed for a 5-year life cycle. Other major maintenance required for the facility’s
continued use includes structural distress issues from 25+ years of use. The facility is
scheduled for replacement by 20215.
•

Reduction of Capacity

MVRCF is the second most active correctional facility with 20% of the total male and
18% of the female intakes processing through the facility. Each bed at the facility is
occupied by the equivalent of 18 different people during the year. The facility also
functions as the detention center for Rutland and Bennington District Courts. There
were 100 detainees from these courts housed system wide. Forty-three were actually
housed at this facility. Given demand, reduction of this facility is not feasible.
•

Change of Role

Like Northeast Regional Correctional Facility (NERCF) in St. Johnsbury, MVRCF is
designed for secure detention and short-sentenced inmates and as a reentry facility for
5

R. Tasha Wallis & Robert D. Hofmann, “Correctional Facilities Infrastructure Assessment,” February
2006.

33

inmates nearing the end of a longer sentence. It is not considered feasible to change
roles for MVRCF or that of NERCF (St. Johnsbury). MVRCF could house all male
detainees from the region at the expense of reentry and violation housing.
3. Northeast Regional Correctional Facility (NERCF) in St. Johnsbury
NERCF (St. Johnsbury) was opened in 1981, and is architecturally a near twin to the
MVRCF (Rutland). It is rated as a medium security facility with a minimum-security unit.
The operational capacity is 108 beds, but the facility has housed as many as 165
inmates under extreme conditions in the past. With an average annual population in
FY2007 of 141, per capita annual costs were $48,537. If the population were at
capacity, 108, with no change in staffing, the per capita cost would have been in excess
of $63,000.
Inmate Population by Court of Charges, September 26, 2007
CCCC
1

Caledonia
Essex
Lamoille
Orleans
Washington
Northeast

9
3
2
15

Offense Level

Offense Level

•

NECF
24
4
26
52
26
132

NESC
2
3
5
9
19

NWCF
7
1
15
3
19
45

RCCC
1

1
2

SJCC
38
7
19
6
68
138

SSCF
10
1
8
11
15
45

OOS
31
6
19
37
37
130

DSCF
2
4
3
6
15

WCF
4
1
3
7
3
18

Total
120
20
106
127
186
559

Inmate Risk Profile

Northeast Regional Correctional Facility (St. Johnsbury)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->35)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
1
4
13
8
F-Prop/Drug
2
14
3
F-Misc
1
10
7
2
Felony Total
1
7
37
18
2
M-Violent
1
4
1
M-Misc
2
5
1
Misd Total
3
9
2
1
10
46
20
2
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
1%
5%
16%
10%
0%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
3%
18%
4%
0%
F-Misc
0%
1%
13%
9%
3%
Felony Total
1%
9%
47%
23%
3%
M-Violent
0%
1%
5%
1%
0%
M-Misc
0%
3%
6%
1%
0%
Misd Total
0%
4%
11%
3%
0%
1%
13%
58%
25%
3%
Total

Total
26
19
20
65
6
8
14
79
Total
33%
24%
25%
82%
8%
10%
18%
100%

The sentenced population at NERCF (St. Johnsbury) is predominantly felon, but has a
smaller proportion of violent offenders than the rest of the male system.
34

•

Function: Detention
DETAINEE POPULATION BY FACILITY AND COURT

COURT
Caledonia
Essex
Lamoille
Orleans
Washington
NORTHEAST

Chittenden St Albans

7/27/2007
MALE HOUSING
St.
Work
Newport
Johnsbury
Camp

2

15
2
6

1
3

15
38

1
1
2

4
2
4
9
19

FEMALE HOUSING
Marble
Valley

Springfield

1
1
1
2
3
8

Dale

1
2
3

Windsor

1
1

Total
22
5
12
13
22
74

The facility serves as the detention center and pre-release center for Caledonia, Essex,
Lamoille, Orleans, and Washington counties. Offenders from the Orleans area are
housed in Northern State Correctional Facility (NSCF) in Newport for the convenience
of the court.
•

Expansion of Capacity

NERCF has land for expansion. The Caledonia Community Work Camp (CCWC) is in
fact located on the grounds of NERCF, and there is additional space available on state
property to expand either facility. Use of this space would impinge on the recreation
fields for the two facilities. Expanding the existing regional facility would be complicated
given the construction design. Like MVRCF (Rutland), NERCF is a medium security
design. Additions would not be easy. Stand-alone additions are, however, feasible
given the land available and the mutually beneficial relationship developed with the local
community.
•

Renovation

While the facility is in reasonably good physical condition, there are accumulated
maintenance needs at this facility, because of 25+ years of service.
•

Reduction of Capacity

NERCF serves the courts of Caledonia, Essex, Orleans, Lamoille, and Washington
counties. Only half of the detainees housed in DOC from those counties are actually
housed in NERCF.
DOC receives 15% of the total male and 10% of the female intakes processing through
the NERCF. Each bed at the facility is occupied by the equivalent of 12 different people
during the year. The facility also functions as the detention center for Caledonia, Essex,
Lamoille, Orleans, and Washington District Courts. Given the demand, reduction of
this facility is not feasible.
•

Change of Role

Like, MVRCF (Rutland), the NERCF is designed for secure detention and shortsentenced inmates and as a reentry facility for inmates nearing the end of a longer
sentence. It is not presently feasible to change role for this facility.
35

4. Northwest State Correctional Facility (NWSCF) in St. Albans
NWSCF (St. Albans) was originally opened as a Young Adult Offender Diagnostic and
Treatment Facility in 1968, with 40 beds. After the closing of Windsor Prison in 1975,
the facility was double-bunked and converted to the (then) most secure facility for the
state with the addition of D & E Wings. The facility was expanded in 1984 with the
addition of three units (F, G, and H) totaling 90 beds for housing sex offenders, and
again in 1990 with I and J units adding 50 beds, for a total of 242 beds.

Offense Level

Offense Level

•

Inmate Risk Profile

Northwest State Correctional Facility (Swanton)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->29)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
8
31
61
29
4
F-Prop/Drug
1
9
17
12
2
F-Misc
6
12
1
Felony Total
9
46
90
42
6
M-Violent
1
4
1
1
M-Misc
4
8
Misd Total
5
12
1
1
9
51
102
43
7
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
4%
15%
29%
14%
2%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
4%
8%
6%
1%
F-Misc
0%
3%
6%
0%
0%
Felony Total
4%
22%
42%
20%
3%
M-Violent
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
M-Misc
0%
2%
4%
0%
0%
Misd Total
0%
2%
6%
0%
0%
4%
24%
48%
20%
3%
Total

•

Total
133
41
19
193
7
12
19
212
Total
63%
19%
9%
91%
3%
6%
9%
100%

Function: Secure Treatment

NWSCF houses a population of sex offenders in treatment or awaiting treatment, and
other serious criminals. One quarter of the inmates score in the highest risk profiles;
and two thirds have committed violent felony offenses. Inmates at Northwest generally
are participating in treatment programs or in Vermont Correctional Industries (“VCI”),
which provides productive inmate activities as well as providing printing services for
state and local government. A very small number of inmates are convicted of low
severity offenses, largely housed as overflow from CRCF (S. Burlington).
•

Function: Detention

NWSCF houses 35-40 detainees, about half of whom are from Franklin Court. The rest
are lodged under contract with the Federal U.S. Marshal, who has no prison space in
Vermont, though many Vermonters are arrested by the Federal Government.
36

Northwest State Population by Court
Add Benn Rutl Chit Fran Gr Is Caled Essx Lamo Orln Wash Oran Winm Wins
3
21
11 80 85
5
7
1
15
3
19
5
9
7

Unk Total Undup.
37 308
237

•

Expansion of Capacity

NWSCF has significant room for expansion, with a 160-acre, wooded site. The facility
is seriously deteriorated and the 1969 core facility structures are “obsolete and almost
unserviceable.”6
•

Renovation

Numerous upgrades have been made to the facility, but “programmatically the facility is
barely serviceable”7. Correctional programming and space utilization are extremely
inefficient.
•

Reduction of Capacity

While discrete units of the facility could be closed, incremental or resulting savings, as
discussed earlier, would be minor. Significant renovation would require closing the
entire facility given the configuration of inmate movement requirements. The facility
could be closed entirely which would require finding space for Franklin county detainees
within the existing instate system and placing the residual sentenced population in out
of state contract housing.
However, finding sufficient inmates who meet the criteria for going out of state would be
difficult, likely requiring eliminating the criteria for age, for example, that restricts
inmates who attend the Community High School of Vermont or those who participate in
Vermont Offender Work Programs from being sent. We currently send inmates with as
short a sentence to serve as 60 days, and might have to shorten this window even
further, or curtail the reentry window served in Vermont prisons.
In addition, closing this facility would necessitate finding a facility to host the sex
offender treatment program. This requires both space and access to qualified treatment
contractors.
Per capita cost for FY2007 was $48,566.
•

Change of Role

With some renovation, NWSCF could be converted to a secure women’s facility serving
a statewide women’s population. The facility is located north of Chittenden County, the
source of many women currently admitted to the Corrections system at CRCF (South
Burlington). Even after closing the least serviceable units, the remaining 200 beds
would be adequate for housing women for some time into the future. Any unused space
could be used to house female offenders from other New England states (New
Hampshire has expressed interest in the past).
6

R. Tasha Wallis & Robert D. Hofmann, “Correctional Facilities Infrastructure Assessment,” February,
2006
7
R. Tasha Wallis & Robert D. Hofmann, “Correctional Facilities Infrastructure Assessment,” February,
2006

37

The grounds also have room for significant expansion. The land would allow, for
example, a work camp to serve the northwest region of the state, with separate housing
from either the current population of men, or a re-tasked women’s facility.
The US Marshal has indicated an interest in acquiring more bed space from DOC. This
option is discussed later.

5. Southern State Correctional Facility (SSCF) in Springfield
The population at SSCF (Springfield) consists of a mixture of southeast region
detainees, inmates awaiting transfer out of state and returning from out of state, a small
number of aged and infirm inmates, and a significant population of inmates with mental
illness. Half of the population has a diagnosis of mental illness; most of the seriously
mentally ill inmates are housed here. The facility houses both the acute care unit with a
population of 16 and the transitional housing unit for inmates with mental illness.
The facility staff have distinguished themselves by effectively supervising offenders who
pose unmanageable disciplinary issues in other Vermont facilities.
Southern State Correctional Facility
Add Benn Rutl Chit Fran Gr Is Caled Essx Lamo Orln Wash Oran Winm Wins
12
37
48 47 15
10
1
8
11
15
21
103
83

Unk Total Undup.
38 449
345

The demand for housing from the southeast region has been growing, in particular from
Windham County.
Inmate Population by Court of Charges, September 26, 2007
CCCC
Orange
Windham
Windsor
Southeast

1
1
2

NECF
7
18
11
36

NESC
1
7
5
13

NWCF
5
9
7
21

RCCC
1
1
3
5

SJCC
8
2
4
14

SSCF
21
103
83
207

OOS
13
72
37
122

DSCF
1
3
5
9

WCF
13
4
17

Total
57
229
160
446

The consequence is that the facility housed inmates from nearly every court in Vermont.

38

Inmate Risk Profile

Offense Level

Offense Level

•

•

Southern State Correctional Facility (Springfield)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->83)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3% 76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High Highest
F-Violent
13
42
51
27
4
F-Prop/Drug
11
26
13
7
F-Misc
1
8
13
3
Felony Total
14
61
90
43
11
M-Violent
1
4
10
1
M-Misc
7
2
2
1
Misd Total
1
11
12
3
1
15
72
102
46
12
Total
% of Facility Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High Highest
F-Violent
5%
17%
21%
11%
2%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
4%
11%
5%
3%
F-Misc
0%
3%
5%
1%
0%
Felony Total
6%
25%
36%
17%
4%
M-Violent
0%
2%
4%
0%
0%
M-Misc
0%
3%
1%
1%
0%
Misd Total
0%
4%
5%
1%
0%
6%
29%
41%
19%
5%
Total

Total
137
57
25
219
16
12
28
247
Total
55%
23%
10%
89%
6%
5%
11%
100%

Function: Secure Treatment

The sentenced population at SSCF is of higher risk level and violent offense than any
other facility. The facility also provides housing for inmates with diagnoses of mental
illness in the department, and provides a medical care facility, and units for mental
health care.
•

Function: Detention

SSCF serves as the detention facility serving the Orange, Windsor, and Windham
Courts.
DETAINEE POPULATION BY FACILITY AND COURT

COURT
Orange
Windham
Windsor
SOUTHEAST

Chittenden St Albans

7/27/2007
MALE HOUSING
St.
Work
Newport
Johnsbury
Camp

2
1
1

1
3

FEMALE HOUSING
Marble
Valley

Springfield

9
20
26
55

Dale

Windsor

Total

1

12
20
30
62

2
3

39

•

Expansion of Capacity

This is a logical facility to expand. The facility opened in 2003 and was designed for
expansion to accommodate at least one more 150-bed unit. SSCF has modern security
and electronics. The site has been fitted up for expansion of the facility.
The additional bed space would further increase the economies of scale provided by the
existing design and configuration of the facility. Any expansion of the facility should
include additional program and workspace, since there is already limited activity for
inmates, let alone for an expanded population. Kitchen and dining hall facilities might
also need an upgrade for the expanded population.
•

Renovation

Renovation of this facility is not necessary. However, the co-generation heating plant
built into the original design has not been put into operation as planned, and a new
energy plant should be considered for long-term needs.
•

Reduction of Capacity

Per capita cost for FY2007 was $43,337, making SSCF among the most efficient
facilities. It would be unwise to reduce capacity at the facility given that it houses many
extremely difficult-to-manage offenders. To the contrary, expansion of the capacity of
this facility would reduce per capita costs.
•

Change of Role

SSCF was designed as a modern secure program facility to house special populations
and those requiring higher security and intervention. It would be inappropriate to
change the role of this facility, although the utilization of the facility for mentally ill and
otherwise difficult populations would be expandable.

6. Northern State Correctional Facility (NSCF) in Newport
Built in 1994, NSCF (Newport) houses a significant number of offenders from
Chittenden County. It also serves as a detention center for Orleans Court. The facility
is of medium security configuration, with 385 beds. The facility houses an array of
treatment programs, and is a flagship for the Community High School of Vermont and
the Habits of Mind program.
Northern State Correctional Facility
Add Benn Rutl Chit Fran Gr Is Caled Essx Lamo Orln Wash Oran Winm Wins
16
23
32 153 22
6
24
4
26
52
26
7
18
11

Unk Total Undup.
346
18 438

40

•

Inmate Risk Profile

Offense Level

Offense Level

The profile of inmates at this facility shows a much higher proportion of drug/property
felons than at other facilities, including SSCF (Springfield) and NWSCF (St. Albans).
Northern State Correctional Facility (Newport)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->21)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
5
33
68
19
9
F-Prop/Drug
22
55
30
4
F-Misc
1
5
10
2
Felony Total
6
60
133
51
13
M-Violent
5
13
8
2
M-Misc
1
5
12
4
1
Misd Total
1
10
25
12
3
7
70
158
63
16
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
2%
11%
22%
6%
3%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
7%
18%
10%
1%
F-Misc
0%
2%
3%
1%
0%
Felony Total
2%
19%
42%
16%
4%
M-Violent
0%
2%
4%
3%
1%
M-Misc
0%
2%
4%
1%
0%
Misd Total
0%
3%
8%
4%
1%
2%
22%
50%
20%
5%
Total

•

Total
134
111
18
263
28
23
51
314
Total
43%
35%
6%
84%
9%
7%
16%
100%

Function: Secure Treatment

The facility role is to serve as the program center for youthful offenders, for offenders in
Habits of Mind programs, and for offenders in the Cognitive Self Change Program. The
proportion of violent offenders is lower than the other central facilities. The facility also
houses a number of older inmates serving long sentences.
•

Function: Detention

The facility houses approximately 32 detainees, most on serious charges and including
eight detainees from Orleans Court.
•

Expansion of Capacity

The Facility was expanded in 2000, adding 116 beds. The grounds could
accommodate an additional unit, but there are grade and wetland issues that restrict
substantial expansion.
41

•

Renovation

This facility is in good shape with modern construction. No significant renovation is
required aside from the deterioration of several of the roofs.
•

Reduction of Capacity

The economies that could be achieved with reductions of less than the entire facility
would be minimal. NSCF is one of the more efficient prisons in the state.
Per capita cost for FY2007 was $39,642.
•

Change of Role

The facility is designed as program-intensive housing. Conversion to secure housing
with minimal programming could reduce costs in the short term, but would likely result in
increased security staffing to offset the security benefits of providing programming to
willing inmates.
7. Caledonia Community Work Camp (CCWC) in St. Johnsbury
The work camp is relatively new, built in 1994 as an innovative model of correctional
facility for Vermont. It houses non-violent offenders in minimum-security settings,
participating in community service work crews, education, and substance abuse
treatment. The majority of the inmates are not on-site during the day. The facility
houses up to 100 male offenders.

Offense Level

Offense Level

•

Inmate Risk Profile

Caledonia County Work Camp (St. Johnsbury)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->1)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
13
32
3
2
F-Misc
2
21
13
Felony Total
2
34
45
3
2
M-Violent
M-Misc
2
5
3
1
Misd Total
2
5
3
1
4
39
48
4
2
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
F-Prop/Drug
0%
13%
33%
3%
2%
F-Misc
2%
22%
13%
0%
0%
Felony Total
2%
35%
46%
3%
2%
M-Violent
M-Misc
2%
5%
3%
1%
0%
Misd Total
2%
5%
3%
1%
0%
4%
40%
49%
4%
2%
Total

Total
50
36
86
11
11
97
Total
52%
37%
89%
11%
11%
100%

42

The profile of the work camp population is distinctively different from all other male
facilities, in that there are generally no violent offenders, either felony or misdemeanant,
at the facility. There are also very few high-risk offenders. This is consistent with the
role of the facility. However, there are also very few low risk (to re-offend) offenders
due to the high proportion of substance abusers among the population. People with low
re-offense rates generally serve their time in the community.
•

Function: Work Camp

The Work Camp provides non-violent inmates the opportunity to make amends for their
criminal acts by performing unpaid work services for communities and non-profit
organizations surrounding the facility.
•

Function: Detention – N/A

There are no detainees at the work camp.
•

Expansion of Capacity

The Work Camp is located on the grounds of NERCF (St. Johnsbury). The current
facility could easily be expanded by approximately 20 beds, requiring modest renovation
and the addition of ten bunk beds. There is sufficient space on the grounds for more
significant expansion. An additional unit could be placed on the site, enhancing
operating efficiencies. This is further discussed in following sections.
•

Renovation

The facility is in good shape, requiring modest improvements in drainage.
•

Reduction of Capacity

The inmates at this facility are the “safest” in the incarceration system (generally none
are serving on violent charges), and could well be placed in the community. The facility
could then be closed. However, these inmates are less likely to succeed in the
community given substance abuse issues combined with work skill and experience
deficits. The facility also enjoys the best DOC/Community relations in the system, due
to the very large contribution of labor provided to the Town of St. Johnsbury and
surrounding communities.
Per capita cost for FY2007 was $40,509, but since inmates get 2-for-1 credit for time
served, the effective cost is half this.
•

Change of Role

The facility cannot accommodate a higher security offender, but could be converted to a
women’s facility (work camp or therapeutic community).
43

8. Southeast State Correctional Facility (SESCF) in Windsor
This facility is the oldest correctional facility still in operation in Vermont with buildings
dating back to 1935. In 2003, with the opening of the SSCF (Springfield), SESCF
(Windsor) was emptied and converted to women’s housing. The facility is minimum
security with an open dormitory security configuration. The capacity of the facility is 104
beds, and the average population housed exceeded this number in FY2007.
The per capita cost for FY2007 was $48,488.

Offense Level

Offense Level

•

Inmate Risk Profile

Southeast State Correctional Facility (Windsor)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->22)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
1
9
5
4
F-Prop/Drug
1
11
11
10
3
F-Misc
3
1
3
1
1
Felony Total
5
21
19
15
4
M-Violent
1
3
M-Misc
1
3
2
Misd Total
1
4
5
5
22
23
20
4
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
1%
12%
7%
5%
0%
F-Prop/Drug
1%
15%
15%
14%
4%
F-Misc
4%
1%
4%
1%
1%
Felony Total
7%
28%
26%
20%
5%
M-Violent
0%
0%
1%
4%
0%
M-Misc
0%
1%
4%
3%
0%
Misd Total
0%
1%
5%
7%
0%
7%
30%
31%
27%
5%
Total

Total
19
36
9
64
4
6
10
74
Total
26%
49%
12%
86%
5%
8%
14%
100%

The population of this facility is of very low violence, with more than two-thirds of the
women convicted of non-violent offenses. The recidivism risk profile is somewhat
higher than that of men. There are a small number of low risk women, convicted of
felonies, housed at the facility.
o Function: Treatment for Women
The facility provides correctional treatment programs and gender-specific treatment
programs for women. The facility also houses a large component of the Vermont
Correctional Industries, including Vermont State license plate and highway sign
manufacture. The facility does not provide secure general population confinement
above a minimum-security level.
44

o Function: Detention
While originally designated in 2003 as a facility for sentenced women only, the facility
now houses 18 detainees, two thirds of the women detained.
DETAINEE POPULATION BY FACILITY AND COURT
7/27/2007

COURT

Add

Benn

Rutl

Dale
Windsor

1

4

3
5

Totals

1

4

8

•

Chit Frank Gr Is

Cale

Essx

Lam

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

Orl

Wash Orng Wdm Wdsr Other

1
1

2

2

2

1

1

0

Total

2

2
2

8
18

2

4

26

Expansion of Capacity

The facility sits on 900 acres of state land, and has a sewer/water extension to the site.
The grounds are well suited to significant expansion. With adequate and complete
separation, both male and female housing could be added. Recruitment of staff for an
expanded facility in this labor market could be problematic.
The facility infrastructure and deterioration make including demolition of the existing
plant a consideration during any significant expansion.
•

Renovation

The main building is programmatically obsolete. Many of the outbuildings are suitable
for ongoing program use. Renovation of the existing main building (built in 1935) is not
advisable. A second fence is required to meet basic standards for security.
•

Reduction of Capacity

Given the demand for women’s housing at the current time, and obvious economies of
scale, reduction of capacity is not feasible.
•

Change of Role

Any change of role for SESCF is contingent on finding alternate housing for the women
inmates. Compared to male populations, women in prison do not pose as significant a
threat of violence or escape. This reality should be addressed in developing either
alternative placements or facility housing. Their main risk is for re-offense and selfharming behaviors such as drug abuse, but not of substantial violence to staff or other
inmates.
SESCF could readily be converted back to a minimum-security male facility. The facility
could house any kind of offense severity, as it is a closed facility. However, the present
security level and architecture of the facility restricts it to only minimum security, prosocial male inmates. This would be an ideal site for a work camp, or an Offender Work
Program male facility. The site is suitable for further expansion.
45

9. Dale State Correctional Facility (DSCF) in Waterbury
DSCF (Waterbury) was converted from a component of the Vermont State Hospital in
2001 as a first step to respond to the growth of female inmates. It is a medium security
facility for women, with four booking detention beds on the ground floor occasionally
used for male incapacitated persons or for overnight lodgings.
Inmate Risk Profile

Offense Level

Offense Level

•

Dale State Correctional Facility (Waterbury)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->15)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
1
1
2
2
1
F-Prop/Drug
3
10
7
F-Misc
2
1
Felony Total
1
4
14
10
1
M-Violent
1
4
M-Misc
1
2
1
1
Misd Total
2
6
1
1
1
6
20
11
2
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
3%
3%
5%
5%
3%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
8%
25%
18%
0%
F-Misc
0%
0%
5%
3%
0%
Felony Total
3%
10%
35%
25%
3%
M-Violent
0%
3%
10%
0%
0%
M-Misc
0%
3%
5%
3%
3%
Misd Total
0%
5%
15%
3%
3%
3%
15%
50%
28%
5%
Total

Total
7
20
3
30
5
5
10
40
Total
18%
50%
8%
75%
13%
13%
25%
100%

As with SESCF (Windsor), the profile of women at DSCF shows a very low proportion of
violence with a consequential very high proportion of non-violent offenses. The
recidivism risk profile, however, shows many high-risk offenders. This is in keeping with
the serious substance abuse and mental health issues exhibited by the women’s
population. Vermont facilities are not geared to female inmates serving long terms.
Windsor is not secure enough, and Dale is too confined. As a result, there are three
Vermont women inmates convicted of serious violent crimes currently serving time in
other states through the Interstate Compact.
•

Function: Special Housing

The Dale Facility houses women with special housing needs, including mental health
needs, and need for secure housing, as well as a population of inmates reentering the
northwest part of the state.
46

•

Function: Detention

Few detainees are housed at DSCF. On the particular snapshot day, there were no
women detained from Chittenden Court.
•

Expansion of Capacity

The facility fills the capacity of the site. Further expansion is extremely problematic as
the rest of the available plant is not well suited for use as a correctional facility.
•

Renovation

Similarly, the investment in renovation of existing office sites would be prohibitive. In
addition, connection to other buildings would be difficult.
•

Reduction of Capacity

Per capita cost for FY2007 was $67,082. This is the most expensive facility in the
system, per capita, and merits special attention. The per capita cost in FY2005 was
more than $72,000, and has come down only due to expansion of the numbers housed
with the addition of 16 mental health beds in 2005. Further reduction in use would drive
up the per capita costs.
•

Change of Role

The role of DSCF could be developed as a special housing center for women inmates.
The facility is not suited to long term stay due to the limited yard and program space.
With sufficient bed space alternatives to house the women inmate population, the most
cost-beneficial change of role would be to close the facility as correctional housing. It
may be possible to convert the facility to transitional housing, but operational costs will
continue to be prohibitive due to the tiny scale.
However, the use of DSCF as a specialized facility serving the mental health and cooccurring substance abuse issues presented by a significant number of women in the
system is an expensive possibility. Some 54% of the incarcerated women have a
diagnosis of mental illness, but specialization would likely increase per capita costs.
DSCF is not suitable for housing male inmates, particularly those with mental illness,
who can be significantly violent and disruptive.

10. Out of State Contract Beds (Corrections Corporation of America)
The Vermont Department of Corrections began using out of state beds under contract in
1998, first with a county Sheriff in Monmouth, New Jersey, later contracting for
expanded bedspace from the State of Virginia. In 2003, due to increasing cost
47

pressures, the contract was put out to bid and was awarded (at reduced cost) to
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).
There are inmates from every court in Vermont housed out of state.
Out of State (Contract) Facilities
Add Benn Rutl Chit Fran Gr Is Caled Essx Lamo Orln Wash Oran Winm Wins
34
51
59 214 55
10
31
6
19
37
37
13
72
37

•

Unk Total Undup.
551
28 703

Inmate Risk Profile

Offense Level

Offense Level

The population housed in contract bed space is significantly more violent, and higher
risk, than those housed in Vermont facilities. Fully 62% of these offenders are
convicted of violent felonies, and fully one quarter poses the highest risk of reoffending.
Contracted Housing (CCA)
All Incarcerated any Status - July 27, 2007 (no score-->0)
LSI-R Risk
Recidivism
11.7%
31.1%
48.1%
57.3%
76.0%
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
22
90
152
76
18
F-Prop/Drug
2
32
71
36
7
F-Misc
1
16
21
7
3
Felony Total
25
138
244
119
28
M-Violent
5
9
6
M-Misc
2
2
Misd Total
7
11
6
25
145
255
125
28
Total
% of Whole Population
Low
Low-Mod Moderate
High
Highest
F-Violent
4%
16%
26%
13%
3%
F-Prop/Drug
0%
6%
12%
6%
1%
F-Misc
0%
3%
4%
1%
1%
Felony Total
4%
24%
42%
21%
5%
M-Violent
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
M-Misc
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Misd Total
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
4%
25%
44%
22%
5%
Total

Total
358
148
48
554
20
4
24
578
Total
62%
26%
8%
96%
3%
1%
4%
100%

Moreover, many of these offenders have refused to participate in treatment programs
offered by the DOC. Nevertheless, one quarter of this population is convicted of drug or
property felonies.
•

Function: Detention

No detainees are housed out of state given the necessity of their availability for court
action. The nearest CCA facility is in Lee, Kentucky, about 900 miles away.
•

Expansion of Capacity

The contract with Corrections Corporation of America is expandable, at a set per diem.
The current contract costs $58 per day per inmate. The FY 2007 per capita actual
48

contract cost of these beds was $21,199. Including all Vermont costs for managing the
contract, the per capita cost is $23,481.
Competition from other states for additional (limited) bed space may provide further cost
increases.
For the longer term, CCA is currently engaged in discussions with several communities
in New Hampshire concerning locating facilities in that region, to serve their Northeast
market. A CCA facility located near Vermont’s eastern border would expand the
number of eligible inmates, improve access to programming, and ease the burden of
travel for many Vermont families. The cost, while much lower than Vermont prisons,
would be significantly higher than the CCA prison in Kentucky.
The current facility in Kentucky is an older facility and has been amortized. CCA has
estimated the 2010 price at $78-80 per inmate per day, or $29,200 annually per inmate,
for a commitment of approximately 800 inmates.
To meet this commitment level we would need to transfer and re-price upwards the
number of inmates currently out of state. This will offset much of the savings potential
from closing a Vermont facility and transferring inmates to a CCA facility in New
England.
•

Renovation

Not applicable.
•

Reduction of Capacity

Capacity is generally available, but is impacted by supply brought on-line by prison
operators and demand by State and local jurisdictions.
•

Change of Role

The criteria for inmates accepted for housing at CCA are not likely to change. The CCA
facilities do not accept seriously physically or mentally ill offenders, or offenders whose
behavior is exceptionally disruptive or who cannot conform to rules. In many of CCA
facilities, the classification system is influenced by host state departments of correction,
and has increased levels of criteria for exclusion. This currently requires CCA to place
10% of the Vermont inmates at facilities outside Kentucky.
As such, the role of CCA facilities will not change, only the utilization.

49

B.

Optional Scenarios for Facility Restructuring

Goals:

Maintain bedspace for housing violent offenders, maintain adequate
housing for women, improve efficiency, and reduce costs.

There are several options for achieving the savings in facility costs directed by the
legislature. Each option is complex, involving closing the facility, moving inmates, and
possibly undertaking renovations, which require different timing logistics in order to
accomplish the respective tasks. Any promising options will require significant
additional exploration, analysis, and planning. In particular, minimizing staff dislocations
to the greatest degree possible will require extensive preparation to match impacted
staff with job opportunities with at correctional locations.

OPTION 1: Convert Northwest State into Women’s Facility, then
Close Dale and Windsor
•
•
•
•
•
•

Expand Out-of-State Utilization
Convert Northwest (St. Albans) into Women’s Facility
Close Dale (Waterbury) & Southeast (Windsor)
Expand existing Caledonia Work Camp (St. Johnsbury)
Consider additional Work Camp at Northwest or other community
Consider expanding Southern State (Springfield)

The first option would involve moving the men out of the Northwest Facility (St. Albans),
sending them Out-of-State, renovating that facility, and converting the facility to a
women’s facility. At a minimum, D and E wings at Northwest should be closed.
Program design should include renovation for separate health and mental health special
population housing.
In the second phase, on completion of the renovations, all women would be relocated to
the Northwest Facility (St. Albans), and both Dale (Waterbury) and Southeast (Windsor)
would be closed.
For the male inmates, the Work Camp at St. Johnsbury would be expanded by 20 beds
in the existing structure, and construction of a second dormitory (50-80 beds) initiated.
In the next phase, the Southeast (Windsor) Facility would be renovated, and expanded
to house male inmates. This could be as a work camp or a secure facility. As the
renovation of Northwest is completed, a separate work camp (on the same State
property) for men could be built. As construction is completed, some of the men would
be returned from CCA. These will depend on the impact of any alternatives in diverting
non-violent offenders.
Alternatively, the Southern State (Springfield) facility expansion could be initiated to
provide more secure bedspace.
50

•

•

•

(Step 1) Men
1. Add 20-100 beds at existing St. Johnsbury Work Camp
2. Move up to 240 inmates to CCA
3. Close Northwest (NWSCF, St. Albans)
4. Renovate and re-task NWSCF as Women’s Facility
(Step 2) Women
1. When renovation of NWSCF is complete, move women from Dale
and Windsor to NWSCF
2. Close Dale (Waterbury)
3. Close Southeast (SESCF, Windsor)
(Step 3) Men
1. Renovate SESCF for continuing role as Work Camp or New facility
2. Add 150 bed Housing Unit to Southern State (SSCF, Springfield)
3. Build 100-150 bed Work Camp on Northwest grounds
4. As construction completes, and if population allows, move men
back from out-of-state.

Option 1 Advantages
• Produces savings from Dale Closing in the first year and thereafter, closing the
most financially inefficient facility.
• Produces savings in first year and thereafter from male housing transferred to
CCA
• Locates all women in single facility near Chittenden County
• Provides adequate capacity for women, with room to grow
• Work camps sited on an existing facility property
• Provides seasoned workforce to fill traditional turnover at Chittenden Facility
Option 1 Disadvantages
• Creates substantial staff dislocation
• Finding 240 eligible inmates to go Out-of-State will be extremely difficult
• Creates challenges for equitable allocation of Correctional Industries
• Reliance on Work Camp bedspace and sufficient non-violent population
• Requires substantial capital funding.

OPTION 2: Close Dale and Northwest State
•
•
•
•
•
•

Expand Southeast (Windsor)
Expand Out-of-State Utilization
Close Dale (Waterbury) & Northwest State (St. Albans)
Expand existing Caledonia Work Camp (St. Johnsbury)
Consider additional Work Camp at Northwest or other community
Consider expanding Southern State (Springfield)

51

This option would involve moving the women who are housed at the Dale facility in
Waterbury to the Southeast facility in Windsor. This would require the rapid acquisition
of additional bedspace (about 74 beds) for the Southeast facility (Windsor) or the
development of a community-based secure residential treatment facility.
The Southeast (Windsor) expansion would require additional staffing. Depending on the
number of buildings involved, positions would be transferred from the Dale women’s
facility, though in most cases relocation will be unattractive for staff.
Simultaneously, the St. Johnsbury Work Camp could be readily expanded by about 20
beds with minimal construction. At the same time, the Northwest State facility in St.
Albans would be closed, and an equivalent number of inmates moved out of state to
CCA facilities. The number moved would vary based on the success of any
alternatives implemented from savings.
With capital funding, an additional housing unit could be built on the grounds of the
Southern State Facility (Springfield), and an additional dormitory building added to the
Caledonia Community Work Camp (St. Johnsbury), bringing the total expansion to 70100 beds. These additions would also require staffing, including security, work crew,
and shift supervision. As construction is completed, in whatever stages, some male
inmates would be returned to Vermont. An outline follows:
•

•

Women
1.
2.
3.
4.

Repair Southeast Facility at Windsor housing and admin space.
Acquire additional bedspace at Southeast (Windsor)
Move women from Dale to Southeast (Windsor)
Close the Dale Facility in Waterbury

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Add 20-100 beds at existing St. Johnsbury Work Camp
Move up to 240 inmates to CCA
Close Northwest (St. Albans)
Add 150 bed Housing Unit to Southern (Springfield)
Build 100-150 bed Work Camp on Northwest grounds
As construction completes, and if population allows, move men
back from Out-of-State

Men

Option 2 Advantages
• Produces savings from Dale Closing in the first year and thereafter, closing the
most financially inefficient facility.
• Produces savings from Northwest Closing in the first year and thereafter, closing
a capital-needy facility
• Provides adequate capacity for women
• Work camps sited on an existing facility property
• Provides seasoned workforce to fill traditional turnover at Chittenden Facility

52

Option 2 Disadvantages
• Creates substantial staff dislocation
• Finding 240 eligible inmates to go Out-of-State will be extremely difficult
• Locates all women at Windsor, distant from Chittenden County
• Temporary housing will require a permanent solution
• Windsor facility has specific deficits (segregation, kitchen) that need correction
• Finding 240 eligible inmates to go Out-of-State will be extremely difficult
• Creates challenges for equitable allocation of Correctional Industries
• Reliance on Work Camp bedspace and sufficient non-violent population
• Requires substantial capital funding.

OPTION 3: Close Northwest and Limit Demand
•

Close Northwest and Limit Demand

The third option would close Northwest State Correctional Facility (NWSCF in St.
Albans) and implement legislation to reduce the demand on bedspace. This is similar
to limiting the use of expensive emergency rooms for routine care. The legislation
would restrict the use of State incarceration to Felons. Listed, violent offenders would
have the priority for housing, and resources would be allocated to Counties for the
incarceration of their non-violent felons. This could take the form of legislative
prohibition or financial disincentives. Misdemeanants would become the province of
local government.
Non-violent felons would be placed in the community under intensive supervision and
electronic monitoring (Global Positioning and Alcohol Sensing Technology).
Communities would be allocated base General Fund dollars to provide for misdemeanor
accountability and restitution, via community justice centers.
•

•
•

Statute to restrict Incarceration in State facilities
o Listed Offenders – no restriction
o Non-Listed Felons – County allocation
o Misdemeanants – not allowed in State Facilities
Close Northwest State
o Move 240 men to CCA as program is phased in
Probation/Parole to manage felony non-violent population in community
o Electronic Monitoring
o Enhanced Supervision
o Community Residential treatment

Option 3 Advantages
• Produces savings from Northwest Closing in the first year and thereafter, closing
a capital-needy facility
53

•
•
•
•

Limited long-term CCA costs
Probation/Parole staff have experience with electronics
Creates savings that could be formally shared with localities
Reengages communities in cost control in a large and growing area

Option 3 Disadvantages
• Communities will need to resume a portion of their former role in maintaining
public order.
• Creates staff dislocation
• Probation Parole procedures for supervision on expanded use of electronics will
have ramp-up time
• No backup bedspace for significant increase in violation by released felons.

54

Strategy Two: REDUCE SERVICES
An additional strategy for reducing the costs of Corrections is to reduce the intensity and
frequency of staff involvement. Below are a series of options for reduction in
Corrections costs.

A. Reduce Field Supervision Expense
Field Office Caseload
May 31, 2007
INTENSIVE RISK MANAGEMENT
CASES
High
Admin
POs
Ratio
Risk
Cases
cases
Barre
Bennington
Brattleboro
Burlington'
Newport
Rutland
St. Albans
St. Johnsbury
White River
Totals

490
339
432
1040
141
474
366
228
322
3832

20
25
49
210
47
37
53
43
15
499

13
11
11
29
3
13
9
5
7
101

36.2
28.5
34.8
28.6
31.3
33.6
34.8
37.0
43.9
33.0

RESPONSE SUPERVISION
OTHER
CASES
Ratio
Work
Resp.
Crew
Admin
Total
POs Ratio Crew
Superv.
Chiefs
Cases
Cases
Cases
Cases

504
446
477
1439
358
568
542
459
581
5374

73
88
216
263
11
89
138
53
116
1047

4
4
3
10
2
4
3
2
3
35

91.0
67
83.0
26
70.7
49
108.6 90
138.0 71
116.3 14
127.3 22
157.5 91
131.7 70
109.3 500

1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9

58.5
52.3
64.9
63.6
99.8
61.3
75.7
98.1
90.3
67.7

Hybrid Sites
Chelsea
Middlebury
Lamoille

Totals

316
334
334
984

56
56
32
144

3
3
2
8

86.7
91.7
140.5
105.0

4816

787

105

38.4

0
3
21

5374

1163

38 109.3 524

86.7
91.7
140.5

9

71.3

Caseloads in Corrections Field Services have been reduced substantially in recent
years, due to legislative action creating term probation and initiating a misdemeanor
case review process. The field caseloads are currently divided into two categories of
service:
•

•

Risk Management, which provides intensive supervision of offenders on reentry
furlough from correctional facilities, offenders on intermediate sanctions, and
offenders on parole or probation who pose risk of re-offense. The caseloads for
these staff average 38 cases.
Response Supervision, which provides monitoring of offender compliance with
conditions, and response when violations are reported. The caseloads for these
staff average 109 cases.

55

Option 1: Return Response Supervision Caseloads to 2005 Levels
The average caseload for response supervision staff in 2005 was 194 cases per staffer.
With the implementation of term probation and the caseload review initiated by the
Legislature, caseloads in this service have been reduced to 109. These cases are
supervised by 38 staff at present. If the caseload were returned to 2005 levels, this
would result in a caseload demand for 27 staff positions. Thus, theoretical savings of
11 positions, or about $636,000, could be achieved.

Supervised Caseload - Average Daily Population
70.0

Cases per Supervising Staff

60.0









50.0





Supervised Caseload




















12,000





40.0

14,000



10,000




8,000

30.0

6,000

20.0

4,000

10.0

2,000

0.0
Cases per Supervising Staff
# Supervising Staff
Supervised Caseload

0

FY99

 54.2
202
10,954

FY00
52.5
220
11,548

FY01
51.7
221
11,419

FY02
49.1
236
11,584

FY03
49.6
246
12,190

FY04
48.9
254
12,427

FY05
47.9
259
12,394

FY06
44.8
259
11,597

FY07
39.7
261
10,357

Fiscal Year

The savings would be reduced somewhat based on the distribution of caseloads in
smaller offices, which have small staff numbers, who would not achieve efficient Full
Time Equivalent (FTE) savings.

Option 2: Eliminate Misdemeanor Probation Supervision
Most (72%) of the offenders on Response Supervision are misdemeanants, and the
vast majority (81%) are moderate or low risk of re-offense.
Discontinuing supervision of these offenders, and allowing the criminal record and
probation status to determine any subsequent consequence for violation, upon
prosecution, would allow the reduction of approximately 38 probation officers and
support staff. The savings from this action would be approximately $2.2 million. The
resulting impact would make the relative caseload for State field staff even lower, but
with more serious cases. A hypothetical caseload reduction is as follows:
Field Caseload 1990-2007
Supervised Population
Direct Service Staff
Ratio (Caseload)

1990
6,138
63
97.4

1995
7,113
144
49.4

2000
11,548
184
62.8

Fiscal Year
2004
2005
12,427 12,394
212
216
58.6
57.4

2006
11,597
215
53.9

2007
(2008)
10,387 6,580
215
177
48.3
37.2

56

The accountability for misdemeanants on probation could be handled by the criminal
justice system in response to any new offense violation by imposing the probated
sentence, at which time the offenders would likely “graduate” to intensive supervision.
It is likely, however, that communities in Vermont would resist the shifting of
responsibility and cost to local police forces for providing accountability to these
offenders without the resources to accomplish this, even though that is the norm across
the nation.

B. Close Field Offices, Consolidate Staff
Another option to modestly reduce costs would be to consolidate some local DOC
offices.
Probation field offices are sited to serve courts and AHS district offices. However,
several offices are extremely small and could be consolidated into nearby offices, with
staff and caseloads relocated. The possible offices for such a closure would be
Chelsea, Morrisville, and Middlebury. The staff would relocate to Hartford, Barre, and
Rutland, respectively. While travel costs would increase and require the expansion of
fleet vehicles, there would be some (small) savings. Operating budgets of these offices
are as follows:

Office
Chelsea
Middlebury
Morrisville
Total

Potential Savings from Office Closings
savings
Total
Building
Added travel
Operating
Utilities
Rental
(fleet)
Budget
$ 34,000 $ 14,900 $ 4,000 $
9,000
$ 57,600 $ 40,100
$
9,000
$ 60,500 $ 41,300
$
9,000

Net
Savings
$ 9,900
$ 31,100
$ 32,300
$ 73,300

C. Curtail Detention
All correctional facilities in Vermont house detainees, with the exception of the Work
Camp. The numbers of detainees held in Vermont correctional facilities has declined in
recent years, largely due to increased efficiency in court process, particularly Chittenden
and Bennington District Courts. Nevertheless, housing accused persons with convicted
offenders is problematic, as cited in the Marks/McLaughlin 2004 “Report on Seven
Untimely Deaths in VT DOC.”
Detainees are particularly vulnerable to predation and mental health issues, particularly
in the first 72 hours of incarceration. Until 1974, most detainees in Vermont were held
in county lockups and jails, which provided court appearance surety and housed

57

offenders serving (very) short jail sentences. Vermont is one of only a handful of states
that have integrated jails and prisons, housing offenders from pre-arraignment through
sentence and violation in the same facilities.
In most other states, the communities shoulder a large portion of the detention cost.
They consequently have a considerable interest in cost containment strategies.
For example, other states have initiated programs of bail supervision in communities to
offset costs of incarceration. In Vermont this supervision of offenders could be targeted
to certain groups of detainees, perhaps by offense criteria, or based on risk of flight.
Supervision of released persons might be accomplished by local police, corrections field
personnel, or court staff.

DETAINEE POPULATION BY FACILITY AND COURT
COURT

Chittenden St Albans

6/30/2007
MALE HOUSING FACILITY
St.
Work
Newport
Johnsbury
Camp

Addison
Bennington
2

FEMALE HOUSING
Marble
Valley
3

Springfield

Dale

Windsor

Total

1

4
29
63
96
64
15
0
79
19
5
13
11
19
67
9
30
25
64
41
347

15
23

13
28

3

1
6

41

41

3

8

2

3

2

3

Rutland

1

SOUTHWEST

1

Chittenden

45

5

Franklin

1

14

46

19

0

9

1

14

3

2

1

1

8

3

1

1
13

9
1

1
2

1

1

38

17

0

6

1

2

1
1

26
22

1

2
1

0

0

2

0

9

Grand Isle
NORTHWEST
Caledonia
Essex
Lamoille

1

Orleans
Washington

1

NORTHEAST

1

2

Orange
Windham

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

8

1

Windsor
SOUTHEAST

1

0

1

0

0

2

56

1

3

Other

5

17

1

8

0

1

6

2

1

Total

54

38

40

36

0

44

111

10

14

Court of most serious charge.
Includes detained persons only

An alternative restructuring of correctional facilities, dedicating facilities to house all
regional detainees might achieve some efficiencies of facility staffing, but would incur
additional costs for transport and additional inefficiencies for defense attorneys and
family members. The facilities in St. Johnsbury, Rutland, and S. Burlington have a
sufficient combined capacity that, if dedicated to housing detainees only, would have
58

surplus room. However, as discussed in the individual facility sections, women would
have to be housed in one of those facilities.
Detainees
June 30, 2007
GENDER
Offense Type
Female
Male
Felony Serious
1
121
Felony Person
2
33
Felony Property
7
44
Felony Drug
5
27
Felony Motor Veh
12
Felony Other
2
35
Misdemeanor Person
5
14
Misdemeanor Property
1
6
Misdemeanor Drug
3
Misdemeanor Motor Vehicle
2
10
Misdemeanor Other
10
(unknown)
1
6
Total
26
321

Total
122
35
51
32
12
37
19
7
3
12
10
7
347

Detainee housing could be reduced by prohibiting initial lodging of certain classes of
offense (e.g., misdemeanors), or shifting the responsibility for supervision to courts or
county sheriffs in the entirety. This would reduce the flexibility of the current system,
which allows offenders of varying need, risk of flight, and seriousness of charge to be
housed in appropriate levels of restriction and support.
If all detainees were removed from State Corrections, some 350 beds would be freed up
to return prisoners currently housed Out of State, providing some $7 million in savings.
This would be offset by increased costs to courts or counties.
If pre-trial detention were restricted to only violent felons, some 190 beds would be
freed up, resulting in some $4 million in savings. However, this would be offset by the
increased need to supervise accused misdemeanor and non-violent felony offenders on

Persons Lodged in Pretrial Detention -- 2005
County
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
Total VT
Other States
Unknown
Total

Detainees
Lodged

Percent of
Known VT

Average Daily
Population

Percent of
Known VT

81
209
136
956
20
229
40
99
79
108
339
224
268
311
3099
486
590
4175

2.6%
6.7%
4.4%
30.8%
0.6%
7.4%
1.3%
3.2%
2.5%
3.5%
10.9%
7.2%
8.6%
10.0%
100%

5
19
12
90
1
11
1
12
8
11
40
20
30
28
288

1.7%
6.6%
4.2%
31.3%
0.3%
3.8%
0.3%
4.2%
2.8%
3.8%
13.9%
6.9%
10.4%
9.7%
100.0%

59
355

release prior to trial. There would also be a risk of flight by non-Vermonters arrested on
non-violent charges (e.g., drug dealing).
If the total detention population were reduced substantially, it could be centralized in a
single correctional facility. Building a single facility or re-tasking several existing
facilities and devoting them to housing detainees would have several operational
advantages for Corrections; it would also create several major problems for other
Criminal Justice System parties, most notably the increased transportation necessary.
While at any one time there are about 200 beds used for non-violent felony or
misdemeanor detention, these beds are used for some 4,300 different individual
detainees. The distribution of these accused offenders is concentrated in four counties
– Chittenden, Rutland, Windham and Windsor comprise more than 60% of the
detainees – but each court contributes some detainees.
In calendar year 2005, some 3,100 Vermont residents were lodged as pre-trial
detainees, as well as about 500 who were not residents of the State, and some 600
more whose address is unknown. About 1,000 of these persons were Chittenden
County residents, or 30% of the total known. These numbers are all slightly larger for
FY2006 and FY2007. The length of stay for all detainees is, on average, about 10
days.
•

Potential Solutions
1. A single (new) facility in Central Vermont, near I-89, would provide access to
most courts.
2. Several facilities could be devoted to detainees (Chittenden could house the
Northwest region’s detainees, St. Johnsbury could accommodate the entire
eastern Connecticut Valley, and Rutland could accommodate Addison,
Bennington, and Rutland counties).

•

Benefits
1. Consolidation of detainees would allow efficiencies of staffing.
2. Differential provision of services would enhance efficiency (no required
treatment).
3. Separation of detainees from sentenced inmates permits safer housing, and
reduces predatory behaviors, as well as the influence from long-term prison
culture.

•

Disadvantages
1. Most courts would have significant travel distance from consolidated centers.
2. No reentry could occur at these facilities.
3. No housing of short-term violators of furlough or probation could occur in these
facilities.
4. Detainees whose behavior and risk warranted high security housing would no
longer be housed in St. Albans, Newport, or Springfield.
60

5. Transportation costs for sheriffs would likely offset most of any savings in
efficiencies of housing.
6. There would be significant cost of a new facility (500 beds, estimated capital cost
of $50 million, estimated annual operating cost of $15 million).
7. Major realignment would be required for arrest and lodging practices of several
counties.

D. Stop Housing Incapacitated Persons
The State of Vermont provides another service for local communities which is
uncommon in the rest of the nation – the lodging of incapacitated persons, or public
inebriates. In virtually all other states, dealing with intoxicated citizens is a local
obligation.
Number of Incapacitated Person Admissions -- FY 2007
July-06
August-06
September-06
October-06
November-06
December-06
January-07
February-07
March-07
April-07
May-07
June-07
12 months

CCWC CRCF DALE MVRCF NERCF NSCF NWSCF SESCF SSCF TOTAL
0
86
5
62
20
9
6
0
7
195
0
76
10
44
20
9
8
0
4
171
0
122
7
45
31
8
9
0
10
232
0
85
6
38
10
9
3
0
7
158
0
84
8
34
21
9
2
0
7
165
0
47
5
42
16
4
0
0
3
117
0
61
2
29
23
5
4
0
4
128
0
48
2
37
31
3
1
0
1
123
0
83
3
30
19
9
4
0
7
155
0
113
1
42
19
6
3
0
6
190
0
109
4
30
27
8
8
0
7
193
0
102
2
40
28
22
5
0
2
201
0
1016
55
473
265
101
53
0
65
2028

In the FY 2007, there were over two thousand admissions of incapacitated persons.
Over 70% of these were from two counties – Rutland and Chittenden.
The typical incapacitated person is lodged only once. In data available from one facility,
Marble Valley in Rutland, some 75% of the persons lodged were held only once in a
fifteen-year period. The diversion of first-time lodgings to detoxification facilities or
transport to their homes would reduce the liability of the State for housing these
medically vulnerable residents in prisons designed to house criminals.
While the numbers lodged do not represent a large number of beds, they tend to cluster
on weekends and at times can be extremely disruptive. The costs are real, for each
one must be screened medically, be assessed for suicide risk, and watched closely for
any medical issues associated with detoxification, and cleaned up after they get sick.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to identify the specific cost beyond the liability for an adverse
event.
The alternative placement for these persons is a health care facility or a detoxification
center specifically equipped to treat this population. The Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Program (ADAP) of the Department of Health contracted with the Rutland Serenity
61

House in 2007, to develop a detoxification program and to screen incapacitated persons
(per statute) prior to making the decision to transport them to jail. As a result, very
recently the numbers of lodgings have significantly reduced at the Marble Valley facility.
This is a promising approach to provide services for intoxicated and incapacitated
individuals.
The provision of an additional five beds dedicated to secure detoxification of
incapacitated persons in Rutland City, and 10 beds in Burlington, should significantly
offset the utilization of these two correctional facilities for lodging.

E. Reduce Management and Administrative Costs
Along with the reductions in operating staffing described in the preceding sections, it is
important that we consider savings in management and administrative areas of the
department, both locally and centrally. The functions of the central administration are
largely focused on the department as a whole:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The Commissioner - Strategic management of the Department
Deputy Commissioner - Operational management of the Department
Legal Division - Provision of legal services representing the department in
litigation and legislative development
Planning Director - Information and data analysis for policy and operational
decision-making; legislative and intergovernmental information
Policy Development – Responsible for revising the hundreds of Department
policies and procedures
Facilities Management – Overall Management of Security and Operations for
nine Correctional Facilities
Field Management – Management of 13 Probation and Parole offices
Community Justice – Administration of community justice grants and programs,
and working with communities on reentry of high profile offenders
Program Services – Management of treatment programs in field and facilities,
administration of contracts
Finance – Management of Department budget, expenditures, space, and
administrative resources, and oversight and audit of 13 P&P offices and 9
Correctional Facilities
Information Technology – Support and maintenance of the nearly 25-year old
DOC computer system and software
Victims Services – Assistance to victims of crime with corrections issues
Inmate Legal Services – Court-ordered administration of constitutional access to
courts for inmates
Quality Assurance – Administration of quality assurance of health care and
compliance with Corrections policy
Medical Services – Management of Health and Mental Health services by
contract providers
62

•

Training – Design and delivery of Corrections Academy and training for all line,
supervisory, and management field and facility staff

The functions above are performed by relatively small units, generally with 1-5
employees, yet could be curtailed or reprioritized. If we ask our field and facility staff to
maintain (or increase) their workload with fewer staff, we should expect a comparable
contribution from both the central office and local administrative staff.
The challenge with this process, as with all options within this report, will be to maintain
essential services at minimal negative consequences. This is an opportune time to
review current staffing levels and find efficiencies.
As an example: the department just finished the transition of the inmate fund accounting
process from a facility operation to a central function. This transition used lockbox
technology, and did not reduce the level of service. This eliminated a manual process
requiring numerous people handling daily inmate deposits to a single central staff
position. This change eliminated thousands of hours of facility staff time, providing both
security staff and administrative staff additional time to focus on their primary job duties,
including prison security, sentence computation, and offender case planning.
There are other functions that could be centralized with a net reduction in human
resources. The collection of court fees and supervision fees are currently conducted by
our field offices. Applying the lockbox process to this function would reduce the human
resources need. The same applies to financial payment processing; currently this is
staffed at each of the district offices and facilities. We should explore the centralization
of at least part of this function. This would result in a net reduction of administrative
staff Department-wide.
The Department currently provides training at the Corrections Academy in Rutland, the
Central Office in Waterbury, and at other sites across the state. This training is provided
by staff located at Rutland and Waterbury, as well as staff trainers from our facilities and
field sites. It may be more efficient to deliver these services from our Corrections
Academy (physically) and to distribute the training content via video conferencing. This
could reduce the number of trainers needed, as well as the costs associated with
traveling to training locations.
The above are just a few examples of areas the department is exploring to reduce the
costs. We are ready to work with the legislature to explore further areas to enhance
efficiency in the central office, and management of facilities, district offices, and out-ofstate placements.
NOTE: As part of a separate cost containment project, we have begun this process and
the initial vacant positions targeted for elimination are virtually all in the DOC Central
Office. We have specifically exempted uniformed facility staff from this review due to
the 24x7 nature of these positions.
63

F. Curtail or Eliminate Treatment Programs
The Department of Corrections provides treatment for incarcerated offenders combating
those factors that affect the risk of re-offending. These programs target violence, sexual
abuse, domestic violence, and substance abuse.
Programs in facilities for these activities include the Vermont Treatment Program for
Sexual Abusers (VTPSA), the INDAP (In-house Domestic Abuse Program), and the
Cognitive Self Change program. There is a substance abuse treatment at the Work
Camp, and some limited treatment in other facilities, but most programs are located in
the community. The consensus of correctional research is that best outcomes in terms
of recidivism reduction are achieved in the community and at lower costs.
Expenditures on treatment (excluding education) for inmates in corrections total
$2,379,711.66, of which 71% are expended by community providers for offenders
placed in the community. The elimination of all treatment programs in facilities would
recoup about $0.5 million in savings.
Correctional Treatment Expenditures, FY 2007
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAMS
(ISAP)
DOMESTIC ABUSE PROGRAM
(IDAP)
SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT
(VTPSA)

COGNITIVE SELF CHANGE
(CSC)

COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
(CHSVT)
TOTAL

Field
Facility
Field
Facility
Field
Facility
VCPTSA
Unallocated
Field
Facility
Unallocated
Field
Facility

$ 1,473,360
$ 1,158,802
$ 314,558
$ 312,241
$ 301,455
$
10,786
$ 335,270
$
92,016
$ 159,834
$
58,811
$
24,609
$ 258,840
$ 132,501
$
48,965
$
77,374
$ 4,147,556
$ 1,244,267
$ 2,903,289
$ 6,527,268

It perhaps need not be stated that the result of this saving would be short-lived, as
Vermont Corrections programs (particularly Cognitive Self-Change and VTPSA) have a
demonstrated and significant effect on re-offense and re-incarceration.
The Community High School of Vermont (CHSVT) provides a credentialed high school
diploma to inmates of Vermont correctional facilities and those serving sentences in the
community who have not completed high school. This is in response to legislation
64

requiring offenders who are younger than age 23 and have not completed high school
to attend school while serving their sentence.
FY 2007 expenditures for CHSVT in the field offices were $1,244,267.
Educational expenditures for CHSVT in facilities were $2,903,289.
Savings could be achieved by closing the facility program, which would require
legislative authority and statutory repeal. However, this step may also be necessary in
order to find sufficient eligible inmates to house out-of-state. Youthful offenders in the
CHSVT program are currently shielded from placement out-of-state.

G. Reduce Custody, Release Offenders in Minimum Custody
There are approximately 1,000 inmates in prison who are classified as requiring
minimum custody only. Strategies to release these offenders include:
•

Statutory Reduction of Sentence
90-Day Reduction of Minimum Release Date (9/30/2007)

Minimum Release Date
Now
Reduced
# Inmates Until MinRel
October-07
July-07
218
3182
November-07 August-07
144
6727
December-07 September-07
120
9166
January-08
October-07
118
12887
February-08
November-07
111
15491
March-08
December-07
102
17059
April-08
January-08
71
14107
May-08
February-08
54
12376
June-08
March-08
50
12876
July-08
April-08
61
17782
August-08
May-08
56
17990
September-08 June-08
55
19246
October-08
July-08
27
10253
November-08 August-08
30
12416
December-08 September-08
27
11961

Savings next 12 months Cumulatively
Savings
Rate
Bed-days
Released
Bed-days ADP*
all immediately
3182
all immediately
6727
all immediately
9166
482
19075
207.3
90days/person
10620
600
31962
259.9
90days/person
9990
711
47453
312.2
90days/person
9180
813
64512
352.5
90days/person
6390
884
78619
369.1
90days/person
4860
938
90995
372.9
90days/person
4500
988
103871
379.1
90days/person
5490
1049
121653
398.9
90days/person
5040
1105
139643
415.6
90days/person
4950
1160
158889
434.1
90days/person
2430
1187
169142
426.1
90days/person
2700
1217
181558
425.2
90days/person
2430
1244
193519
424.0
*ADP= Average Daily Population is an annual bed equivalent.

To provide fiscal relief, the Legislature could implement a strategy (employed by other
states in the past), involving a broad (or targeted) statutory reduction in the minimum
sentences for inmates. For example, a one-time statutory reduction of 90 days for all
sentenced inmates would reduce the population (immediately) by 200 beds, and within
a year reduce it by 424 beds (average daily population). These savings would be
achieved by reducing the sentences of more than 1,200 different inmates over the
course of the first year.
This strategy would have immediate impact. Cost savings would be approximately $6
million in the first full year, depending on implementation. Continuation of impact
presumes that sentencing practices continue as before the reduction, and that the
65

reduction would continue to effect new admissions. The effect reaches an arithmetic
peak after the first year.
Of course, it is likely that prosecutors and judges would not be pleased with this
outcome, and might offset sentences by the amount of the reduction, in anticipation of
further reductions. Consequently, this strategy might backfire.
•

Authorization for Discretionary Release Prior to Completion of Sentence

For felons serving a year or more, a mechanism for population reduction could be a
review of behavior while incarcerated by an external agent (court or prosecutor or
Parole Board) and a determination of sufficiency of sanction. The result could be either
a conditional release or a termination of sentence. This would be akin to “parole prior to
minimum” and would affect offenders who pose low risk of reoffending and have
completed treatment. Cost savings from this concept are difficult to predict. Statutory
change would be necessary.
•

Sentencing Option: GPS Monitoring as a Condition of Release

DOC could create a sentencing option of GPS monitoring as a condition of release,
either as a pre-approved furlough sanction, or as a condition of probation. This option
could be targeted at non-violent felony and misdemeanant offenders. Other states have
required GPS monitoring as a condition of placement of any sex offender on community
supervision.
A sentencing option that would replace supervision might have some cost benefit, but
would most likely be more effective if it were an additional condition of supervision as
described below.
A substantial complication with GPS monitoring is the cost of 24-hour, 7-day monitoring
of the system, and the availability of response to electronic alarms for violations.

H. Provide Incentives for Positive Behavior in the Community
A significant source of the growth in population in prison is failure to abide by the rules
of release on supervision in the community, as discussed earlier. It has been noted that
the longer an offender is under supervision, the more failure is likely. Probation is a
static program that can only result in failure or termination. The statutory ability to earn
credit for positive performance (compliance with conditions of release, participation in
treatment, payment of restitution, completion of high school) may provide the motivation
to improve behavior.
While this, like term probation, does not have an immediate effect on bedspace, the
reduction of the number of offenders under supervision, as well as the positive
reinforcement of recognition of success, can have a long-term result. Research on
66

strength-based programming shows positive results and can have a long-term positive
effect on offender recidivism.
Given our low crime rate, Vermont is above the national average in utilization of
community supervision, including probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions. Some
82% of the people under DOC control are in the community.

I. Reduce Facility Per Capita Costs
Department of Corrections
Expenditures by Location
FY2007
Spent

Per Capita
Per Capita
ADP % of Pop facility Only Other Costs Other Costs

Facility
CASH
CCWC
CRCF
DSCF
MVRCF
NERCF
NSCF
NWSCF
SESCF
SSCF

$ 2,568,075
$ 5,994,732
$ 3,166,668
$ 5,023,037
$ 4,826,826
$ 9,172,335
$ 8,394,126
$ 3,589,278
$ 10,045,385

98
181
60
143
141
362
245
105
346

5.8%
10.8%
3.6%
8.5%
8.4%
21.5%
14.6%
6.2%
20.6%

26,204.85
33,120.07
52,777.80
35,126.13
34,232.81
25,337.94
34,261.74
34,183.60
29,032.90

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,451,253
2,680,375
888,522
2,117,644
2,088,027
5,360,750
3,628,132
1,554,914
5,123,811

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,809
14,809
14,809
14,809
14,809
14,809
14,809
14,809
14,809

$ 4,019,328
$ 8,675,107
$ 4,055,190
$ 7,140,681
$ 6,914,853
$ 14,533,085
$ 12,022,258
$ 5,144,192
$ 15,169,196

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Facilities

$ 52,780,462 1681

100.0%

31,398.25

$ 24,893,427

$

14,809

$ 77,673,889

$ 46,207

Plus: Medical
MH
Central
Education
VCPTSA

$ 13,369,509
$ 2,136,113
$ 5,925,620
$ 2,903,289
$
558,896

Total Other

$ 24,893,427

Percapita
Other Costs
$
7,953
$
1,271
$
3,525
$
1,727
$
332
$
$
14,809

Total

$ 77,673,889

$

Total Cost

Per Capita
41,014
47,929
67,587
49,935
49,042
40,147
49,070
48,992
43,842

46,207

(Per capita costs are slightly different from earlier figures due to cash accounting, in order to break out “other costs”.)

Very limited savings could be achieved in correctional facilities in incremental fashion,
by reducing staffing, eliminating treatment, and reducing other major costs like health
care and mental health.
In fact, if one separates the operational costs of the correctional facilities from the costs
of medical care, mental health care, correctional treatment, and education, the per
capita costs for basic incarceration alone are about $31,400. Just these costs are
larger than most other states spend. Their facilities, however, are not as small and
inefficient as Vermont prisons.

67

Per capita Costs
Vermont Correctional Facilities

FY2007
Security
$31,398 68.0%

Education
$1,727 3.7%

Treatment
$332 0.7%

Central
$3,525 7.6%
Mental Health
$1,271 2.8%
Medical
$7,953 17.2%

Additional treatment/education/medical care expenses add $14,800 to the per capita
cost of the Vermont correctional facilities. These costs are, like the base costs of
operating the nine facilities, more expensive than would be the case were Vermont’s
facilities fewer in number and larger in capacity. Allocating these costs (at present) on a
per capita basis understates the actual costs at smaller facilities and overstates the
costs at larger facilities.

Out of State Bed Cost
OOS Unit Personal services
OOS Unit Operating
Contract Beds (CCA only inc Med)
Total OOS Unit
Central Cost
Total OOS

$
$
$
$
$
$

1,095,386
431,437
10,204,420
11,706,402
455,817
12,162,219

Population (FY2007)
Per Capita

$
$

519
23,433

The services in the CCA facilities are similar to, but somewhat reduced from, those
provided in Vermont. However, CCA does provide basic medical services, including
nursing, physician, dental care, as well as basic education. The Vermont per capita
costs also include fee-for-space, which is not strictly comparable to CCA’s capital costs.
The Kentucky facility is particularly low cost as it is an older facility that has been
amortized.

68

Current Criteria for Out of State Placement Include:
•
•
•
•

Sentenced with more than 60 days to serve to minimum release date;
May be dual status Sentenced/Detained (S/D) if not a current issue requiring
court hearings;
Must be 23 years old or over, or may be under 23 if they have already earned
their high school diploma;
Must be cleared by health services (medical/mental health).

To determine the availability of additional inmates for placement in contracted
bedspace, we examined the population in prison on August 20, 2007. First we excluded
the persons who do not fit the criteria.
Population for OOS Expansion
Include

In Prison 8/20/2007
Male}
Sentenced}
In Vermont}
60+ days to min or max}
HS Diploma or 23 or over}
No mental health hold}
Not at Work Camp
more than 90-day reentry}

Exclude Reason

2152
1990
1679
1096
887
800
750
666

586

-162
-311
-583
-209
-87
-50
-84
-80

{Female
{Pre-Trial Detainee
{At CCA already
{60 days or less to min or max
{Under 23, no HS diploma
{SMI category diagnosis or GAF <50
{At Work Camp
{within 90-day reentry window

Then we looked at the remaining population (586 of the original 2152) as of two months
later, on October 24, 2007, and established their status as of that date, and whether
they could actually have been included as potential OOS candidates. The next chart
describes this analysis.
Of the 586, there were 181 who were in the process of reentry by October, and would
be excluded because it is more appropriate to release them than to transport them to
and from Kentucky. There were 109 others who have a current detainer (as well as
their sentence) and need to be available for court. These do not include the handful of
S/Ds who are out of state -- these are hand-picked because their trial is a long way off.
There were 75 who by October were either already Out-of-State or on their way. One
could argue that these offenders constituted eligible offenders to go Out-of-State (e.g.,
they were by definition the most eligible, and eventually went). However, to the extent
that the out-of-state program was at a steady state, they merely offset a comparable
number of offenders who were returning to Vermont and didn’t generate any
incremental relief.
Finally, there were 175 who were in a program -- Sex offender treatment, CSC, newly at
the Work Camp, or in a key VCI worker position (cooks, critical workers).

69

by October 24, 2007 status of 586
240
206
140
Reason
Released
Re-entry Process
Residence Approval
Residence Interview
work search
transitional Housing
Max soon
Sentenced/Detainer
Serving sanction
CourtPBd appearance
OOS at CCA
In process of OOS
Wait Med/MH Clear
VCI key worker
Cog Self Change Prg
VTPSA
At Work Camp
"Eligible for OOS, Not Out"
In Release Process
Court or Sanction

Pre-Minimum
Release
227
-13
217
-10
217
217
217
217
217
190
-27
190
184
-6
159
-25
148
-11
124
-24
101
-23
59
-42
22
-37
11
-11
-229
11

Back Past Min
(violation)
153
-53
144
-9
132
-12
132
128
-4
117
-11
112
-5
57
-55
55
-2
49
-6
47
-2
43
-4
42
-1
42
31
-11
27
-4
25
-2
-181
25

586

Held Past Min
114
112
95
87
82
82
76
64
64
63
62
58
55
54
51
27
27

-26
-2
-17
-8
-5
-6
-12
-1
-1
-4
-3
-1
-3
-24

Totals All Statuses
494
473
444
436
427
416
405
311
309
296
268
249
221
197
141
76
63

-113
27

-92
-21
-29
-8
-9
-11
-11
-94
-2
-13
-28
-19
-28
-24
-56
-65
-13
-523

63

On the way out
In Program

The bottom line is that of all of the offenders in the population, only 63 were found that
"were eligible, but not out" and thus could be considered for the expansion population.
To put another 250 inmates in CCA, DOC policy will have to change, requiring
unattractive choices. Eliminating the CHSVT exclusion would make 87 youth available
for placement. Eliminating VTPSA would make 65 sex offenders available. Eliminating
Cognitive Self Change would make 56 violent offenders available. Finally, eliminating
the exclusion for valuable VCI employees (cooks, lead workers) would make another 24
inmates available. These, combined with the 63 from the table above, sum to 295 as
the total pool of available inmates.
It would be counterproductive to remove the offenders who are making progress in
treatment, since they will likely serve longer, be more likely to reoffend, and add to the
problem, not relieve it. The alternative would be reducing the time to serve criteria,
which would mean turnover of CCA beds at a rate equivalent to the Vermont facilities,
which would be highly expensive in terms of transportation, and likely also
unsustainable.
In summary, the most tolerable scenario would be to allow shorter sentenced inmates to
go to CCA, (30 days or more), allow CHSVT students to be housed at CCA, and place
some offenders in treatment there. Certainly reducing the overall level of incarceration
demand or increasing the supply of beds (e.g., work camp) in the existing Vermont
system would reduce the magnitude of selection criteria changes.
70

Strategy Three: PARTNER WITH OTHERS
A. Place Greater Reliance on AHS Capacities
1. Build Treatment Capacity for Non-Violent Offenders with Substance Abuse
and Mental Illness
Concern about population growth in Vermont prisons, the mushrooming Corrections
budget, and the need for the treatment of inmates with co-occurring disorders
(substance abuse and mental health problems) prompted an Agency of Human
Services (AHS) intra-agency group consisting of representatives from AHS Field
Services, Corrections, Health, and the AHS Secretary’s Office, to work on solutions.
A key recommendation of the Governor’s Commission on Corrections Overcrowding
was to remove non-dangerous offenders from correctional institutions. The Department
of Corrections responded that the legislature “create alternatives to short-term
mandatory incarcerative sentences . . . for classes of offense that are not violent.” The
Agency of Human Services Field Directors agree with this conclusion and believe that
mandatory treatment for substance abuse, leading to recovery, is a better approach
than punishment.
The Department of Corrections has focused its available treatment resources in the
community. This is supported by research (Appendix C – What Works and What
Doesn’t Work) indicating that substance abuse treatment in the community is both more
effective and less costly than treatment in prison. DOC contracts with Phoenix House
to provide a treatment program designed for repeat DUI offenders with alcohol abuse
already exist within the community. An increasing number of offenders are opiatedependent and there is limited treatment available to address their specific needs.
Many offenders do not or cannot access the intervention they need. Expensive
institutional space is taken up with non-violent men and women whose offenses are
related to substance abuse. These offenders are too often released without effective
intervention. Moreover, untreated mental health conditions frequently accompany the
substance abuse problems. Confinement of such offenders can lead not to
rehabilitation, but to anger, despair, and new offenses upon release.
Engaging offenders’ families and natural community support systems improves the
likelihood of recovery. Continuity of services also improves outcomes. Nevertheless,
this is hard to achieve when the offender is sent to prison away from home.
A continuum of treatment approaches, ranging from intensive outpatient to secure
treatment, could be provided in communities for non-violent offenders with either mental
health or substance abuse disorders, or co-occurring disorders.
AHS Field Directors are in a unique position to engage community leaders, rally
advocates, and stand as local partners with DOC in support of community treatment for
offenders.
71

2. Shift Youth to Family Services (DCF)
Significant progress has been made in reducing the numbers of youth in prison and
under Corrections’ supervision in the community. There are currently (FY2007) a total
of 122 16/17-year olds under DOC supervision or in custody. Only six of these youth
are housed in prison.
16-17 Year Olds in CORRECTIONS
June of
intensive
response
Year
in prison supervision supervision
2000
13
28
241
2001
17
16
180
2002
10
17
186
2003
7
18
140
2004
7
21
123
2005
4
17
112
2006
5
14
120
2007
6
19
97

Total
282
213
213
165
151
133
139
122

18-21 Year Olds in CORRECTIONS
June of
intensive
response
Year
in prison supervision supervision Total
2000
236
347
1490
2073
2001
264
353
1414
2031
2002
250
360
1457
2067
2003
272
375
1427
2074
2004
236
360
1360
1956
2005
243
349
1201
1793
2006
221
308
1044
1573
2007
221
264
970
1455

The decline among older youth has also been significant. The number of 18 to 21-year
olds in corrections is down nearly 30% since 2000, from 2,073 in 2000 to 1,455 in 2007,
while the number of 16/17-year olds under field supervision has declined nearly 60%.
It is important to note that given the very small numbers, transferring responsibility for
16 & 17-year olds to the Department for Children and Families (DCF), would not result
in significant prison bedspace savings. Additionally, the youth who are under
community supervision often have committed crimes which are on the low end of
seriousness (by adult corrections standards) and would more likely receive increased
oversight by DCF staff. While this may have non-monetary value, it would result in
higher costs for supervision.

3. Examine Title IV-E Funding for Youth
There are a small number of youthful offenders who are under the supervision of the
Commissioner of Corrections, generally on probation, who could, if given a blended
sentence or otherwise remanded to DCF, be eligible for services under Federal Title IVE funding, for services for at-risk-youth with disabilities. These services could provide
significant treatment intervention for youth at risk.
This is a possible area for further examination.

4. Create Intensive Community-based Services for Inmates with Children
It is estimated that half of all prisoners re-offend and are re-incarcerated. The Agency
of Human Services could conduct a pilot to determine if strategic investments can
successfully stop the flow of prisoners from re-entering prison. This approach could
also avoid the initial imprisonment of offenders by providing comprehensive wraparound case management and direct supports to specified high risk families.
72

Potential Program: AHS would assign a case manager to women and men offenders
with children to provide intensive service coordination. Each case manager would have
a direct service dollar budget to ensure successful family re-unification. The case
manager would ensure that necessary treatment, employment, insurance, and other
supports are provided, while providing cash assistance for housing and transportation
expenses until the offender establishes employment and sustains a family budget.
AHS Field Directors would serve as the single point of accountability and work with the
Department of Corrections to oversee the program and ensure that services for
offenders are integrated and delivered in a timely fashion.
The estimated cost for the program would be $5,000 per offender. Case managers
would have a caseload of 15 families and would serve 30 individuals a year. $150,000
would cover one case manager annually at a cost of $50,000 including benefits and
operating costs, and $100,000 for direct service dollars to assist offenders to create and
implement family development plans.
This program could be piloted in several regions (Chittenden, Rutland, Springfield, and
Barre) for approximately $600,000.
Four case managers with a total caseload of 120 families, targeted at low-moderate risk
non-violent offenders with reentry and family stability issues, might reduce the return
rate of 50+%. If successful, the beds saved could be substantial. Assuming a current
return of 60 of these offenders for 90 days on violations, cutting the return rate by half,
to 30, would save 30 bed-years, or about $150,000 at CCA rates. To increase savings,
the eligible offenders would need to have higher risk, and longer sentences.
Such services might also be coverable under Global Commitment, particularly for
offenders with co-occurring disorders.
As with some other promising suggestions, this proposal certainly does not ensure the
cost savings requested by the legislative charge.
Separately, there are volunteer-based mentoring programs and a faith-based summer
camp currently operating to support the children of offenders.

5. Expand Treatment in Community Mental Health Centers
A significant obstacle for Community Mental Health providers to engage with inmates in
prison is the inability under current Federal statute for reimbursement for any time spent
working with the offender prior to release. There has been significant effort among AHS
departments to reinstate benefits immediately upon release, such as the provision of an
AHS Identification Card and signing offenders up for Social Security, health care, or
other entitled benefits upon re-entry. However, for such processes as mental health
and substance abuse treatment, the discharge planning should involve both the facility
73

provider and the community provider in consultation and case planning well in advance
of release.
A solution might be to provide State funding for case co-management with Community
Mental Health Centers (CMHCs) to establish treatment plans as part of the Corrections’
case planning process (ORP: Offender Responsibility Planning) as the offender nears
release.
This occasionally happens now for those individuals that have a history with a CMHC or
who are found eligible for services (Community Residential Treatment). However,
CMHCs cannot bill for services while someone is still an inmate...or for those individuals
who do not meet the particular requirements for CRT or Developmental Disability
services; e.g., those with an IQ score of less than 75.
To estimate costs, for 100 offenders receiving 10 hours of case co-management each
over the reentry period (six months), this is a thousand hours, at $50 per hour
($50,000). This is likely to have positive effects on reintegration, and while it is difficult
to estimate the bedspace savings, these higher risk offenders with solid discharge plans
are much more likely to succeed in the community and avoid re-offense.

6. Expand Substance Abuse Treatment in Community
A similar process could be established with Substance Abuse Treatment for reentering
offenders, for comparable costs.

7. Expand Drug and Mental Health Courts (Pre-sentence)
Vermont District courts are currently piloting programs in mandatory participation in
treatment supervised by the judge, who reviews compliance by offenders with
conditions of treatment and abstinence behavior. The consequences for positive
behavior are rewarded and sanctions for relapses are individually targeted. While it is
still early to evaluate the success of the Vermont programs, data from national models
and studies of other states are highly positive, in terms of reduced recidivism outcomes,
avoidance of incarceration, and overall cost/benefit.
Chief Justice Paul Reiber has established a working group composed of criminal justice
leaders and mental health and substance abuse treatment providers under a grant from
the US Justice Department. The work group is examining treatment courts and other
means for intervening prior to criminal processing to more effectively divert persons with
co-occurring mental disorders and addiction from the criminal justice system.
This work group is expected to reach a consensus on recommending focused, specific
actions toward attainable, tangible improvements (as opposed to more sweeping
changes on multiple topics).

74

8. Increase Transitional Housing
There is a significant (approximately 150 inmates) population who are held past
minimum release primarily for the lack of housing. Money, jobs, and skills are all
impediments to their reentry, but the primary obstacle is a place to live. Often offenders
who are released are returned to a facility due to violation of release conditions for
failure to make rent payments. One suggestion is that each prison would have a
Transitional Unit, supervised by DOC, and augmented with services from other
community providers. An offender would enter the transition unit up to six months prior
to release to engage in intensive case management that would prepare him/her for
release - Offender Responsibility Planning.
More transitional housing across the state would require increased General Fund
operating and local capital funding. Such a partnership between the State/community
might potentially leverage other state housing funds (VHCB, VHFA), which requires a
state commitment to maintain the dwelling as "affordable housing" for at least a ten year
term. Additionally, DOC operating funds would be needed to support transitional
housing programs and to leverage other state housing funds (in the AHS: Department
for Children & Families; Economic Services, Office of Economic Opportunity,
Department of Aging and Independent Living, Department of Mental Health, and
Department of Health).
Such transitional housing could be located in the hub of the identified communities and
have 24/7 staffing. The model for such housing has been identified in the Transitional
Housing Study Committee Proposal for Offenders Returning to Rural Areas in Vermont
in February 2006, in its report to the House Institutions Committee as outlined below.
This model involves finding homes/communities with access to coordinated services
with a minimal need for transportation. Unless there is sufficient and reliable public
transportation that meets residents’ needs, each Transitional House would need to
arrange a minimal level of transportation.
Initial costs for a Transitional House start-up could be substantial. The cost for a small
program in a four bedroom home (to accommodate 4-8 residents) in an acceptable area
of a community can be in the range of $125 per square foot with approximately 2500
square feet needed to accommodate the 4-8 residents and staff. Acquisition of real
estate is estimated at $225,000, depending upon the community. Renovation may be
required, adding $100,000 or more to the cost.
Total annual operating costs of about $200,000 might be reduced by $20,000 by
charging room and board to residents.
The capacity of this housing would be up to eight offenders, resulting in a per capita
annual cost ranging from about $22,500. With only four offender residents, the cost
doubles to $45,000.

75

The more efficient cost is comparable to the expense of housing offenders in contract
facilities. It has the added fiscal advantage of keeping Vermont tax dollars at work in
Vermont, and in providing reentering offenders who are more difficult to manage with
opportunities for successful reintegration.

9. Provide Housing Support and Assistance
The DOC has also had success in establishing partnerships with State and local
agencies for assistance with back rent, budgeting, utility payments, food, childcare
responsibilities, and mentoring as a means to reduce prison returns for violations. DOC
will continue to collaborate with other units of State Government (Departments for
Children & Families, Health, and Mental Health, and the Office of Economic
Opportunity) for better outcomes since we often share clientele. Additionally, DOC has
a large number of inmates who are "hard to house". Funding local communities through
the AHS to provide Housing Support Case Managers to ensure housing placement and
retention would be highly beneficial. These case managers would ensure rent
payments, crisis intervention, and service referrals at the early onset to minimize prison
returns.
DOC funds three housing search and retention specialists in two areas (two in
Burlington and one serving the Northeast Kingdom) who work to help obtain and
maintain affordable transitional housing. The specialists work with DOC staff, other
State departments, and non-profit agencies to determine service needs and make
appropriate referrals.
The Legislature could fund larger communities to establish more (2-4) housing retention
positions across the state (average position costs $50K-$60K annually).

10. Build Treatment Capacity to Reduce Recidivism
Many of the reentering offenders suffer from untreated substance abuse problems that
make them vulnerable to committing new offenses. The cost of the revolving prison
door is unsustainable; the harm done to the crime victims and to the offender’s family is
substantial yet difficult to quantify.
The reconviction rates of offenders who complete the Intensive Substance Abuse
Program (ISAP) compared to those who do not complete the program reveals the
positive impact of treatment. Within one year of an ISAP program, 21% of those who
did not complete the program were convicted of new crimes, compared to only 10 % of
those who completed ISAP. Within two years, 34% of non-completers faced new
convictions, compared to 22% of completers. (Source: Vt. DOC, 12/1/06, FY 1999 to
2002.)
Given the evidence from this and national studies (Appendix C – What Works and What
Doesn’t Work), community-based treatment for offenders is clearly a sound investment.
This national research estimates that for every dollar spent on substance abuse
76

treatment for offenders, there is a $7 return. Moreover, it is well established that
coercive treatment for substance abuse is as effective as voluntary treatment.
Non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems could be furloughed to highly
structured regional treatment centers with access to community mental health and
substance abuse resources as an alternative to incarceration. The Tapestry Program
for women serves as a model for a program for men. As part of Governor Douglas’s
DETER program, the Tapestry Program was recently expanded to serve additional
women.
The annual cost of providing residential beds, supervision, and support at Tapestry is
approximately $30,000 per woman.
A residential treatment center would have a required work component for non-violent
offenders with substance abuse problems. Offenders on furlough to the program are
generally eligible for VHAP (or other 3rd party as determined by need) assistance with
treatment costs, using community providers.
A staff-secure residential treatment center for 20 offenders would likely result in at least
a 10% reduction in recidivism, compared to incarceration, thus providing additional cost
savings. Although the cost of out-of-state incarceration is lower than the cost of an instate residential treatment center, out-of-state costs amount to a drain on the Vermont
economy. According to the Governor’s Commission on Prison Overcrowding, 8/19/04,
“These (out-of-state) expenditures offer no economic benefit to the people of the State
of Vermont.” The report cites the “multiplier effect” of spending the same dollars in
Vermont.
Community-based substance abuse treatment-oriented residential treatment centers
could relieve the pressure on prisons, reduce recidivism, and result in enduring benefit
to offenders and their families.

B. Partner with Communities
1. Community-Based Restorative Reentry
This promising restorative reentry program is currently is concluding a pilot stage using
funds from a federal Bureau of Justice Assistance reentry grant. These funds are
ending, jeopardizing continuation of the programs. The US Congress is considering the
2nd Chance Act (which passed the House in early November and is currently under
consideration in the Senate), which may help fund the program. However, current
federal funds will run out before any new funding is available. Legislative action to
invest in continuation could be considered.

77

The program targets re-entering inmates who have both a demonstrable need and a
willingness to engage with citizen-driven support and accountability structures to
complement formal DOC supervision.
The risk level of the offender appropriate for these services is largely predicated on the
degree of estrangement from the community and the public’s concern regarding the
offender’s return. For example, a sex offender designated as low risk to reoffend would
still be very appropriate for involvement with a locally developed accountability and
support team, (modeled after the highly successful Canadian Circle of Support and
Accountability – COSA), given the likely fractured relationships and community concern
surrounding reintegration.
Offense types suitable for this structured reentry accountability and support program
include all inmates. Offenders commit to a one-year program to allow for the
development of meaningful, mutually trusting relationships between the offender and
citizen volunteers.
The effectiveness of this program is derived from the strength of the relationships
developed and the informal authority leveraged from these connections. As such, there
is no formal completion criterion beyond either 1) a mutual recognition that the
accountability and support team has fully served its purpose during the year following
reentry, or 2) either party opting to terminate the process for reasons that would be
known to all participants. The most likely evaluation process would be review by the
Parole Board.
The incentive for offenders to participate in an accountability and support team lies in
the understanding that they will more likely succeed with the additional support and
attention that can be offered by the community in partnership with state services.
Accountability and support teams serve as ambassadors to the community of planned
release and bring with them connections that may be of immediate value to a reentering
offender, such as job leads and landlord relationships.
Accountability and support teams are explicit, purposeful relationships that are designed
to support the reentry process, during which setbacks are expected. While behavioral
expectations clearly exist, an accountability and support team does not apply specific
and/or quantitative benchmarks that may constitute failure. This process is an
experiential modeling process for pro-social relationships. The team will continue to
support an offender if s/he returns to prison.
Currently, there are ten federally-funded community-based reentry programs at
community justice centers serving returning offenders. A possible allocation of up to
$100,000 (general funds) per site for a total annual expenditure of about $1 million
would provide a full-time reentry coordinator and basic offender housing and
employment support for each locality. There are 23 offenders currently being
supervised and re-integrated by community reentry teams.

78

The offset for this funding is a reduced return rate of moderate or higher risk offenders.
These offenders are generally serving longer sentences, and establishing the
community accountability teams, in conjunction with other community interventions
outlined elsewhere, (e.g., residential treatment centers) can reduce recidivism and
return, resulting in large bed-year savings from multi-year sentences.
The Department releases about 1,100 sentenced inmates per year who have served
more than six months in prison, with more than half returning to prison within three
years for a new crime. Focusing attention on 100 higher risk, more serious offenders
with careful matching of supervision, community resources, and offender responsivity
could significantly reduce recidivism and cost. These savings are long term, as the
targeted offenders are serving long sentences past their minimum releases, and
successful release could avoid multiple years of incarceration for each offender.

2. Restructuring Community Justice
A significant restructuring of Vermont’s justice system would entail a return to the
traditional criminal justice resource allocation, with felonies and violent misdemeanors
remaining a State responsibility, and non-violent misdemeanors becoming a Community
responsibility. This would distinguish the fundamental role of the State as preserving
public safety, while the community role would be to preserve public order. A significant
mission of both public safety and public order is accountability; i.e., what happens when
offenders continue to violate the norms.
Community Justice Centers, funded by Corrections, currently provide an array of justice
services to the communities in which they exist. There are currently 12 Justice Centers,
in Brattleboro, Burlington, Essex, Barre, Hartford, Montpelier, Newport, Rutland,
Springfield, St. Albans, St. Johnsbury, and Winooski. There are restorative programs in
Bellows Falls, Hardwick-Greensboro, and Hinesburg. Randolph has recently hired a
director so they should be operational soon. Presently State funds support these efforts
at the level of about $750,000.
These Community Justice Centers provide a range of criminal justice services,
beginning with establishing a credible source of community value setting around
behaviors that are not acceptable. The mechanisms for establishing the values begin
with Pre-Charge diversion, which uses the power of the police officer to file a charge as
the leverage to engage violators in constructive behaviors, in return for which the
charges are not filed.
This process continues through Juvenile and Adult Diversion programs, which provide
the State’s Attorney with a further mechanism to not bring forward charges against
persons whom community boards determine to have satisfied requirements for
restoration.

79

Community Justice Centers also manage the Adult Reparative Probation program,
where panels of citizens define mechanisms for offenders to regain the trust of the
community.
Several Community Justice Centers are engaging with offenders reentering after
periods of incarceration, developing the standards for behavior and action that will be
expected of the offender in return for his/her acceptance back into the community.
Justice Centers are engaging directly in providing community wraparound supervision
and support to hold serious, violent offenders accountable to the community after
release.
Finally, several Community Justice Centers are engaged with providing self-protection
from offenders who reach the maximum term of sentence under State authority, and
developing (both with and without offender participation) mechanisms for enhancing
safety.
Community Justice Centers provide Vermont communities both the resources and the
incentives to take on responsibility for responding to behaviors that reduce the quality of
life in their own community and in doing so, provide a disincentive to use more costly
State resources.

80

Strategy Four: DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY TO INCREASE
EFFICIENCY
A. Use Electronic Monitoring
1. As an alternative to Probation Supervision for Low-Risk Offenders
To enable continued resources for the highest risk offenders in the community, a viable
strategy is to use technology to augment the supervision of the lowest risk offenders.
There are currently many (5300) offenders placed on probation or parole on large, low
supervision (also known as “Response Supervision”) caseloads. They are currently
supervised by some 38 Probation Officers plus support staff.
Current technology is available to provide random automated voice recognition
telephone contact with these offenders. Offenders under this form of monitoring would
be required to have a telephone and respond to automated questions on a regular
basis. While decreasing face-to-face contacts with staff, such technology would
increase the overall frequency of contacts. It is possible for offenders to be charged the
cost of calls and be billed by the electronic provider. In such a system, there would be
little cost to the state.
Automated telephone systems provide notices of offender non-compliance to DOC staff.
Staff monitor such reports, then ensure that appropriate action is taken.
The likely target population would be the current 2,400 low or moderate risk, non-violent
misdemeanor offenders under field supervision. They are supervised at about a 100:1
caseload level. Many of these could be placed on telephone supervision at up to a
600:1 ratio, freeing up approximately the equivalent of 14 probation officer positions.
Savings would be about $750,000. Some of these staff could be reassigned to
enhance supervision of higher risk offenders re-entering from correctional facilities,
allowing further inmate releases. Projected staff savings are more predictable in larger
offices because of larger economies of scale.
Similar systems with high automated case loads are currently used in several states,
with reported success. While these states have larger caseloads than Vermont to begin
with, the technology results in greater oversight. Such a shift may require legislation to
require payment as a condition of eventual discharge.

2. As an Enhancement to Supervision
Electronic monitoring strategies can also be used to enhance the effectiveness and
efficiency of supervision in higher risk offender populations. It can support house arrest,
tracking offender movement and attendance at required activities (e.g., work,
81

treatment). If applied to appropriate, targeted offender groups that are higher risk,
savings can be attained while protecting public safety.
For example, target groups could include:
•

Incarcerated Felony DUI Offenders

Incarcerated felony DUI offenders could be placed on equipment that provides constant
trans-dermal alcohol monitoring. The equipment costs $1500 per unit to purchase, with
a $6 per day service cost. If rented, the cost per day for equipment and service is
approximately $10 per day, or $3650 annually. This equipment would enhance the
capacity of field staff to monitor and control the offender who would otherwise be
incarcerated.
There are approximately 200 admissions annually to incarceration for Motor Vehicle
Felonies. They have an average minimum sentence of 1.3 years to serve. Motor
Vehicle felons comprise about 150 beds at any one time.
Statutory change to allow the use of electronic monitoring for earlier release on transdermal alcohol monitoring furlough could achieve added bedspace savings.
Were all incarcerated felony DUI offenders placed on such furlough three months earlier
than current law allows, the average savings would be some 50 bed-years, or about
$1.1 million.
The cost of electronics to monitor 50 inmates on an average daily basis would be
$180,000. In addition, the equivalent of two field supervision staff (Community
Correctional Officers) would be required to provide failure follow-up and daily
monitoring. This would add about $100,000 to costs, with approximate savings of
$750,000 for the entire population.
The savings would be significantly reduced if offender non-compliance rates are high or
if some offense categories were excluded from the option. A non-compliance rate of
50% would reduce the bed-years savings by up to half (less time out prior to failure),
reducing savings to as little as $300,000.
If such a proposal were of interest, we would need to further analyze the technical,
operational, and fiscal practicalities and the feasible response time frame to violations.
•

Violent Felons Already in the Community

There are about 600 offenders on probation who have been convicted of violent felony
crimes. The great majority (75%) of these offenders is under risk management
supervision, and many are on probation after having completed a term of incarceration
on a “split” sentence (a sentence in which the court suspends part of the term, but
imposes part to serve).
82

There are also about 400 violent felons on parole, re-entry, or intermediate sanctions.
These offenders are placed in treatment programs and are under intensive supervision.
Enhancing supervision with electronic monitoring for those who pose higher risk of reoffense would not only provide additional effectiveness in supervision, but would allow
DOC to sanction offenders who commit technical violations of their release conditions.
The electronic monitoring could be added as a condition, rather than bringing a full
violation. This option would not be used for offenders who violate a condition of release
related to their offending behavior, but only for violating rules that do not increase risk.
•

Pre-trial Detainees

There are about 3200 different individuals involved in detention for some period of time
during each year for non-violent felony charges. Many of these offenders are detained
for very short periods, but the net average daily population of these defendants is about
200. Nearly three-quarters of these detainees do not become sentenced inmates.
With legislative authorization, they could all be placed on GPS home confinement
monitoring.
This strategy might well place more detainees on electronic supervision for longer
periods than are currently in detention (a.k.a. widening of the net). If the very large
number of offenders who are not currently detained were placed under such
surveillance, the costs would escalate dramatically.
The program could be initiated on a pilot basis in, for example, Bennington, Chittenden,
and Rutland counties. This would reduce detention by about 15-25 beds, though as
many as 50 different people would be monitored at a given time. The large volume of
detainees would require additional staff. Equipment turnover is labor intensive. A
statewide program could require at least one staff (at $50,000 per position) in each
region to retrieve and transfer the equipment. Supervision, monitoring, response,
affidavit writing, and court time may require further staff.
Piloting the program may have constitutional issues in the provision of one part of the
State with a liberty opportunity not available to all.
Costs for GPS Cellular are about $9 per day or $165,000 per year for 50 units. There
would be additional costs due to damage, loss, and need for spares, at about $50,000.
There are some technical limitations to GPS due to the Vermont terrain, so detainees in
areas without cell phone coverage would not be placed on the system. This same
restriction applies to any of these electronic monitoring options requiring constant
connectivity.
Total costs for the three districts would be about $350,000. With an average population
of about 25 detainees, maximum savings might be $150,000 over the cost of housing
an equivalent number out-of-state. It is highly likely that many of these offenders
would fail to abide by release conditions, and potential savings would be reduced.
83

Most importantly, a mechanism would be required to ensure that the period of time a
defendant was monitored electronically did not expand the time of detention. The
restriction of liberty may count against any sentence imposed, as does detention time
now, and this would require legislation.
•

Sex Offenders

Incarcerated low risk sex offenders who are compliant with treatment and are currently
held beyond minimum release (for a variety of reasons) could be placed on intensive
supervision with GPS monitoring.
Placement of incarcerated low risk sex offenders in the community would cost
approximately $8 per day for electronics, $50,000 per year for additional Community
Correctional Officers (CCOs) with caseloads of 15. These staff would provide
specialized supervision and activity tracking of the offenders.
The sex offenders would be transferred to specialized caseloads with Probation Officers
who are specialists in working with sex offenders. The Department has identified such
specialists, and their caseloads would be shifted to other staff.
The supervision and electronics costs for each 15 offenders would be approximately
$95,000.
Intensive treatment in the community costs about $3,000 per capita annually, or about
$45,000 for 15 inmates. Total cost of this program would be about $140,000, less any
offender payment.
The offset would be about $330,000 in incarceration costs for 15 such offenders. While
this is a small number of offenders, the savings are continuing, since many will be under
supervision for many years.
•

Property/Drug Felons

Similarly, felons serving time for property or drug crimes could be released on
“electronic furlough” prior to the 90-day reintegration furlough. These offenders would
have continuous electronic monitoring and intensive supervision. In lieu of serving their
minimum sentence, or a portion thereof, they would be required to participate in a
community service work crew, in addition to paid employment or education
programming. This would require legislation.
There are some 500 annual admissions of such offenders, with an average sentence of
1.2 years. There are currently about 500 property felons and 200 drug felons in prison.
If the “electronic furlough” option were available for the last 50% of the minimum
sentence, and were used by half of the eligible offenders, approximately 125 bed-years
could be saved.
84

Offenders would receive credit toward their sentence for participation.
If annually 250 offenders were placed on this sanction for six months each, the cost
would be about $365,000 for the equipment. Additional correctional staffing would be
necessary for equipment monitoring and reaction to failure/relapse, and to provide
necessary supervision, at caseload ratios of about 25:1. This would add about 10 CCO
staff to field offices, at about $500,000 in cost, less any offender payment.
The offset would be some 125 bed-years in incarceration, or about $2.5 million. The
savings would be roughly $1.6 million.

3. As a Sanction
•

As a graduated sanction

About 850 graduated sanctions (return to prison) were given last year for violations of
rules. These sanctions averaged about 15 days per return, and contributed about 35
bed-years to the population.
Electronics used for this population would be Passive GPS. This form of electronic
monitoring provides a daily summary of compliance with conditions. In contrast, active
monitoring provides constant location and movement tracking, but is subject to
geographic coverage limitations. The passive system is significantly less costly than the
active system.
Placement of offenders on Passive GPS tracking and day reporting as a sanction might
reduce further non-compliance, and would replace bed-days of violation. A reduction
could be made of perhaps 10 bed-years from employment of 50 units of electronic
supervision.
•

Rules violations on furlough (Notice of Suspension)

In addition to graduated sanctions, there are approximately 1200 suspensions from
furlough and re-incarcerations annually for violating release conditions. These are
longer returns to prison and usually result from more serious or repeat violations. About
half of them are for substance abuse, and most of the rest are for continued rules
violations. Only about 10% are for new criminal behavior.
The average period of time returned to prison for such violations is 87 days.
Electronic monitoring could be applied as a sanction for all offenders who violate
conditions of release short of new criminal behavior. This practice would involve any
offender violating a rule or abusing substances that did not involve behaviors that are
directly related to the criminality of the offender.

85

One could expect a reduction of perhaps 25% of the returns, or about 300 returns for 90
days (about 75 bed-years). To achieve this would require half or more of the potential
returns to be so monitored, about 600 offenders, presuming a 50% failure rate. This
would lead to an average daily population of about 300.
If these 300 were placed on electronic supervision for 90 days, the equipment required
would be approximately 90 days x $8 x 300 persons, or about $216,000. In addition,
three staff positions to provide equipment turnover, training, and monitoring would be
necessary at a cost of about $150,000. Net savings might be in the neighborhood of
$1.2 million. Legislation would be necessary to allow placement of any offender on
electronic monitoring in lieu of violation.
Current legislation limits the use of electronic monitoring to non-violent, misdemeanor,
and low risk offenders. This limits eligibility to slightly less than 1/3 of the violations. To
achieve any significant savings, the target group should include all offenders on parole
and furlough, either pre-approved or post-incarceration. The practice could be
extended to provide an alternative sentence for probation violations.

B.

Reduce Custody & Accelerate Release

There are several potential strategies for reducing the custody level of offenders housed
in Vermont facilities. Absent outright release, these all involve the development of
capacity that does not currently exist, and thus are longer term in fruition.

1. Work Camps
Additional work camps should be constructed to serve as incarceration for inmates
currently housed in more expensive secure beds. The work camp concept is a viable
alternative for most non-violent offenders. These offenders start serving their sentence
in prison, but could earn their way to work camp by appropriate behavior for a specified
period.
Work camps could be constructed for different populations, to focus on issues of alcohol
abuse, work habits, drug abuse, and the like. The program for each could be a
therapeutic community, with communal responsibility for behavior. The work camp
model could be used for cooperative offenders with violent offenses, who would engage
in work inside the secure perimeter. The incentive for participation for the inmates
would be the work camp credit-off-sentence, allowing day-for-day credit, effectively
reducing the residual stay by 50%. As such, these camps would be extremely
competitive with the cost of Out-of State beds, as they provide two beds for the time of
one.
There are currently 154 inmates in prison who fit the criteria for housing in a work camp
as discussed earlier. Simply placing these inmates at a work camp (if the bedspace
86

were available) would reduce that number by half8. With expansion of criteria for
inclusion in work camp programming, the numbers and the savings could be enhanced.
The population for work camps could be expanded to include some misdemeanor
crimes currently excluded by DOC policy.

Population for Work Camp
Include

In Prison 11/13/2007

2162

Male}
Sentenced}
No Detainer}
Non Violent Most serious Offense}
Not at Work Camp}
Pre Minimum Release}

1998
1671
1496
653
555
376

Reason

Exclude
-164
-327
-175
-843
-98
-179

376

71

Pre-Minimum
Release

Held Past Min Needs
Residence

Exclude

Failed At Camp
-39
337
DR
-60
277
-4
273
Custody Level
-2
271
OOS Refusal
-1
270
Prior Offense
Max within 30 days
-10
260
Other Offenses DOC
-150
110
Classified as Violent**
Court /OOS detainer
104
-6
On Camp Waiting List
28
104
"Eligible for Work Camp, Not there" = 154

Reason
{Female
{Pre-Trial Detainee
{Detainer or court action
{Violent Offense
{At Work Camp
{Past Minimum Release

Exclude
-5

-44

71
66
66
66
66
66
22
22
22

Camp Possible

** includes Disorderly Conduct; Resisting arrest; Prohibited Acts; Arson 3rd degree
Asslt on Law Enf; Domestic Abuse; Leaving Scene of Fatal Accident, Burglary Occupied

The Council on State Governments (CSG) has conducted an analysis of DOC data, to
see if there was a population for a drug/alcohol high need, non-violent work camp
program.
The CSG did their analysis a completely different way from the DOC analysis, looking at
indicators for high drug need and non-violent offenses. The CSG conclusion is similar
to the above table, finding a total of 136 inmates currently not at the camp and who
could be, based on their criteria
8

In estimating the cost reductions from the 50% reduction in sentences for time served at the Work
Camp, we must acknowledge the benefit that traditional inmates get from the 90-day Reintegration
Furlough.

87

2. Secure Treatment Residential Facility
This would be a program for women, involving expansion of current residential services
for inmates placed on treatment furlough at the Brattleboro Retreat facility.

Context: The DOC currently has a contract with a long-term vendor, Phoenix House, to
provide services to women in Brattleboro. In addition, we also contract with the same
vendor to provide transitional housing services for women in Brattleboro. The common
theme in these services is the provision of substance abuse and recovery services.
Opportunity: The vendor delivers certain of these services in a leased facility, the
former Linden Lodge of the Brattleboro Retreat, and has the ability, with renovations
(costs estimated at $500,000), to access substantially more space in this facility. There
may be advantages of economies of scale in staffing and infrastructure. The town of
Brattleboro has indicated openness to discussing such a treatment program.
Combining the two DOC programs (Tapestry I & II) with a residential treatment center
run by the vendor in a single, functional location could be ideal for all parties.
Program Concept: The program would be a minimum-security residential treatment
center with a modified therapeutic community for female offenders diagnosed with
substance abuse disorders. The program would house 25 additional offenders in the
first year, expanding to a mature program capacity of 50 additional offenders.
The program would be a staff-secure facility for mid-level recidivism risk female inmates
convicted of non-violent felonies. The facility would be a hybrid public/private model,
with work crew supervision and Phoenix providing supervision and treatment.
With sufficient beds available in a treatment facility and some added beds at Southeast
State, the current Dale Facility could be closed, with resulting savings.

3. Minimum Security Substance Abuse Work Camp
There are three relatively inexpensive options for expanding bedspace to achieve
expanded capacity for minimum-security inmates. As noted earlier, the first is relatively
immediate – to expand the Caledonia Community Work Camp by 20 beds. This can be
done with modest renovation, essentially adding five more fixed double-bunks to each
wing. There are currently 50 inmates on the waiting list for the work camp.
The second option would be a larger expansion of the Caledonia Community Work
Camp, with the addition of another residential unit of 50-60 beds. This unit could be a
designated treatment facility for substance abusing non-violent offenders. Town
officials have been positive about the current mutually beneficial relationship with
Corrections.
A third option is to re-designate the Southeast State Correctional Facility at Windsor as
an on-grounds work camp for male offenders. This would be a work camp facility for
88

inmates who had earned minimum custody, and have substance addictions. The
program would involve intensive substance abuse treatment in a therapeutic community
setting, with on-grounds work for the inmates, to include traditional Correctional
Industries.
A fourth option would be to place a work camp on the grounds of the Northwest Facility
if it remains open, thus gaining certain economies of scale.
The per capita cost of the Caledonia Community Work Camp in FY2007 was $41, 014.
This places it in the cost range of the Northern State and Southern State prisons, both
of which are much larger and have economies of scale.
More importantly, one day at the work camp counts as two days off the sentence, and
effectively a work camp bed provides two bed-years for the cost of one, so the effective
per capita cost is $20,255.

4. Violation Centers
An additional use for work camps would be to designate one or more new work camps
as violation facilities. The target population would be offenders returned to prison for
violating conditions of release. Offenders would be returned to demonstrate an
additional period of appropriate behavior, while acquiring skills and learning habits of
mind that may reduce their violating behavior. Other states have minimum security
facilities used for housing violators.

Offense Type vs Status & Minimum Release Date
FY2007 - Average Daily Prison Population
Seriousness
Serious Fel.
Person Fel.
Property Fel.
Drug Felony
Motor Veh. Fel.
Other Felony
Total Felony
Person Misd.
Property Misd.
Drug Misd.
Motor Veh. Misd.
Other Misd.
Total Misdem.
Unknown
Total

Total
794
228
509
177
152
75
1936
123
41
18
39
24
245
22
2203

Detained
125
38
64
48
16
34
324
25
9
4
7
9
54
7
385

PreMin
433
110
271
100
97
19
1030
56
18
11
20
8
114
5
1149

StayPast BackPast
116
107
47
31
51
113
9
17
7
29
6
15
236
310
18
19
6
6
1
2
4
5
3
2
32
34
2
7
270
352

NAV
14
2
11
4
3
1
34
4
2
1
3
1
11
6
51

% PreMin
55%
48%
53%
57%
64%
25%
53%
46%
44%
62%
52%
35%
46%
23%
52%

There are 352 inmates in prison on a given day that are back in prison after having
been released to conditional reentry. Of these, 233, or two-thirds, are non-violent
offenders returned primarily for drug abuse and rules violations. Currently, the only
means of holding them accountable is a return to prison.
89

The program for these beds would focus on labor, involving road crews doing brush
cutting, maintenance at state parks and fishing access areas, highway roadside
cleaning, and the like, combined with drug and alcohol treatment at night.
At reduced stay for work camp credit, the camps would accelerate release of offenders
who performed according to rule, and reduce the period of release supervision
vulnerability to violation. Currently, only three of the target population of about 240
inmates (those serving on a return to incarceration for rules violation or drug use) is
actually at the work camp.
As noted previously, double credit for time served effectively cuts this cost in half, to
$20,255 per capita.

C.

Create an Alternative Housing Continuum

One of the necessary components of successful reentry from a period of time in prison
is finding housing – a place to live. For many offenders, particularly those who have
been incarcerated for a year or more, this can present an insurmountable obstacle to
success. Although the Department of Corrections provides some transition assistance,
and provides transitional housing with a capacity of about 75 beds, many offenders
cannot succeed in traditional housing.
The continuum of housing is as follows:

1. Privately Operated Apartments
On occasion in the past, the DOC provided support for the first month, last month, and
security deposit (about $1500 – a one-time cost) for released offenders. However, the
absence of community and family supports and the intensity of supervision for these
offenders very often results in their failure. Not incidentally, it also results in the loss of
the rental and security deposits. A recent study has demonstrated that this practice of
subsidized housing results in much higher return rates than other forms of transitional
housing, and this practice has been de-emphasized.

2. Staffed Supported Living
The next level of structured housing provides live-in staff, external case management,
offsite work, training, education, and on-site therapeutic community. This level of
staffing is generally 1-2 staff on shift during the day, providing support and assistance to
the group of offenders in maintaining the rules, providing structure for meals, and
ensuring attendance at activities.
Residents subsidize costs by paying a weekly rent. Annual costs per resident range
from $10,000-$25,000 depending on the size of the housing program and intensity of
90

service provided. Smaller scale transitional housing operations, like Vermont’s small
prisons, have both positive and negative attributes. They are clearly more costly than
larger facilities.

3. Supervised Supported Living
A more intensive level of housing requires over-night staffing (24x7). This is a more
structured housing model, with case management, work, training, and education on-oroff site; on-site therapeutic community; on-site food preparation (by the offenders), and
outpatient treatment for issues of mental health or substance abuse.
Portions of the services may be offset by third party payers (private donations,
leveraging Federal or State resources, fundraising). Residents subsidize costs by
paying a weekly rent. Annual costs per resident range from $20,000-$33,000
depending on the size of the housing program and intensity of services provided.
Compared to out-of-state placement, this option is more costly, but would likely enhance
reentry success.
Many structured/supported housing programs do not accept sex offenders for which
DOC currently has a high level of demand for housing. Some communities in the state
prohibit even the exploration of housing programs for sex offenders. Our offenders are
from Vermont communities and eventually return to our communities. Successfully
returning Vermonters convicted of sex offenses in a structured manner that minimizes
reoffenses is an important public safety consideration.

4. Wraparound Community Reentry Services
This approach creates a structured program involving family, friends, treatment
providers, and supervision tailored to the individual. The approaches require intensive
case management and coordination of resources for housing, treatment, education and
training, rehabilitation services, and supervision.
These structured programs can be developed for reentering inmates who have
• Severe Mental Illness,
• Developmental Disabilities,
• Traumatic Brain Injury,
• Other Disabilities.
The costs for such programs can vary widely, depending on the levels and degree of
services required. The programs cost from $50,000-$150,000 per year or, in some
individual cases, far more. Significant portions of these costs may be offset by third
party payers.

91

D. Reduce Duration of DOC Involvement with Offenders
1. Eliminate (reduce) Program Requirements in Prison
On average in FY2007, there were some 270 inmates in prison who were past their
minimum release date, and who had never been released, primarily due to behavior in
custody and program performance. These offenders are high risk, and two thirds of
them (181) are serving on violent offenses. Elimination of program requirements for
release would make approximately 100 of them eligible for Parole. How many would
actually be released is difficult to estimate. This is not a particularly viable option and
has not been analyzed further.

2. Term Furlough (specified length of time on Conditional Reentry), then
Reduction in Supervision Level.
This proposal would limit the time on Conditional Reentry to 90 days. Successful
completion of 90 days on this status would generally (without an override) result in a
DOC recommendation to the Parole Board to parole the offender to the lower intensity
of parole supervision. There are some 1,000 offenders currently in Conditional Reentry.
The longer offenders are under this intensive restriction, the more they are at risk of a
violation of the rules of the release status. In particular, some 600 of the offenders on
Conditional Reentry status are non-violent criminals. The great majority of these are not
high risk to re-offend. Enhanced community treatment resources could further reduce
risk.
Failure to abide by the release conditions, of course, would extend the period of
supervision, or result in return to prison.
Estimating the impact of this change is difficult. It is likely that offenders who earned
parole earlier through this process would not be likely to reoffend, and the reduction in
the intensity of supervision might reduce the vulnerability to technical violation.
Some 60% of the reentry releases are ended within 90 days, with about half resulting
from violations and return to prison. However, some 279 (30%) of the 937 persons
currently on furlough have succeeded on reentry for more than 6 months, and a
reduction of term would affect them.

3. Presumptive Parole for Non-violent Offenders
This option would involve the offender being placed for three months on Conditional
Reentry Furlough, then placement on parole unless the Parole Board refused to grant
parole.
The relationship between the time on furlough and the decision to recommend parole is
subjective. For offenders who have been incarcerated for non-violent offenses, a more
92

objective or presumptive system might have the effect of reducing the period of time on
furlough, and likely reduce the “vulnerability” of some offenders to rules violations.
Another way to accomplish this would be to actually have the offenders appear before
the Parole Board first, upon reaching minimum release, with a recommendation for
three months of "transition conditions" at the beginning of their supervision. The
reduction in supervision level could take place after three months of this higher level
supervision.
This would certainly provide a systematic way of ensuring that Conditional Reentry is
only used for those offenders who are truly not ready for parole supervision.

4. Work Release – 60-90 days prior to Reintegration Furlough
A practice from past legislation that has been suggested by DOC staff is the reinstitution
of Work Release for inmates prior to reaching their minimum. Under this status,
offenders who have demonstrated appropriate behavior while serving a portion of their
sentence could be released from prison during work hours to employment in the
community. The offenders would sleep at the facility, pay room and board, and
participate in mandatory savings from any wages, to accumulate sufficient funds for
permanent reentry. The supervision of these offenders would be on Furlough status.
While this practice would not immediately reduce bedspace, the practical effect is that
inmates who are nearing the existing Reintegration Furlough (90 days prior to minimum
release date) could begin establishing work and living connections to be ready for full
release on schedule. The acceleration of the process might have the effect of
expanding the impact of the already successful Reintegration Furlough process, which
has reduced incarceration by about 60 beds.
The average stay on Reintegration Furlough since the inception of the program in
January 2006 has been 53.7 days for the 591 offenders who have been on it. Prior
preparation for this status, for offenders whose behavior warrants, could increase the
bedspace impact by increasing duration of the furlough.
The primary arguments against this concept are that, on one hand, it violates a desire
for Truth in Sentencing, and on the other hand, if the offenders are safe enough to be
released during the day, they should not be housed in a bed designed for secure
incarceration.

93

E. Limit Violation Returns for Non-violent Offenders
Furlough Violations - FY 2007
All Returns
# Returns
% of Returns Beds Used
New Crime
228
11%
89
Technical
1869
89%
244
totals
2097
100%
334
Technical Violations
Underlying Crime
Violent
Grad Sanction
242
12%
45
Revocation
256
12%
121
totals
498
24%
165
Underlying Crime
Non-Violent
Grad Sanction
704
34%
16
Revocation
667
32%
62
totals
1371
65%
78

In Fiscal Year 2007, as discussed earlier in the section concerning electronic
monitoring, there were some 2000 persons returned to prison from furlough, either PreApproved Furlough or Conditional Reentry. Of these, the majority (65%) were sanctions
against offenders convicted of non-violent offenses, for violations of the rules of release.
More than half of these violations were for the use of alcohol or illegal drugs.
While this is a large number of violations, the use of the graduated sanction process
limits the bedspace utilization. Elimination of this level of accountability would produce
only modest (78 beds at most) bedspace savings, although it is a tangible savings.
There are alternatives to re-incarceration for these offenders (non-violent, rules
violations):
a. Since a large proportion of these returns are for relapses of substance abuse,
placement in mandatory intensive treatment/education programs could be a costeffective offset to the incarceration costs. Rather than a 15-day jail sanction, these
offenders could be required to attend three weeks of one-hour treatment/education
sessions, involving daily interventions by certified alcohol/drug counselors. These
sessions could involve cost-effective group approaches.
b. The creation of Community Reentry Accountability Panels under the aegis of
Community Justice Centers could provide a decision-making support system of
volunteer citizens to determine whether the best interest of the community and the
offender would be served by re-incarceration, or a more restorative activity.
For offenders who are being held accountable for rules violations, it is likely to be
more effective that there be an external body to determine the damage to public
safety from such a violation, rather than the DOC officer whose authority has been
challenged by the violation.
94

c. An additional option for violation of the rules could be placement in a residential
treatment program in partnership with the AHS.
d. Another option is also described in earlier sections – the use of electronic
monitoring. This could be more effective in reducing bedspace if it were applied to
all offenders, whether or not convicted of a violent crime, so long as the technical
violation of rules was not related to the underlying offense. Such violations would
include, for example:
(1.) Offender who is on furlough after serving two years in prison for aggravated
assault, no substances involved, is found at home having consumed alcohol. This is
in violation of conditions, and the offender is placed on a radio transmitter that
constantly monitors skin alcohol levels.
(2.) Offender who is placed on pre-approved furlough with a requirement that he
participate in the community-based intensive domestic abuse program is out of
bounds, but such behavior is not connected to victim or victim profile contact. The
offender is then placed on GPS to enable monitoring of movement. Currently this
active GPS system, as discussed earlier, is limited to locations in Vermont with good
cell phone reception. Also, policy maker must set expectations regarding the
response time to late night violations, a costly challenge in a rural state.
(3.) A domestic assault offender on re-entry, with a driver's license, is seen driving
out of a fishing access by DOC work crew staff, despite the fact that he doesn't have
DOC permission to drive, is then placed on GPS in order to monitor future
movement.

F. Reduce Demand (Mostly out of DOC control)
•

Community Accountability

The following concept is worth further discussion.
Under new legislation, communities could be asked to pay for placement of
misdemeanants, directing revenue to local Community Justice Centers.
Along with (and connected to) limited fiscal resources, Vermont has finite prison space.
This space is expensive to build and operate, and is aging and (due to the “Not In My
Back Yard” sentiment) not likely to increase materially anytime soon. To reduce the
disproportional utilization of correctional resources by a few counties, the State could
create a financial incentive/disincentive for communities based on their relative (to
population, serious crime) use of finite prison space. Unlike the vast majority of other
States, communities in Vermont do not directly share the cost of incarceration. While a
few of these communities at least share the burden of housing state correctional
95

facilities, most do not. This is particularly true for communities with large proportions of
offenders who commit misdemeanor crimes.
Given the design for our correctional services system, there is no incentive to local
justice systems to restrain their use of costly public resources. Clearly State laws are a
major factor in utilization of State resources. In addition, other variables such as local
prosecution policy, sentencing patterns, and community support for offender
reintegration are important. Acceptance of transitional housing and relative utilization of
prison alternatives such as diversion and reparative probation can also improve success
and reduce costs.
The State of California has employed such a managed care approach to Juvenile
Justice. Offenders convicted of serious offenses are the State’s responsibility, and
communities have no cost. Low level misdemeanants, however, incur the full cost of
incarceration by the community. With mid-range offenders, the costs are shared.
One could imagine a system where the availability of finite resources (secure beds or
higher levels of supervision) is managed by a set of needs-based guidelines based on
the degree of harm done, the risk of criminality, and the responsivity of the offender to
the community.
Under this plan, communities that use below average resources would receive
preferential consideration in the distribution of State resources. Communities that used
a disproportionate share of correctional resources would do less well in the allocation of
other State resources to reflect the burden they place on other Vermont communities.
In total, local communities would be held harmless, but individual communities would
again have an incentive to manage taxpayer resources directed to Corrections.
The current system is demand-driven and without limits. If there were a realistic, fixed
capacity, access to those beds/services and the length of stay would require high levels
of selectivity.
Case planning involving all stakeholders is critical to making this fixed resource system
work. Services could be allocated based on reported crime rate/severity/by county. Up
to the level of allocation, a county can use beds/services as it deems appropriate.
For utilization at a higher level than average, additional cost would be levied on the
incarcerating authority. These costs could be disincentives for overutilization (for
example, if a misdemeanant were lodged in a secure bed). The sending jurisdiction
might have to pay an additional fee for service. Rebates could provide incentives for
community diversion strategies.
Prior to engaging in a fixed resource system we would need to enhance local capacities
in many forms to deal with lower level crime and engage communities as partners in
field supervision, as well as reentry. The funding for this community capacity
development would be reasonable given the substantial savings attainable with reduced
bedspace costs.
96

A serious review of sentencing is now underway by the Vermont Sentencing
Commission established by the Legislature. That review could consider the advisability
of having the state correctional system deal only with felony crime. All lower level
crime would be the responsibility of local entities.
Felony offenders need to be further sorted by relative risk and a hierarchy created that
fits the bedspace available. Fixing the resources may be the only way out of our current
dilemma, and the process of education that would accompany such a consideration
would be invaluable.
•

Incapacitated persons

As discussed earlier, a non-criminal population for whom services could be discontinued
is the large number of incapacitated persons lodged for 24 hours by local law
enforcement. In addition to the strategies outlined above, the DOC could simply decline
to accept such persons when facilities are at capacity. This would require legislative
authorization, as correctional facilities are currently mandated to accept such noncriminal citizens even if the facility is overcrowded beyond capacity.
An alternative to refusing to accept them is to send an invoice of the cost of such
incarceration to the sending communities. This is not likely to be well received, but the
disproportionate use of these capacities by Chittenden and Rutland counties is currently
being subsidized by the other communities in Vermont.
•

Detention

Similarly, the Department could cease providing pre-arraignment and pre-trial detention
services to sheriffs/local police without court order. As with incapacitated persons, prearraignment detention is a high-volume, short stay practice. The costly, resourceintensive admission process requires medical and mental health screening, suicide
assessment, and criminal justice processing. The vast majority of detainees are
released at arraignment, having posted bond. Statutorily limiting the use of detention to
felons could substantially reduce the volume. Bedspace savings might amount to 20-40
beds statewide, but the result for law enforcement would be significant, in not having a
place for safekeeping.
•

Expand Term Probation to All Felonies

Term probation was expanded by the Legislature in 2006 to include all non-listed
felonies in addition to the misdemeanor offenses covered in the 2004 legislation. In
both offense categories a finite term is presumptive, unless the court determines
otherwise. This has helped reduce the numbers of persons under probation supervision
to the lowest level in more than 10 years.
Further expansion of the presumption of the sentencing process to define terms of
supervision for all probationers might continue this decline, such that probationers who
97

fulfill their obligations and conditions of release are terminated from supervision in the
absence of bad behavior. Those who are found to have successfully complied with their
release would be summarily discharged, unless the probation officer recommends
continuation to the judge.
•

Reduce mandatory sentences for Failure to Return from Furlough

Currently the penalty for failure to return by offenders in the community is the same as
for those who escape from a custodial facility. Members of the Judiciary have
suggested this is overly harsh and may be counterproductive. The concept would
differentiate penalties for escape from prison versus walk-away from furlough. The
current statute considers all escapes equally, with a sentence of up to 10 years,
mandatorily consecutive to the underlying sentence. These judges suggest that an
additional, consecutive three – six months added to the minimum sentence is sufficient
deterrence in most cases. That would be three months for short escape periods on
short underlying sentences; longer sentences for escape when the time out of place is
longer or the underlying sentence more serious. This might have the effect of
shortening time served for some offenders. Allowing the Judiciary the discretion to
have failure to return from furlough sentences served concurrently with other charges
might have the effect of lowering the number of offenders whose sentences are
extended by consecutive sentences for straying from furlough.
•

Sentencing Guidelines vs. Sentencing Options

It has been an ongoing debate in Vermont and elsewhere as to whether to restrain the
growth of prison population best by either:
a. Limiting the Judiciary’s discretion – presumptive guidelines, mandatory guidelines,
advisory guidelines; or
b. Increasing the options available to the Judiciary, other than incarceration, by
providing alternative sanctions, treatment programs, and community supervision
strategies.
For the past 20 years, Vermont has chosen the latter course, which has served us well.
The development of intermediate sanctions as additional options for the court has been
singularly successful in diverting more than 40% of prison intakes to less intrusive, less,
costly, and more effective sanctions. However, the demand for incarceration has
continued to increase.
A decade ago, the Department developed a set of sentencing options (communitybased intermediate sanctions) and a manual which provided guidance for the Judiciary
on the capability, offender eligibility, and treatment intent for the programs. The
Department is currently updating the sentencing options manual. Expansion and
addition of options other than incarceration are included.

98

The Legislature is exploring, with this study, the further development of alternative
sanctions.
The Vermont Sentencing Commission is also studying the issue. Additionally, Chief
Justice Reiber has constituted a task force to examine options to divert mentally ill or
substance abusing offenders to more effective treatment interventions. As such, this
report will not examine these options and potential impact in detail.

99

Strategy Five: CONSTRUCT MORE EFFICIENT FACILITIES
Another opportunity for achieving savings is to improve the efficiency of incarceration
with additional capital improvements. As discussed early in this document, the small
correctional facilities in Vermont are relatively inefficient. The facilities were built
incrementally over many decades. Most other states have abandoned the small,
“neighborhood” jail under pressure from the volume of incarceration, in favor of large,
more economical facilities.
The examination of the individual facilities engaged in earlier sections of this document
reveals shortcomings and needs for change in individual facilities. This is in keeping
with the legislative charge, and the need to achieve prompt savings.
However, it is important to note that, other than reducing actual incarceration levels, the
largest operating savings can be generated by fundamental restructuring of the
incarceration physical plant. Large, central, multi-purpose correctional facilities are
more efficient in operating costs, and able to sort offenders more effectively in terms of
security and treatment demands, and are fundamentally more efficient in staff-inmate
ratios.
The establishment of a large facility or facilities in Vermont is an enormous multi-year
funding and construction problem that does not reap “savings” until the new facility is
opened, and any old facilities are closed.
Nevertheless, it is important to put the proposals on the table.

A. Expand Capacity, Close Less Efficient Units
There are several ways to respond to the current bedspace shortfall, and to the
anticipated growth in demand. The Department currently contracts with Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) for approximately 550 beds. As discussed earlier, within
five years, at current rates of growth, up to an additional 400 beds will be needed. This
amounts to roughly 1,000 beds beyond the current in-state bed capacity.

Option 1:

Build a Large Prison

Vermont could build a single large facility, of 1,000 beds or more, costing approximately
$100 million in bonded indebtedness for construction costs, and about $35 million in
annual operating costs. Serious consideration of this option would require more precise
financial estimates.
The facilities that could be closed, as described earlier, include, for example,
Chittenden, Dale, Windsor, and St. Albans. The combined capacity of these facilities is
some 614 beds. A single facility, with separate sections for male detention, male
sentenced housing, and female detention, and sentenced housing, would be far more
100

cost effective than the current facilities. The additional bedspace could result in closure
of more facilities in Vermont, or return many inmates from CCA.
The combined operating cost of these four facilities (FY2007) was $29,596,000. The
combined average per capita costs of the same facilities was $48,201 per offender.
The large facility would replace these costs with an estimated $35,000 per offender, or
about $8.1 million in operating savings.
Securing capital funding and a site location are enormous impediments. In addition,
achieving any operating savings in the near term would be difficult, as old facilities
would not close until a new one was open. Such a high cost endeavor would clearly
warrant more extensive analysis if serious discussion develops.

Option 2: Partner with Private Prison Contractor
Vermont could collaborate with a private prison contractor to build and operate a large
facility in Vermont (e.g., 1,500 beds) that would give Vermont the right to half the beds
at a deeply discounted rate for 20 years. The vendor could offer surplus beds to other
Northeast states. This could provide Vermont with long-term capacity, rapidly. The
savings generated would be available more immediately. However, the costs of
constructing a new facility would be amortized in any new fee for the per diem bed
costs, which are likely to be higher than the current contract with CCA.
Some years ago, it was suggested that the Vermont State Racetrack in Pownal would
provide ample space and an excellent site for the location of a large prison facility.
Also several years ago, a concept was proposed by a consortium of private citizens in
Vermont, to build a 500 bed detention facility in Chittenden County. No recent
discussions have occurred on this concept.

Option 3: Expand Existing Facilities
•
•
•

Expand SSCF (Springfield) (150 beds)
Expand CCWC (Work Camp I)
If not closed, renovate NWSCF (St. Albans) and add a work camp

As discussed in the individual facility descriptions, the grounds of the facilities at St.
Albans, Springfield, and the St. Johnsbury Work Camp are suitable for expansion. The
bedspace additions are significantly cheaper to construct than whole new facilities, and
in fact further reduce operating costs. While still far smaller than the 1,000-bed, 2,000bed or larger facilities in other states, expanding Vermont facilities would increase their
relative cost efficiency.

101

B. Reduce Facility Centralized Costs
The current contract for medical services with Prison Health Services cost $13,369,509
in Fiscal Year 2007. This amounts to 17% of the overall cost of Vermont facilities’
costs9. The contribution on a per capita basis is $7,953 per inmate housed. This
contract provides round-the-clock health care coverage, as well as physician and dental
services.
The estimated per capita expenditure in the Contract Facilities operated by CCA is
$2000. The difference may somewhat be a matter of screening out all costly offenders
from the out-of-state population, thus concentrating costs in Vermont. The greater
impact is economies of scale (e.g., Vermont has eight or nine nurses on duty at off
hours, where a single large facility might have only one or two).
It is possible that modest cost savings could be achieved with similar screening and
consolidation of physically ill inmates in one or more facilities, creating a
geriatric/medical care capacity, relocating inmates to this facility, and concentrating care
resources. This could be a private contracted function.

C. Establish a Prison Siting Authority
The State of Vermont has had significant difficulty in finding communities willing to host
new prison construction. The past several facility construction projects have involved
massive efforts at recruitment and enrollment of community leaders and citizens in the
site selection process.
The Legislature could establish a Prison Siting Authority to select sites for expansion,
new construction, or correctional facilities for closing. Similar to the Federal Base
Closure Commission, this would result in a thoughtful proposal that could be voted up or
down by the Legislature.

9

As a note, while not strictly comparable, the state employee medical costs represent 11.6% of State
Government personnel costs in FY2007.

102

ADDITIONAL IDEAS AND APPLICATIONS
1. “Zero Sum Legislation”
While the Legislature has checks in its process that require accountability and
transparency, in terms of the likely fiscal impact of new laws, there is little consideration
of the fiscal impact of stiffer criminal penalties (save for the Governor's Civil
Confinement proposal). Responsibility and complicity for this dynamic is shared by us
all: elected/appointed officials, the media and, indeed, the public.
Given the cost/space limits on Corrections, the Legislature could commit to having all
prospective legislation be net-neutral in terms of bed-years. So if we want to further
punish and incapacitate highly violent offenders, we would need to lessen the sentence
or change the punishment for other offenders to free up sufficient beds in the future to
accommodate the new sanctions.
Taken a step further, the Legislature could commit to making the past decade's prison
footprint net-neutral, by again seeking to recalibrate sanctions in line with the long term
low Vermont crime rate.

2. Rethink Contracting with Private Providers
The Department currently contracts for secure incarceration with the Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA). These costs were some $11 million in FY2007 for an
average of 517 beds. The primary population that is sent out-of-state includes
offenders who do not participate in treatment, who are relatively healthy both mentally
and physically, and who are serving relatively long sentences for violent crimes
(although as the utilization has grown, the length of sentence has dropped).
An alternative would be to contract to house a different population – the substance
abusing, non-violent offenders who comprise a significant part of the incarcerated
population. These offenders serve relatively short sentences, generally less than a
year, and have significant dependencies. Many have failed in community treatment,
and while they are incarcerated for crimes, many of these crimes are the direct result of
addiction, and the need to raise money to buy drugs.
Alcohol and Drug Problems
among Non-Violent, Non-High Risk Inmates
LSI assessment, 7/27/2007

Alcohol
Pas t
(116)

Alcohol
Ne ve r
(239)
13.8%
18.8%

45.7%

67.4%

Alcohol
Now
(283)
36.4%

13.8%
40.5%

46.3%

103

Drug Us age
Never

Past

17.3%

Now

The Department of Corrections provides limited substance abuse treatment in
correctional facilities, at Dale and Windsor facilities for women, and Caledonia
Community Work Camp for men.
To reduce our reliance on and expense with CCA, we could consider a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the provision of secure residential substance abuse treatment
services. As practical, in many other states this approach would place non-violent
felony and misdemeanor offenders with addiction issues in privately-operated, secure
treatment facilities. These facilities would provide treatment in therapeutic community
settings, with (1) staff-secure facilities, where sufficient staffing provide 24x7 controls
over offender movement and behavior, or (2) physically-secure housing, with locked
doors. Offenders in these programs would be able to maintain employment in the
community, participate in community-based treatment and education, and maintain
community and family ties. Conceivably, offenders might even keep their children with
them. Release of these offenders on treatment furlough may make many of the
services provided for treatment reimbursable under Global Commitment.
While the Department of Corrections does not currently conduct a specific alcohol/drug
treatment assessment of offenders, the LSI-R (Level of Service Inventory-Revised) risk
assessment does include alcohol/drug “problem” self-assessment. The following chart
articulates the degree of alcohol and drug involvement from that assessment.
More than half the men, and two thirds of the women show a current drug problem, and
nearly half the men, and a quarter of the women show a current alcohol abuse problem.

NonViolent, Non-High Risk Inmates on 07-27-2007
Presence of Alcohol and Drug problems indicated in LSI-R Assessment
Both Genders
# Inmates
Drug
Never
Drug
Past
Problem
Now
Total
Males only
# Inmates
Drug
Never
Drug
Past
Problem
Now
Total
Females only
# Inmates
Drug
Never
Drug
Past
Problem
Now
Total

Alcohol Problem
Alcohol
Never
Past
Now
45
16
103
33
53
49
161
47
131
239
116
283
Alcohol Problem
Alcohol
Never
Past
Now
42
15
100
33
46
46
137
42
125
212
103
271
Alcohol Problem
Alcohol
Never
Past
Now
3
1
3
7
3
24
5
6
27
13
12

Total
164
135
339
638

Total
157
125
304
586

Total
7
10
35
52

Alcohol Problem
% of Total Alcohol
Never
Past
Now
Drug
Never
7%
3%
16%
Past
5%
8%
8%
Now
25%
7%
21%
Total
37%
18%
44%
Alcohol Problem
% of Total Alcohol
Never
Past
Now
Drug
Never
7%
3%
17%
Past
6%
8%
8%
Now
23%
7%
21%
Total
36%
18%
46%
Alcohol Problem
% of Total Alcohol
Never
Past
Now
Drug
Never
6%
2%
6%
Past
0%
13%
6%
Now
46%
10%
12%
Total
52%
25%
23%

Total
26%
21%
53%
100%

Total
27%
21%
52%
100%

Total
13%
19%
67%
100%

104

A more accurate assessment of the need for treatment is clearly desirable, and is being
conducted in Vermont by the Council on State Government’s Criminal Justice Group.
If a large portion of these offenders could be cared for by a private provider of
substance abuse treatment services, at competitive costs, then out-of state housing
could be reduced. This approach will not yield direct savings, but effective use of State
dollars for treatment is likely more cost-effective in the long run than simply housing
inmates in Kentucky.
This is worthy of further investigation.

3. Alternative Sentencing
•

Day Fines

This is a sentencing option with extensive experience in Britain, Germany, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden. Offenders are sentenced to a number of days fine, based on
their daily income. Fines are then proportional to the offender’s ability to pay, and “cost”
the same amount of labor.
Thus, offenders convicted of DUI would be fined 30 days pay. For an offender making
$15,000 (minimum wage), the fine would be $1,250. For an offender making $120,000,
the fine would be $10,000. The deterrent effect would be equalized, especially for
offenses that violate serious social norms, like drinking and driving.
The nations that have employed this strategy have seen significant reductions in
offending, as well as significant reductions in incarceration and its costs to the taxpayer.
In many instances, the current structure of Vermont’s approach to these offenses
punishes the taxpayer more than the offender. This strategy turns the tables.
Repeat offenders without means would face mandatory incarceration, or multiple
months of day fines.
•

Electronic Monitoring as an Alternative to Incarceration

Offenders would be sentenced to a number of days of electronic monitoring, using GPS
or other appropriate technologies (including remote alco-sensing). The target
population for this response would be substance-abusing offenders convicted of nonviolent offenses and would offset any jail time in the sentence. For this option to yield
savings, it would need to be used as an alternative program for incarcerated offenders,
not as an additional program for those already in the community.

105

•

Work Crew

The Community Work Service program (an intermediate sanction on pre-approved
furlough) is an effective option for the Judiciary to sentence non-violent offenders.
Expanding the use of this sanction would produce savings. In Fiscal Year 2007, there
were 940 persons admitted to prison as sentenced inmates with less than 30 days to
serve. This is in addition to the 2320 offenders who were sentenced to Community
Community Service Work
Female
Male
Total

Number of
Offenders
441
1879
2320

Number of
Days
5374
25313
30687

Work Service. Replacing the bed-days of sentences less than 30 days with work crew
days would produce savings.
FY2007
In FY2007, those 2,320 offenders placed on community service served a total of 30,687
days on a work crew (averages to 13.2 days per person). Those work crew days were
managed by 16 Correctional Work Crew Foremen, at a cost of $956,202. This
computes to $31 per day vs. $58 per day at CCA or $110/day in Vermont facilities.
Were an additional 490 inmates (half of those who served less than 30 days in jail)
sentenced to the same average 13.2 days of work crew as the current population, there
would be an additional 6,250 days of work crew required. This is a 20% increase to the
workload of the program, requiring four or five additional Correctional Work Crew
Foremen positions, at a cost of about $200,000 or less if analysis determines surplus
capacity among existing staff. This would offset the incarceration costs for the sentence
days of about $350,000 at CCA rates.
Ensuring that sentences of less than a certain number of days are served on work crew
and not added as consecutive to, or concurrent with, confinement sentences might
require statutory enforcement.
•

Home Confinement

As another substitute to incarceration, courts could be empowered to sentence certain
classes of offender to home confinement. Home confinement would comprise terms of
curfew, requirements for work, education, and treatment, and community service or
reparation. Offenders could be sentenced to this status, actively supervised at intensive
levels, with electronic monitoring to ensure compliance.

106

4. Selectively Reduce Penalties for Non-violent Felonies and All Misdemeanors
Both of these measures have been suggested by various parties. There are currently
445 property offense felons serving sentences in Vermont. There are 136 motor vehicle
felons serving sentences. There are currently 177 inmates in prison for a drug felony as
the most serious charge. The felony drug population is the fastest growing segment of
incarceration, and is projected to continue to be so.
Misdemeanants have been a relatively stable portion of the population in prison for
many years. There was an average of 245 misdemeanants in the prison population
during FY2007. Of these, however, 123, or half, were lodged for violent misdemeanors,
nearly all of which were domestic violence offenses. There are currently 18 inmates
serving sentences for a drug misdemeanor as the most serious charge. There are 75
other non-violent misdemeanants serving sentences today. There are about 750
different persons lodged for misdemeanor offenses each year, of some 7,000 persons10
convicted per year of misdemeanor or motor vehicle offenses annually.

5. Day Centers
A model that combines several of the concepts discussed above is the establishment of
Community Corrections Day Treatment and Day Reporting Centers in several
communities in Vermont. The model, in operation in many other states, would require
physical space and staffing that would potentially exceed current Probation & Parole
staffing capacity.
The proposal is to provide an alternative to incarceration for (currently incarcerated)
non-violent felons. The offender characteristics include drug/alcohol dependence, poor
work habits, and chronic offending. The average sentence for these offenders is about
1.2 years.
These offenders would begin in prison with four - six months’ participation in the Habits
of Mind program. Upon successful completion of the program, offenders would serve
the remainder of their sentence at the Day Treatment Center, providing community
service, receiving substance abuse treatment off site, and education at CHSVT.
Graduation from this program would result in placement at the Day Reporting Center
and offsite residence. Success at the center would result in increasing freedoms and
privileges.
Housing at the Day Center would be provided in a residential treatment center reentry
process “Half Way Program.” Offenders would work offsite on supervised crews,
continuing to real employment or community service work. Offenders would be
electronically supervised.

10

There are about 10,000 misdemeanor convictions annually, with about 1.5 charges per case.

107

The Day Center program is comprised of an array of intensive services that have a
graduated decrease in intensity, frequency, and supervision. The model would target:
• offenders released from prison after serving just a portion of their minimum
sentence, who require intervention and supervision;
• offenders under supervision who are at risk for incarceration due to continued
criminal behavior, substance use/abuse, and related behaviors;
• other offenders whose criminal risk warrants a higher level of supervision.
Offenders coming from prison would enter the residential portion of the program and
transition to the work release and reentry programs. Daily reporting, electronic
monitoring, and intensive supervision would follow.
Offenders already on community supervision who were charged with violations of their
release conditions could be sanctioned to the Day Reporting Center, avoiding their
incarceration.
A comprehensive psycho-social and risk assessment would lead to services including
education through CHSVT, vocational education and Habits of Mind; employment
planning; self-help support groups; recreation; and community service activities.
Interventions would include cognitive restructuring for reduction in violence; substance
abuse education and relapse prevention; domestic violence prevention programming;
trauma responsive programming (e.g., “Seeking Safety”).
The therapeutic community environment encourages participation in the program and in
individual success. Offenders receive concrete and social rewards for participation as
well as work camp credit. This would mean a 14-month sentence (the average for
these offenders) would result in four – six months in jail, and two - four months at the
Day Center Work program, followed by one – two months of Day Reporting.
A Day Center in Chittenden County, with 24 beds and a supervision/ treatment capacity
of 50 offenders, would provide round-the-clock staffing (two posts). Staffing costs are
estimated at $336,000. Supervision, drug testing, and electronic monitoring would be
provided by DOC. Case management and coordination of services might require 10
hrs/week/offender x $30/hr x 24 residents x 52 weeks = $374,400.
Cost per capita for residential treatment = $29,600, not accounting for supervision of
non-residential offenders. About half the population would be in residence, with the
other half in day reporting. With a full population, the program costs would be about half
that. In addition, most offenders would be there for six months or less, allowing cycling
of many more offenders through the program.
Capital cost options include state support for build/lease construction, or renovation of
existing structures.

108

Portions of the treatment services may be offset by third party payers (Medicaid), and
offenders would make a contribution based on earnings.
Offenders who are resident at the facility could also provide day labor on community
service crews.

6. Community Residential Treatment for Youthful Offenders
DOC could establish, through contract with private providers, community-based
residential treatment capacities of ten or more beds. This could provide youth in crisis
with housing and support services to include job, education, and life skills from the
Community High School of Vermont. Support services from Community Mental Health,
Alcohol and Drug Programs, and Vocational Rehabilitation could also be provided.
Costs for such a facility would involve round-the-clock staffing, outpatient treatment for
substance abuse and emotional disorders, and housing costs. These base costs would
be similar to residential treatment centers, above. However, a significant distinction
between youthful and adult offender facilities is the training and function of staff.
Youthful offenders present special challenges, require more extensive activities and
education/training opportunities, and supervision that is more direct. It is likely that any
design for such a facility would require costs in excess of $30,000 per capita. As
discussed earlier, some of these costs might be eligible for Title IV-E or Global
Commitment funds.

7. Revenue Enhancement
Creating or increasing offender payments for services, to include room and board
payments from inmates or from offenders in residential treatment, can enhance
revenue. On average, every man, woman, and child in Vermont pays $200/year in
taxes to fund the corrections system. Asking offenders (or their families) to contribute a
modest amount is certainly reasonable. Admittedly these concepts have limited
financial potential:
•

For prison: payment of room and board fees from offender accounts and assets.
Most inmates have limited resources, but some have assets and income that
could be accessed to provide some revenues. In the 2007 legislative session,
the Senate concurred with the Administration’s proposal to require a $5 inmate
medical visit co-pay.

•

While in prison, the costs of medical care could be defrayed, personal
responsibility enhanced, and unnecessary usage reduced) by a modest inmate
co-pay per visit.

•

Inmates who are employees of Vermont Offender Work Programs while
incarcerated currently have the opportunity to contribute part of their wages into a
personal account for paying housing and other costs on reentry. These funds
109

are matched dollar for dollar by the Department. Several inmates have taken
advantage of this program. As with medical co-pay, this approach (while an
expense) encourages personal responsibility and gives inmates practice with
normal social behavior.

8.

•

Inmates placed on Conditional Re-entry after incarceration could be required to
pay for costs of prior prison housing and board on an installment basis after
release. While all offenders in the community are assessed supervision fees,
additional costs might be recouped if inmates who were placed on electronic
monitoring were assessed a fee.

•

Inmates in halfway houses and other residential facilities often are asked to pay a
portion of the room and board costs. Methods include wage garnishment.

Approach Federal Marshal Regarding Detention Beds

The US Marshal and the US Attorney provide criminal law enforcement and public
protection for Vermonters by enforcing Federal laws. The Federal Government
prosecutes criminals who often would otherwise be a burden to the State criminal
justice system.
The US Marshal was recently interested in expanding utilization of bedspace in Vermont
to alleviate transportation to and from Federal Courts in Burlington and Rutland. He has
expressed this interest to the Commissioner of Corrections and Joint Corrections
Oversight Committee. While this concept has not been formally discussed, it may be of
interest to the Marshal to buy/lease the Northwest State Correctional Facility from
Vermont. This would allow the facility to close, offer the potential for continued
employment for staff of the facility, and create savings for Vermont by transferring the
inmates to Corrections Corporation of America or another vendor. This would provide
not only the net savings from CCA, but also the additional revenue from the Federal
Government.
As noted earlier, any decision to send substantial additional inmates out-of-state will be
problematic due to eligibility constraints.
These revenues could be substantial, and would allow some of the restructuring and
facility investment development alternatives described herein.

9.

Staff Suggestions on Saving Money

Staff across the Department have made suggestions for further savings: Many of these
suggestions were made by several staff, and have been incorporated into concepts
presented earlier. Others include the following:

110

a. “Allow inmates to smoke.”
A significant source of contraband, disciplinary reports, violations, and workload
derives from the banning of smoking in facilities. One employee suggested that
costs could be reduced if inmates were allowed to smoke and possess tobacco.
b. “Provide drug treatment in jail.”
Many staff have long called for more drug treatment opportunities to be provided in
prison. While the DOC provides substance abuse treatment in the field in keeping
with best practice and the research, the funds available limit treatment in the
facilities. Treatment is both more effective and less expensive in the community.
Providing such treatment in prison would require more funding, and provide less
benefit, but nonetheless likely reduce recidivism.
c. “Make prison harsher.”
This suggestion was not made in jest, but in the belief that the degree of care,
services, and entitlements inmates receive contribute to some staying longer, and
depriving them of these would have an effect of pushing them out sooner, or deter
them from coming back. For many inmates, the down-side of being incarcerated is
less than it would be for the average Vermonter.
d. “Keep them in jail longer, so they escape less in the field.”
This suggestion is intuitive, since many of the returns from release are for violating
conditions of release, not new crimes; keeping offenders in prison to their maximum
sentence would reduce the period of risk of violation.
However many offenders escape and are charged with the offense of escape, most
of those who are released are successful. The beds freed by releases far
outnumber the beds occupied by offenders who are convicted of escape or
violations. Predicting the offenders who will escape is not within the realm of current
science.
e. “Take a hard look at all the staffing positions in Central Office.”
Commonplace in any organization, the Central Office has grown over the years, but
in lower proportion to the increase in population, in the number of line staff, and
compared to the complexity of operating a modern corrections department. These
include administration of significant contracted functions of health and mental health
services, the establishment of victims’ services, and the increased need to structure
policy in response to litigation. The implementation of some of the proposals
defined above would result in a reduction in the need for management and
administration of those functions. The result would be a reduction in central staffing.
Central office will not be shielded from any DOC staffing reductions. Five of the first
111

seven vacant DOC positions eliminated in the current State-wide effort were from
the Central Office.
f. “Lower maximum sentences for non-violent crimes.”
This suggestion is addressed in several items above, but is valid on its face. The
increase in the length of sentences for misdemeanor and motor vehicle offenses is
one of the drivers for population growth.
g. “Reduce paper use.”
The Department is in a continual effort to communicate electronically and to increase
the use of duplexing when paper copies are required. The DOC Information
System is nearly a quarter of a century old, and has extensive limitations and
problems. Solutions would require a multi-million dollar investment.
h. “Incarcerate only listed offenses. Period.”
This is a significant step, which would require major statutory reform of the criminal
code.
i. “Establish pre-release/post-release centers in each area of significant population
… using the system of contracting out these facilities.
•
•
•

All Violation of Probation/Parole and Furlough unless a listed offense, go to
pre-release center.
Court may use centers to detain/sentence non-listed offenses.
Centers paid for by the offender; either through work crew, volunteer work, or
room and board for outside work.”

As discussed above, this is strongly related to the proposals for increased treatment
centers, day treatment, and residential substance abuse treatment.
j.

“Take a hard look at returning to Correctional Officer/Counselor role in facilities.
Could be a higher pay grade. May eliminate Casework Supervisors and Living
Unit Supervisors.”

Thirty years ago, Correctional Officer’s first level of promotion was to Correctional
Counselor. The next step was Shift Supervisor. Next up was Assistant
Superintendent and Superintendent. The career ladder was limited.
Since that time, Correctional Counselors were converted to Caseworkers, and a
Correctional Officer II position was established to create a career ladder for
employees.

112

As Correctional facilities have become larger and more complex, responsibility for
living units has been given to Living Unit Supervisors (LUS). In fact, the size of each
of the living units at Newport and Springfield is larger than the old Cherry Street
facility in St. Johnsbury.
k. “Develop a community support system to help guide our newly released
charges.”
“The program I envision would be along the lines of an AA session. It would help to
reduce the stress of being tossed out of the nest, so to speak. I understand P&P
units are busy checking residences and many other time consuming duties that
make support checks untenable.
If we were to offer a release adjustment support program, it could help keep some of
our offenders from lapsing into what they knew, and re offending. Positive
reinforcement will only help a limited number of our population, but we must start
somewhere to break the cycle.”
l. “Increase inmate payroll funds and use the increase to match inmate savings for
reentry.”
Inmates who saved part of their earnings in a reentry fund would have the amounts
matched by the DOC. The matched money would not just be given to the inmate but
there would be a requirement that the money is used for housing or housing related
expenses (heat, phone, electricity). There may also need to be a change in the law
to allow Corrections to garnish a portion of the inmate account. As of today, daily
pop counts show 179 inmates past their minimum who are lacking housing. If you
commit $150,000 to this project, you only need to be successful with 6 inmates to
break even.”
m. “The DOC would sponsor its own halfway houses.
“Halfway houses are used with varying degrees of success across the country as a
way to transition inmates from prison to the community. Vermont has had difficulty
in getting community agencies or organization to sponsor halfway houses or
something similar. There also seems to be a low level of tolerance in the community
itself for halfway houses. The reality is that the inmates in Vermont’s jails are
Vermont citizens and we all have a responsibility to see them succeed in the
community.”
“The idea is this:
“The Department of Corrections sponsors its own halfway houses. Given the
difficultly of placing these in the community the department can place them on the
grounds (outside the fence) of their existing facilities. This would require some
construction cost or the purchases of semi-secure buildings (modular units). There
would also be some cost associated with staffing these (possibility that the CJC’s
113

could be located in these structures as well and they may defer some of the cost of
staffing and program services). These units would have a full range of services from
substance abuse to CSC to VTPSA. The units could house inmates who can’t find
housing. The food for the units would come from the facilities. Having DOC
sponsored halfway houses eliminates the need for transitions units like the one at
CRCF and free up these beds for other inmates. It would also be a big help with the
contraband issues at are always difficult with inmates who are going out into the
community during the day and come back to the facility at night.”
n.

“Sears Plan Ideas”
1) ID and IW sentences. Eliminate this type of sentence as a jail option. Use
persuasion by finding these cases on a local level at jails and in local offices.
There is an average of 138 individuals serving ID and IW time in jail in each of
the past 3 years.
2) Non-violent misdemeanor probation. Eliminate probation supervision of these
cases. They should either go through local community justice centers as a direct
referral from the police or be placed on a true administrative unsupervised
probation. There are approximately 736 people on probation for misdemeanor
property offenses, but the cut could be made more broadly. The latter option
might require legislation to specify the option and the limitations.
3) No Incaps in jail.
4) Eliminate PAF as an option for ISAP and use the supervised community
sentence option, T 28 chap 6. This would need more research and thought to
avoid unintended consequences, but it makes sense anyway to have these
offenders on a status other than furlough. The goal would be to reduce returns
and to not have offenders on furlough status. State attorneys and judges would
have to be sold on this.
5) Work Crew. Increase use of the crews and increase cost recovery to pay all
operational costs and a percentage of CSTL salaries.
6) Supervision Fees. Move the revised rule through as fast as possible and push
collection, with a goal of $500,000 in the first full year after implementation.
7) Violation of probation. Measure disposition alternatives as described in the rule.
Jail should be used only as a last resort for non-new conviction violations. IT
needs to finish its work on this so we can measure results of violations.
8) Past min. Release inmates who are eligible for release at their minimum with a
lack of a residence as the only reason the offender is remaining in jail, unless
there is a safety issue.

114

9) Graduated sanctions. Eliminate jail as an option and allow placement on work
crew for up to 15 days instead.
o. Cost Savings Suggestions
“1. In thinking about possible cost savings to the department I realized that other then
the Discovery Program, which has a capacity of 50 offenders, there are no other
programs to my knowledge for repeat substance abuse offenders. The amount of "dead
time" they serve in the facility as a result of a relapse or collateral behavior must be
costly. We could focus on programs that could benefit this type of offender focusing on
the behavior that led to the relapse such as the CSC program. We could research the 2
programs, find similarities and create a 3rd program for these offenders. Perhaps a role
play scenario program were the offender can see both sides of the "coin". They would
see the collateral consequences of their actions. This would then give them better
options other then that they choose, to use.
The cost savings would be a long term benefit were as the offender would learn the new
behavior and apply it when the situation presents itself. TH=his would then mean less
reliance on substances, more production for the community and state in the way of
taxes on wages and less costs to the department as the offender would not be
incarcerated.
2. I know, initially, you didn't think this approach to the Detox issue would go far but in
this kind of budget exercise, it might be viewed somewhat differently.
The Department expends considerable dollars in operational and medical services
funds to deal with detox lodgings.
Many legislators and agency staff feel that this is really a public health issue, not a
prison issue.
I also realize that it is hard to undo something that has been in place for 30 years and
has evolved to its present state.
Many lodging authorities use the detox process to avoid the paperwork of a criminal
lodging.
A process needs to be put in place to encourage municipalities to develop detox
alternatives.
I still believe that charging municipalities a $200/night fee for detox lodgings starts that
process. The last time it was calculated-this would bring in about 2million dollars. “
p. Staff Morale
“One of the major problems within the Department that directly results in loss of funds
and morale is one that can be easily fixed with the proper motivation. Sick time costs
115

the state millions in payroll and overtime, not to mention the morale as officers are
ordered over on a daily basis. This benefit has several issues attached to it that feed off
one another, and quite simply could be fixed, yet has sat ignored for all of my 13 years
in this Department.
When a staff member calls in sick they are paid for 8 hours, this in turn orders over a
second employee at time and a half. Consequently a sick employee cost the State 20
hours of pay for one sick employee. The reason there is so much usage of sick time is
that this is the only benefit which is not only capped, but not reimbursable. Now I know
some people are legitimately sick and that cannot be fixed, but I can tell you from years
of experience that the majority of people that use this time use it because they cannot
do nothing else with it. If you save it and don't have the chance to use it, at the end of
your career you lose it. To most people this makes no sense. Why would you save it for
other than emergency back up, but most people have insurances that cover a great loss
of sick time or don't get sick enough to use it. Check the balances of some of these
people. The smart ones save a few hundred hours as an emergency plan and then burn
the rest, the others who save it come up with some long term ailment close to retirement
to avoid giving it back to the State. It is so obvious it wonders why no one has dealt with
this so far.
The plan is simple and could easily be implemented with your authority. Option one is to
allow employees the chance to refund their time at a percentage of the time earned. For
instance if you have 2000 hours of sick time when you retire you can refund it for 50%.
It would be a fare trade for the benefit. Option number two is to allow employees to
trade in their time as credit for early retirement, 2 years of sick time means you can
retire 2 years early, or even 50% towards retirement. The third option is to let people
cash in the time at retirement, again at a fair rate say 50%. Without giving people these
options they will continue to use it or lose it. I can tell you this plan has been discussed
here at MVRCF and has legs. People are not greedy and will take something rather
than losing it. I know if I had one of the options to cash it in at retirement, or for early
retirement credit I would be saving like mad. The reality is with no other option other
than to lose it or use it, it's going to be used.
Now I know your a business man and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when we
pay for sick time we are paying 2 1/2 times the officers rate for the day and offering one
of the above option could end up costing the state half to the full amount in the end, this
is a good thing.
Consider it. You will definitely see balances climbing and therefore lower the
Departments budget and increasing morale in the beginning and in the end of ones
career.”
q. Out of State Charges
“Some of "our locals" pick up some exceptional Whitehall NY and Glens Falls, NY
charges but what we are seeing is Albany/Schenectady, Brooklyn/Manhattan. several
hours away for strictly drug trafficking and sales.
116

I have had offenders on supervision as well as term completed...pick up Massachusetts
charges and they get them back to VT ASAP. They do not give them "split to serve
sentences". They appear to not want to pay for OOS people in their jails or on
supervision. Same with New Hampshire, they are quick to straight sentence and send
back "non-residents."
I am noticing offenders who live from other states being sentenced to our system with
long split sentences....they are soon to be released on furlough with long sentences.
(2010, 2014, etc.) These men and women are not VT residents.
I am seeing that DOC is getting some bad press about how much money we are
spending. Well as a taxpayer I too am concerned that we will be housing, VHAP, Food
Stamp, transitional housing $, Reach Up, Child Support, TREATMENT, Mental Health,
DOC supervision, local non-profit ...etc.- ing our way to financial ruin based on these
long drawn out sentences and "support services" for non-VT residents based on their
sentence structures.
Why not flat as we can sentences 5yr to 5 yr 1 day? for their first time thru. Not in a local
jail where they meet "dates" and "girl/boyfriends" to "hook up" with.
I am not in a position to make legislative session, Interstate Compact admin from other
states, sentencing judges/SA offices aware of some of their choices, though well
intended do not see prudent nor very wise when we are looking down the barrel of a
smoking financial gun as a moving target.
Why as a community/State are we not reviewing other options for these type of
offenders?”
r. Transportation
“I just went through the Project Grant codes for FY 07, looking specifically at Instate
transports (06-03). In FY 07 this type of overtime cost the state $ 75,383. If we could
eliminate this and run all transports on straight time we would be able to save this and it
would help with the $ 4,000,000 savings that the legislature is looking for.
To do this we would have to change our thought process around facilities and caps.
Currently when we reach over 127 inmates there is a mad dash to get inmates moved in
order to get the number below 127. We often get the word to transport late in the
afternoon when transferring inmates will run into overtime. When I have brought up the
idea of waiting until the next day to transport them when we can do it on straight time I
am told if we don't do it today we would lose the beds (at least this is what my CWS tells
me).
As you are aware the major cost in running any Correctional Facility is personnel, not
operating. At NERCF we do not incur any additional personnel expenditures until we
reach 150 inmates. Holding inmates over night would only incur about $ 2.00 in extra
117

cost (meals) per inmate. Transporting an inmate using OT dollars cost approx $ 22.58
(average per staff member).
I had another thought I wanted to share with you regarding potential cost saving
measures. Again, this is one I have heard inmates talk about frequently.”
s. Residence Approval
“Currently, my understanding is that when an inmate is released for parole, he/she must
find a residence in the county where their crime was committed. Often, inmates are
incarcerated for quite some time after they are eligible for release simply waiting on an
approved residence (obviously making their incarceration much more expensive for the
state). I'm guessing that at least one of the reasons for going out where they came in is
to be able to manage caseloads; however, this is often very restrictive for the inmate
and may set them up for failure. For instance, if they have to go back into a county
where they happen to be when they committed their crime, they may not even know
anyone there to help them find a residence. On the other hand, if their crime was
committed in their hometown, returning to that place could be disastrous for them. It
could put them back into a situation where they are close to the people who they really
shouldn't be around if they want to steer clear of committing their crime again.”
t. Cost Savings Suggestions
“If I WAS FORCED to cut major money I would do the following:
1 Close some small prisons and build a large split campus prison to house men
and women. This would be located in Chittenden County. Build it large enough
to absorb the all out of state prisoners.
2 Modify the Dale space into the new mental hospital saving $100m that it would
cost to build a new hospital.
3 Do as some other states and offer probation for felony convictions only. This
would eliminate thousands of cases.
4 Examine ways to bill Medicaid for “treatment services” provided by the DOC.
Substance abuse counseling, anger management etc.
5 Start enforcing our supervision fee collection. Charge a fee to work crew
offenders payable at sentencing.
6 Charge tuition at the Corrections Academy, just like a college. “

118

Appendix A: Legislation History Concerning Crime and Justice
Legislative
Session
1981

1982
1983
1984

1985
1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991
1992
1993

Subject

Act

Juvenile Justice, Sexual Assault
Open Containers
DLS Mandatory Sentences
Revise Burglary and Attempted Murder
Establish juvenile & adult diversion
Juvenile Detention Facility, Expand St. Albans facility, connect
Windsor sewer
DWI Mandatory Sentence
Victims Bill of rights – appearance, Diversion definition, restitution
mandatory
Woodstock facility to be closed
SE Replacement Planning
Spousal rape
Medical care for inmates
Forfeiture - Drug violations
Victim Assistance
Conspiracy, Stolen Property
Improve Chittenden, Design SE
Expand Judiciary
White Collar Crime
Aggravated Murder, Murder 1 & 2
Study Lockups, locate SE
Bail reform (capital crimes)
Criminal Code Reform
Sheriff & Mun. Police law enforcement power
Prohibit lodging minors with adults
Right to medical treatment
Est. Education in Corrections
Arrest for Misdemeanors
Begin SE, select site
Expand St. Albans Facility
Civil license suspension – DUI
Regulated Drug Penalties
Special Ed in Corrections
Decriminalize Traffic Violations
Drinking while driving
Victims compensation board
Family Court
Cruelty to Animals Felony
Fund SE Replacement
Alternatives to incarceration
Victim Notification
Supervised Community Sentence
Child Sex Abuse Statute of Limitation
Bail, Kidnapping, Sexual Assault penalties
Violation of Abuse Prevention Order

81
83
103
223
206
95

DWI at 0.08% blood alcohol
Fund Work Camp, Newport Facility w/SE $
Defined Child Abuse
Created Center for Crime Victim Services
Earned Time off Sentence
Victim Compensation Fund and Center
Define Domestic Abuse, Stalking

55
93
141
263
54
88
95

134
229
228
73
83
139
174
182
183
221
233
48
60
90
102
JRH155
122
182
199
207
269
280
52
68
100
107
109
177
214
221
270
276
288
290
291
292
293
294

119

Legislative
Session

Subject

Act

Bail denial for capital crimes
Mental Health Treatment for Inmates
Homicide survivors
Manslaughter
“Three strikes”
Sex Offender Registration
Resisting Arrest
Parental Liability
Leaving the Scene of an Accident
Forensic Examinations
Victims Rights
Supervisory fee for released offenders
Solitary confinement, inmate mental health
Criminal Refusal
DWI- Zero Tolerance for Under 21 drinkers
Expand Newport, begin SE
Independent school for DOC
Power of Arrest for Correctional Staff
Lesser included offenses
“Listed Crimes” expansion
Computer crimes
Hate crimes
Aggravated operation of motor vehicle
DWI, Minors and Alcohol, DLS
Sexual Exploitation of Children
Minors and alcohol
Hazing
Internet Crimes
Truth in Sentencing
Restorative Justice

143
224
22
27
50
124
146
147
151
160
170
178
185
56
57
62
84
152
153
4
35
56
102
160
256
163
120
124
127
148

2001

Sex Offender Registry
Conditional Reentry

49

2002

Arrest without Warrant
Terrorism
Bail
Possession of alcohol by minors
Selling or possessing illegal drugs
Attempting to elude
Sex offender registration and community notification
Criminal neglect of vulnerable adults
st
nd
Sentencing for 1 & 2 degree murder
Penalties for larceny
Retail Theft by counterfeit receipts
Sexual Exploitation
Dangerous Sexual Offenders
Stalking no contact orders
Sex offender Registry Compliance
Transportation of Tobacco into Correctional facility

131
137
124
152
54
47
157
79
119
156
157
177
192
193

1994
1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2003

2004
2005
2006

2007

120

APPENDIX B: 4/19/2007 Letter to House Institutions and Joint
Corrections Oversight Committees
April 19, 2007
Members, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee
Members, House Institutions Committee
115 State Street
State House
Montpelier, Vermont
Re: Prison Overcrowding and Out-of-State Transfers
Honorable Members:
Almost a year ago, on May 9, 2006, near the end of the session, the House Committee on
Institutions and Corrections sent a letter to the Joint Legislative Corrections Oversight Committee
asking the committee to consider a set of questions on overcrowding of Vermont’s correctional
facilities and the reliance on out-of-state facilities to address those conditions.
At its December 17, 2006 meeting, the Joint Oversight Committee took up the letter, and
informally requested that the Department (and, by name, I) attempt to answer the questions. Since
that meeting, Rep. Jason Lorber, a member of the House Institutions Committee and now a
member of the Joint Corrections Oversight Committee, has inquired as to the status of the answers
to those questions.
The questions posed in the letter are by the nature of the issue, broad and general, going
beyond corrections to criminal justice policy, and do not render to easy answers. I will attempt to
articulate some response; however, I will address the questions in a different order than asked.
Predicting the Future Requires Understanding the Past
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. While it is not, of course,
deterministic, in the absence of anything else, trending the past is a boundary or at least a guide. To
project ten years out, presuming no change in fundamental policy (a very optimistic assumption, in
light of the significant policy changes to criminal justice policy made by the legislature nearly every
year in the past two decades), then, one should base the projection on at least the past ten years, if
not longer.
The forecasting of correctional population would seem to be a rational process, a matter of
examination of the trends in inputs to the system, the length of stay, and the feedback of system
failure and re-admission. All, or nearly all, of those inmates in prison will, soon or later, return to
the community. It should render to simple math.
However, nearly half of the inmates who are in jail today will NOT be in jail a year from
today. The beds they leave will not remain empty. They will, in addition, be refilled many times
121

over. For example, each bed in the Chittenden facility is occupied, on average, by 25 different
people each year. The average length of stay at that facility is two weeks.
60% of the people who commit crimes in Vermont during a given year have never been in
custody or under supervision of Corrections before. The department receives 4,000 of these new
offenders annually, with half of these beginning their corrections experience in jail. While many of
the offenders who are in jail on any given day are serving long sentences, the vast majority of the
traffic, and a large number of bed-years, are occupied by people who spend only a few days or weeks
in jail.
That said, an examination of the components of the past growth in the population can be
revealing as to the factors contributing to that growth.
Question 3.
What are the three most significant factors likely to cause the
projected increases? Reframed: What were the most significant factors which caused the
past increases?

The Components of Growth, 1990-2006
a.

Sentencing: 58% of the Growth.

The largest single contributor to growth in population over the past fifteen years is the
increasing reliance on incarceration as the response to crime. This is somewhat complex, because
the impact of law and criminal justice practice has varied among the classes of crime:
1.

Felons

In general, sentence length for felony offenses has been stable during the fifteen year period.
What has changed is the volume of sentences, which is up 72% 1990-2005, and the proportion
receiving incarceration, which is up from 64% in 1990 to 71% in 2005. The combination of
increasing volume and higher incarceration rate has resulted in nearly doubling the number of bedyears imposed, from 974 to 1,882, a 93% increase.
Within the category of felony offenders, the number of violent felons sentenced to time to
serve has increased nearly threefold, while the proportion sentenced to prison has increased from
64% to 85%.
2.

Misdemeanors

For misdemeanor crimes, both volume and incarceration rate have increased. The number
of sentences is up 59%, and the proportion incarcerated has increased from 29% to 35%. The
combination of increasing volume and incarceration rate has resulted in more than doubling the
number of bed years imposed, from 170 to 362, a 113% increase.

122

3.

Motor vehicle offenses

With motor vehicle offenses, the volume, the rate, and the length of sentence have all
increased. The volume is up 121%, the incarceration rate has increased from 19% to 30%, and the
length of sentence has increased from about one month to nearly three months. As a result, the
number of bed years imposed has increase from 71 to 520, a 632% increase.
4.

Total impact:

The combined effect of sentencing practice change and volume of flow has increased the
incarceration demand on the corrections system from 1,215 bed-years to 2,764 bed-years, an
increase since 1990 of 127%.
In terms of bed utilization, some 58% of the growth (53% from males, 5% from females) in
population demand from 1990 can be attributed to increases in sentence intakes and length of stay.

b.

Pre-Trial Detention: 19% of the Growth

The next largest contributor to the growth in the correctional population size is detention.
The number of detainees on a given day in 1990 was 139. In 2003, the number was 414, a 197%
increase. Most of this increase has occurred from 1999 to 2003, while changes to bail statutes were
tested and deemed constitutional. The numbers have dropped since then, to less than 400, due
primarily to increased judicial processing efficiencies. We do not have numbers on volume of
detainees prior to 2001, but the number of persons detained in 2001 was 3,062. By 2006 this had
increased to 3,929, a 28% increase of volume in five years.
Increased use of detention accounts for about 18% of the growth (16% from males, 3%
from females) in population demand from 1990 to 2006.

c.

Returns: 17% of the Growth

Sorting out the variety of reasons for re-incarceration after release from prison or jail has not
been possible prior to 2006, when DOC initiated a new reporting system that characterizes each
return by status and reason incarcerated. As a consequence, we do not have data from past years to
determine any trends in this statistic. However, we do know that the portion of the population that
is back in jail after having been out on release represents only 17% of the overall growth in demand.
The increase in returns of men contribute 15% of the growth, while returns of women provide the
other 2%.
In the past year (2006) there were 2,286 returns to prison from the various forms of release,
on a technical violation. Of these, 39% were for use of alcohol or drugs. An identical portion
(39%) were for technical rules violations. Twelve percent of the returns were for new criminal
charges. Six percent were for treatment violations.
The returns were of different kinds, for different legal statuses. Some 36% of the returns
were for Graduated Sanctions, a short return that averaged about 14 days, and utilized about 28 bedyears during the year. Half (52%) of the returns were suspensions of furlough, with an average
123

length of stay of nearly 3 months, utilizing 174 bed-years. This level of accountability seems to have
had a positive effect on actual criminal charges.
Violations of probation and Parole (including SCS) amounted to only 12% of all the returns,
and contributed about 21 bed-years to the overall total bed-years.
Violations committed by men amount to about 209 bed-years, while those contributed by
women are about 40 bed-years. About one-quarter of the beds used for women last year were used
for violations, while only one-tenth of the beds used for men were for violations.
Violations that were the result of, or accompanied by, new crimes, comprised about 135
bed-years. These numbers do not include violations that were brought after an offender was lodged
for a new offense.

d.

Delayed Release: 5% of the Growth

Of the correctional population growth since 1990, only 5% is attributable to holding inmates
past their minimum sentence for failing to participate in treatment or for misbehavior while
incarcerated. This component of the population grew more dramatically until 2000, when Truth-inSentencing laws shifted the controlling release mechanism more clearly to the minimum sentence.
Currently, only about 247 inmates are past their minimum due to being kept by corrections, down
from well over 400 in the late 90s.

e.

Women: Total of 10% of the Growth

While the proportional increase in women being housed in prison is dramatic, increasing
over 700% since 1990, the numeric increase is comparatively small, representing only 10% of the
overall growth.
Question 1. What is the projected increase in the incarcerated population during the
next ten years?
If the rate of growth of the incarcerated population over the past ten years continues, by
2017 the Department will house some 3,200 inmates, some 1,000 more than in 2007. The
Department currently has 1,716 beds instate.
While the ten-year trend is about 100 beds a year, the trend prior to 1995-7 was considerably
less than that, about 45 beds per year. A significant shift in the growth rate has occurred since the
mid-1990s. This shift coincides with the requirement for Vermont to out-source housing for
inmates.
Vermont’s incarceration rate in the 1970s was significantly lower than that of the US. While
it has remained at less than half of the national rate, in the past ten years Vermont’s rate has risen
faster than the nation as a whole, and much faster than the other Northeastern States.
124

What are the limits to growth?
a. Demography: Vermont’s total census population since 1980 has increased 21% (or about 1% a
year), while the incarceration rate has increased some 268%, on the order of 10% annually. Clearly,
demographics are not the primary driver in growth. Nor, apparently, are they the limiting factor.
Similarly, demographics are not a cause for hope, either, since the population size is not expected to
decline.
b. Crime: During the same period, reported crime has decreased 54%. Crime, then is not the
driver. However, what the system does about the crime that is reported has changed, as discussed
earlier, in terms of sentencing and disposition. Property crime has comprised the preponderance of
the decrease in overall crime. Violent crime, while of small numbers compared to property crime,
has been fairly level in the past twenty years.
c. Capacity: Since 1998, the growth rate has increasingly exceeded the capacity of the correctional
system to house it. Despite the increase in capacity of 350 beds in Springfield, the system is still
more than 500 beds under capacity, requiring out of state contracted beds. While the construction
of additional capacity will likely be filled, the experience of the past ten years demonstrates that the
absence of capacity does not restrain growth.
d. Recidivism: Of the 1,744 sentenced people in jail on a recent day, 94.5% were recidivists, defined
broadly, that they had been on supervision before, or in jail before, or both. This leaves very little
room for alternatives for first-time offenders. Of the pre-trial detainees, only 28.9% were first-time
offenders. There may be some gain to be made here, since a large proportion (60%) of crime is
committed by first time offenders, but the actual bed-space gain may be small.
e. Offense: Ninety-four percent of the growth in population, and 89 percent of today’s population,
are felons. Half of those are violent felons. This is attributable to length of sentence and length of
stay more than to volume.
f. Gender: Ninety percent of the growth in population has been male. Women inmates, while
proportionately a larger part of the total incarcerated population than in 1990 (growing from 3.0%
to 7.9% of the population), in raw numbers women comprise 10% of the overall growth.
g. Policy:
Over the past two decades, Vermont has implemented a criminal justice policy that has effectively
had two broad and generally understood goals. Each goal has manifested in different outcomes.
The first goal is Public Protection from Felony Violence
It is clear from law, policy documents, and various studies by legislative and executive branch
bodies, that there is broad agreement on reserving the scarce commodity of prison bed-space
primarily for the incapacitation of offenders who pose risk of serious damage to Vermonters in the
public. This has resulted in changes to laws involving violence, drugs, sex offenses, and domestic
violence. In Corrections, this has resulted in the development of secure confinement capacity to
provide housing and treatment opportunities for offenders who pose a risk of doing harm to others.
125

For Criminal Justice, in response to increasing penalty provisions established by the legislature, the
result is longer sentences and more prevalent use of incarceration.
The second goal is Accountability for Repeat Offending
For most other offenses, (motor vehicle, property, public order, and most misdemeanor offenses)
and for most violations of release conditions, (drug use, rules violations, boundary transgressions),
the degree of harm is considerably less. The harm done to the public is significantly less than that
by violent felons, but the system goal is to call attention to the disapproval not only of the behavior,
but of the disdain for the system itself displayed by repeated criminality. For Criminal Justice,
operationalizing this goal selects incarceration for relatively short periods. For corrections, the result
is the system of accountability for violations, and even shorter periods of incarceration.
The third (emerging) goal is Protection from self-harm
A third aim that is becoming more clear is the increasing reliance on corrections as
placement of protection for Vermonters who self harm with drugs, alcohol, or co-occurring
disorders of mental health and substance abuse, coupled with offenses against the public order.
This is reflected operationally in the lodging of more people as incapacitated persons, increased
penalties for drug use, and, particularly, increased violation from community supervision as
“protection from self-harm.”
Positive signs
There is some positive indication in the reduction of the numbers of youth in corrections
custody or supervision over the past five years. This reduction is dramatic, with a 50% reduction in
16 & 17-year-olds and a 25% reduction in 18 to 21-year-olds under corrections supervision in the
past five years. This is a far greater shift that the population census base would predict (in fact, the
numbers of youth have increased during the period). This has been attributed to the increasing use
of diversion strategies including Reparative Probation, Diversion, and Community Justice Centers,
as well as the (modest) decriminalization of (first offense) possession of alcohol as a minor.
An additional positive indication is the reduction in the past two years of the numbers of
persons being supervised on probation. As being under supervision increases the likelihood of
incarceration for an offense, decreasing the pool of those at risk may provide some reduction in
future demand. The number of people on probation is down 22% in the past two years.
Question 2. What are the projected increases in capital and operating costs during
that next ten years?
The question begs the larger policy decision on whether to build our way out of this dilemma, or
purchase beds on contract elsewhere. However, were the State to attempt to build sufficient beds to
meet the projection, the costs would be on the order of $100 million in capital construction
($100,000 per bed for secure prison bed costs) and an annual operating cost of $30-35 million.
Economies of scale and timing of construction might vary these costs somewhat. For example, a
126

single 1,000 bed facility would be somewhat cheaper to build and operate, but the financing
demands might mean an incremental approach, e.g., a Springfield-sized facility every three years,
which might incur higher siting and operating costs. Some economies could be achieved by
building an efficient, large facility and closing one or more of the older, smaller facilities.
In the absence of any new construction, achieving a capacity increase of this magnitude would mean
an increase to the housing of inmates out-of-state from the current 535 to about 1,500. At FY07
costs, at $50/day, this is some $18 million in operating costs above current expenditures.
Ninety percent of the growth in population has been male. However, women inmates are
proportionately a larger part of the population than in 1990 (growing from 3.0% to 7.9% of the
population), and it would seem prudent to accommodate this trend.
Question 4:
increases?

What role does the state’s current system of probation play in the projected

As discussed above, the use of alternatives to incarceration (probation is the largest, with nearly
7,000 cases under supervision) has diverted large numbers of offenders from incarceration
sentences. However, the practice (until recent legislation) of indefinite probation has kept these
large numbers on probation for lengthy periods, subjecting them to additional penalties for
violations. As above, probation violations alone are not a major contribution to the growth, but it is
unknown whether violations brought after the offender is lodged and charged with a new offense
have any affect on the length of sentence, both from the new offense and from the violation. The
violation does have some effect on whether the offender is released on discretionary reentry.
Question 5:
increases?

What role does the state’s current system of Parole play in the projected

Parole violations are fairly rare. Most people who make parole have already demonstrated
appropriate behavior on furlough. Return rates from parole are lower than those from probation,
indicating that Parolees are extremely well-behaved.
Question 6:

What role do the state’s sentencing practices play in the projected increases?

The impact of sentencing practices, as above, is a significant contributor to the growth in the past.
Continuation of the practices of the recent past, reflecting an increased incarceration rate for
felonies, misdemeanors, and motor vehicle offenses, will very likely result in continued growth.

127

Question 7: What are the state’s recidivism rates over the previous one-, two-, and threeyear periods. When exploring this question, it is important to consider the definition of
“recidivism” that is being used.
Vermont DOC uses a couple of failure indicator rates. The first, recidivism, is reserved for the
formal rate, and defined as conviction of a new offense, committed within three years of release
from incarceration, or placement in the community under supervision.
The second is a measure of supervision effectiveness, and measures the incidence of new charges
filed against an offender in the community. This is a relative measure, because it does not track
against a definite time period, but rather the period of a legal status. It is a good relative measure of
the outcome of varying supervision strategies and treatment interventions, in the short term.
The third is more operational, and includes return to prison on violation of conditions of release.
These returns include violations of probation, furlough, and parole, with re-imposition of the
unserved portion of the sentence, as well as graduated sanctions, involving the relatively short return
to jail for technical or rules violations.
All three measures are included in Facts and Figures (pages attached). The overall recidivism rate
from prison, including all forms of released from sentence, was 54% for the most recent cohort
(2002 releases). Women have a slightly lower recidivism rate (51%) than men (54%).
The measures each require the passage of some time prior to measurement, since the offender must
be at risk of failure for a period in order to measure both failure and success.
As I indicated at the outset, the questions posed are not trivial, and would certainly render to further
inquiry. I would be pleased to attempt to answer any further inquiry.
Sincerely,

John G. Perry
Director of Planning
Vermont Dept. of Corrections
cc:

Rob Hofmann, Commissioner

Attachments

128

Appendix C: What Works and What Doesn’t Work

The Research on Evidence-Based Corrections
John G. Perry, November 7, 2006

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy, created by the Washington Legislature in 1983,
has for several years focused on the study of Corrections Best Practice, engaging in a metaanalysis of the literature of program efficacy. This analysis applies rigorous standards to the
findings of various published studies, only accepting those that meet the highest scientific
standards.
In its most recent publications, the Institute has defined a set of correctional treatment and
supervision programs which have been adequately studied, and which have shown results,
either positive, negative, or none, on recidivism. These studies have been combined,
statistically, into a single “effect size” which is an estimate on the amount of recidivism reduction
attributed to the programs in the category.
In October 2006, the Institute published a new compilation of these meta-analyses, including
some recent studies that have met the standards.
The compilation is extensive, and worth examination. A summary of some of the highlights of
the findings of the study is attached. In general, the applicability to Vermont is
1. The findings are supportive of Vermont’s treatment approaches, particularly with regard
to sex offenders and violent offenders.
2. The findings are supportive of Vermont’s focus on providing substance abuse treatment
in the community, rather than prison. Programs in prison can be effective, but are more
costly, and provide a lower benefit ratio.
3. The findings point to promise with programs that Vermont is just beginning, such as drug
courts
4. The findings are supportive of Vermont’s approach to education, vocational training, and
industries work in prison. In fact, Vermont DOC’s Workforce Development Program is
funded under a National grant to determine the efficacy of the interaction effects of using
three highly successful approaches combined in a comprehensive program approach.
5. The findings are troubling with regard to programs in Domestic Violence, which are
being found wanting across the nation.
6. The findings are important in defining what does not work – Boot camps, Electronic
Monitoring as a Jail-time reducer, and Intensive Supervision without treatment. Vermont
has avoided boot camps, and learned a hard lesson in the 1980s with regard to simply
providing intensive supervision with no supportive treatment or program.
7. Vermont’s Reparative Probation program has recently been studied reviewing some
9,000 cases, followed for five years. The outcomes of that study are comparable to
studies in the Institute survey.
8. Vermont is actively engaged in replicating the COSA model of intervention in the
community with re-entering sex offenders. The research from Canada is very promising,
and is based on a large study.

129

What Works, and What Doesn't Work
The Research on Evidence-Based Corrections
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, October 2006

WHAT WORKS
Effect size
(recidivism)

Number of
Studies

-16.7%

11

$

11,563

-9.3%
-5.7%
-8.0%

6
20
57

$
$
$

10,054
7,835
4,767

-6.3%

25

$

10,299

2. Sex offender Cognitive Behavioral Tx in Prison

-14.9%

5

not estimated

3. Sex offender Cognitive Behavioral Tx in
Community

-31.2%

6

not estimated

2. General education in Prison

-9.0%
-7.0%

4
17

$
$

13,738
10,669

3. Correctional Industries in Prison

-5.9%

5

$

9,439

0.0%

22

not estimated

0.0%

22

not estimated

Program:
DRUGS
1. Intensive Community Supervision with
Treatment
2. Drug Treatment in Community
3. Drug Treatment in Prison
4. Adult Drug Courts
VIOLENCE
1. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in prison or in
community setting

EDUCATION, WORK
1. Vocational Education in Prison

Net Benefit Over
Costs

WHAT DOESN'T WORK
1. Boot camps
2. Domestic Violence -- education or cognitivebehavioral
3. Electronic monitoring to reduce jail time

0.0%

9

not estimated

4. Intensive Supervision without treatment

0.0%

23

not estimated

5, Jail diversion for mentally ill offenders

0.0%

6

not estimated

-20.8%

2

-22.3%

1

-23.0%

1

WHAT IS PROMISING
1. Therapeutic Community programs for mentally
ill offenders
2. COSA (Faith-based supervision of sex
offenders
3. Vermont Reparative Probation

too few evaluations to
date
too few evaluations to
date
too few evaluations to
date

The table is a selective summary from: “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to
Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates,”
published by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia Washington,
October 2006.
130

Appendix D: Vermont Criminal Justice System Data
Top table includes actual numbers, lower converts to rate per thousand residents

Census | Police (CY2004) | DOC |
County
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
Not Vermont
Unknown
Total State

County
Addison
Bennington
Caledonia
Chittenden
Essex
Franklin
Grand Isle
Lamoille
Orange
Orleans
Rutland
Washington
Windham
Windsor
Total State

Estimate
2004

Crimes

Arrests

36,865
36,956
30,464
149,286
6,654
47,556
7,643
24,418
29,189
27,372
63,616
59,068
44,284
58,023

515
1,738
1,167
8,945
117
2,412
274
881
959
887
2,856
2,631
2,333
2,192

100
502
326
2,129
40
663
54
247
149
232
773
370
805
510

621,394

28,373

7,034

1000
Residents

36.9
37.0
30.5
149.3
6.7
47.6
7.6
24.4
29.2
27.4
63.6
59.1
44.3
58.0
621.4

Crimes

14.0
47.0
38.3
59.9
17.6
50.7
35.8
36.1
32.9
32.4
44.9
44.5
52.7
37.8
45.7

Arrests

2.7
13.6
10.7
14.3
6.0
13.9
7.1
10.1
5.1
8.5
12.2
6.3
18.2
8.8
11.3

Pre-Trial
Detention

81
209
136
956
20
229
40
99
79
108
339
224
268
311
486
590
3,050

Pre-Trial
Detention

2.2
5.7
4.5
6.4
3.0
4.8
5.2
4.1
2.7
3.9
5.3
3.8
6.1
5.4
4.9

Courts (CY2005)
Felony

Misdemeanor

|

Corrections (FY2006 Unique Persons)

Diversion

219
475
211
1,915
38
570
47
268
115
198
463
475
486
362

847
1,585
1,141
5,487
118
1,690
175
811
600
766
1,662
2,104
2,537
1,850

315
309
320
1,271
14
351
58
274
194
248
1,196
566
523
393

5,842

21,373

6,032

Felony

5.9
12.9
6.9
12.8
5.7
12.0
6.1
11.0
3.9
7.2
7.3
8.0
11.0
6.2
9.4

Misdemeanor

23.0
42.9
37.5
36.8
17.7
35.5
22.9
33.2
20.6
28.0
26.1
35.6
57.3
31.9
34.4

Diversion

8.5
8.4
10.5
8.5
2.1
7.4
7.6
11.2
6.6
9.1
18.8
9.6
11.8
6.8
9.7

Reparative
Probation

Other
Probation

Intermediate
Sanctions

Prison Sentenced

61
103
143
1,181
7
273
52
124
100
65
246
343
107
135
212
126
2,773

564
944
620
2,095
110
872
137
372
376
455
977
718
925
870
1,634
768
9,481

30
115
237
435
39
112
27
128
95
217
244
250
166
178
52
114
2,181

156
365
227
1,187
32
314
47
129
110
189
446
380
379
222
323
414
4,012

Reparative
Probation

Other
Probation

Intermediate
Sanctions

Prison Sentenced

0.8
3.1
7.8
2.9
5.9
2.4
3.5
5.2
3.3
7.9
3.8
4.2
3.7
3.1
3.5

4.2
9.9
7.5
8.0
4.8
6.6
6.1
5.3
3.8
6.9
7.0
6.4
8.6
3.8
6.5

1.7
2.8
4.7
7.9
1.1
5.7
6.8
5.1
3.4
2.4
3.9
5.8
2.4
2.3
4.5

15.3
25.5
20.4
14.0
16.5
18.3
17.9
15.2
12.9
16.6
15.4
12.2
20.9
15.0
15.3

Furlough

32
173
124
609
8
181
21
62
74
96
282
253
136
47
7
59
1,895

Furlough

Parole

33
187
72
423
7
146
17
47
44
62
173
184
69
78
118
40
1,480

Parole

0.9
4.7
4.1
4.1
1.2
3.8
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.5
4.4
4.3
3.1
0.8
3.0

0.9
5.1
2.4
2.8
1.1
3.1
2.2
1.9
1.5
2.3
2.7
3.1
1.6
1.3
2.4

Population estimates from US Census Bureau; Court Dispositions from Vermont Supreme Court; Crimes & Arrests from Vermont State Police Crime Report; other data from
Vermont Department of Corrections. Unknown & Out-of-State residents are not redistributed into County totals or rates. Vermont “Total State” counts and rates also drop the
unknown & out-of-state residents.

The rates per thousand in the second table above convert the raw numbers into
equivalent rates. One would expect that all things being equal, all of the rates would be
similar. This table is converted earlier in the document to a percentage table for ease of
comparison.

131

Appendix E: Department of Corrections Offense Type Definitions
Offense Types
Offense Types -- Department of Corrections
FELONIES
Serious

Includes Murder, Manslaughter, Kidnapping, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Armed Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Maiming,
Sexual Assaults (all), Arson

Person

Includes larceny from person. Lewd and lascivious behavior with child, unlawful restraint, Robbery, L&L, Violating Abuse
prevention order, Stalking, aggravated stalking, burglary of occupied dwelling,

Property

Includes Burglary, Fraud, Retail theft >$900, False Token, Unlawful trespass Felony, Grand larceny, Empbezzlement, Arson,
Forgery, Possessing Stolen Property, Unlawful Mischief (felony)

Drug

Includes sale of regulated drug, (many kinds), possession with intent to sell, etc. Delivery of reg drugs. Possession of various
amounts of various drugs

Motor Vehicle

includes DWI 3+, C&N fatality/injury, Felony Motor Vehicle theft, DUI Fatality/Injury

Other

Includes escape, perjury, carrying weapon, extortion, credit card fraud,obstruction of justice, false swearing, possession of
explosives, gross negligent operation

MISDEMEANORS
Person

Includes simple assault, domestic assault, violation of abuse prevention order, assault on law enforcement officer, Elder
abuse, false personation, cruelty to children, hate crimes, redckless endangerment, resisting arrest,

Property

Includes retail theft < $900, petit larceny, unlawful trespass, bad check, operating without consent, Theft of Service, Unlawful
mischief, False pretenses.

Drug

includes possession of marijuana, cultivation of < , possession of heroin,

Motor Vehicle

includes DWI 1/2, C&N, Reckless Endangerment, Driving with license suspended, Attempting to elude

Other

Includes Disturbing the peace, grossly negligent operation, minor procuring liquor, fugutive from justice - m, furnishing malt
beverage to minors, displaying obscene material, prohibited acts, possession of fireworks, taking deer out of season.

All attempts, aidings, and accessories before and after the fact are treated in the same category as the offense unless
Vermont Statute designates otherwise.

132

APPENDIX F: Vermont League of Cities and Towns
Memorandum

MEMORANDUM
To:
89 Main Street, Suite 4
Montpelier, Vermont
05602-2948

Commissioner Rob Hoffman, Vermont Department of Corrections

From: Trevor M. Lashua
Senior Associate for Advocacy and Information

Tel.: (802) 229-9111
Fax: (802) 229-2211
e-mail:
info@vlct.org

Date:

August 20, 2007

web:
www.vlct.org

RE:

The “plan” in Act 65/H.537

By ordering the Department of Corrections in Act 65 of 2007 to devise
a “plan” that attempts to slow both the rate of increase of Vermont’s
prison population and the costs associated with it, the legislature has
taken a much-needed first step in the direction of responsible public
policy.
Trying to find ways to save $4 million is a laudable goal, especially
during these times in which resources at every level of government are
becoming increasingly scarce. While everyone in government –
elected, appointed, or otherwise – would like to say to taxpayers that
actions they have taken saved money, situations are rarely as simple
as that.

Sponsor of:
VLCT Health Trust, Inc.
VLCT Municipal Assistance
Center
VLCT Property and Casualty
Intermunicipal Fund, Inc.
VLCT Unemployment
Insurance Trust, Inc.

One of the concerns of local officials throughout Vermont is that the
“savings” identified by the Department of Corrections for state
taxpayers come at the expense of municipalities and their property
taxpayers, most of whom the same state taxpayers are purportedly
reaping the savings. True and lasting savings on corrections-related
spending in Vermont will never happen unless state officials and the
legislature abandon the current model, where double-digit cost
increases are the norm, and look instead to a more holistic and
sensible approach that focuses on prevention (especially with at-risk
populations), rehabilitation, effective community supervision,
education, and the improved and increased availability of the services
133

and programs needed to successfully reintegrate offenders back into society.
With an exponential increase in the number of people entering Vermont’s prisons,
despite falling crime rates, and with more than half of all offenders re-offending within
three years of their release from incarceration, focusing mainly on those lodged inside
facilities is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
For many years, local officials have been asking for the state to invest more of its
resources – both financial and human – in community-based efforts. On those few
occasions where this has been done, success stories (such as the re-entry programs
operated by the community justice centers) are subsequently undone or nearly undone
by diminishing or deleted state and federal financial support.
When state and federal support shrivels or disappears, much of the burden falls into the
laps of local officials and into the wallets of property taxpayers. The occasional
complaint about municipal economic participation in the corrections system by some in
state government and in the legislature is that Vermont’s cities and towns commit fewer
local resources to corrections than communities in other states do. This statement,
while failing to take into account the policy, political, and economic realities of municipal
government in Vermont, also falsely assumes that local officials are either unaware or
unconcerned.
Would municipalities like to do more? Absolutely. And not just on this issue, but on
scores of others. Can we do much more? Not at this time. The resources are just not
there.
Local tax revenue in Vermont comes from but a single source: the property tax. That
revenue is in turn directed towards roads and bridges, schools, police and fire
departments, and other essential local services. Annual increases in municipal budgets
are not the result of wild and unrestrained spending. Increases are comprised mainly of
a triumvirate of items largely outside of the control of local officials: the skyrocketing
costs of health care, ever-increasing energy costs (which effects local governments in a
number of ways), and unfunded mandates passed along by the state and federal
governments.
Another common complaint is that responsibility for those who commit and are
convicted of crimes in Vermont flows upstream, from the towns to the state. Overlooked
in that statement is the fact the tab for such things flows in the opposite direction,
traveling downstream from the state to the towns.
While the philosophical differences stated above may never be resolved, we do know
this: roughly, 50% of the offenders are under the DOC’s supervision in just 20
municipalities, and that approximately 80% of all of those under the supervision of the
DOC right now are in community settings throughout the state. Added to that is the fact
that DOC’s statistics show that more than half of all offenders released re-offend within
three years (an average of 54.3% from 1993 through 2002), with the majority of those
offenses coming in the first year of release.
134

These numbers are augmented by what communities experience, as evidenced by
supervision-related incidents that make their way into local media outlets.
A story appearing in the August 3 edition of the Burlington Free Press focused on a
significant drug bust in Winooski, where at least five of those apprehended were under
the supervision of the Department of Corrections in the community for previous
convictions on drug-related offenses.
The July 27th Barre-Montpelier Times Argus included a story about a man released on
furlough who assaulted a female neighbor within two days of his release. That same
day a story appeared in the Rutland Herald about a 37-year-old Rutland man who was
out on furlough and had gone missing for “several” days. Furlough is supposed to
feature the highest level of supervision in a community setting, yet these stories seem to
make regular appearances in publications throughout the state.
These types of incidents also detract from the fine work that is done in some community
settings, especially in those communities where local officials and law enforcement
have been able to forge cooperative and supportive working arrangements with DOC
staff. While the aim of community supervision, like other public safety pursuits, should
always be perfection, it is simply something that is not attainable. Effective supervision
within the context of an environment that ensures public safety, protects victims, and
rehabilitates and successfully reintegrates offenders is attainable.
Rather than concentrating too heavily on the facility-focused suggestions contained
within the first section of the plan, the state of Vermont should focus more heavily on the
community-based efforts listed, especially the “justice reinvestment” work being done in
conjunction with the Council of State Governments. Such efforts have already found
success in other states, notably in Connecticut. Rhode Island has also been examining
a justice reinvestment strategy as way to deal with increasing corrections costs and
inmate population.
There are four main components of the justice reinvestment strategy laid out by the
Justice Center of the Council of State Governments. Those four components are:
1) Analyzing the prison population and spending in the communities, especially the
spending in those communities where a majority of offenders return (Vermont’s
“service center” communities);
2) Using that analysis to adopt strategies that will produce positive long-term
outcomes for offenders and communities;
3) Re-investing any “savings” into community-based efforts, such as supervision,
substance abuse programs, or job training and counseling;
4) Measuring policy impacts and making the adjustments necessary to improve
results.
There is no standard template, no one-size-fits-all model, for what states should do to
reduce the rate at which prison populations and the associated costs increase. A
strategy that focuses on community-based efforts – featuring a strong, long-term
135

financial commitment from state officials and the legislature – would work for Vermont.
A holistic approach, taking into account the various needs of offenders, communities,
and victims, can produce the cost-savings desired by policymakers in Montpelier while
enhancing public safety in the decades to come.
When broken down, this philosophy only makes the most sense: to slow the rate of
spending on corrections in Vermont over the long term, an investment must be made to
reduce the number of people being incarcerated, whether it is a first offense, a second
offense, or a violation of the conditions of their release. That reduction can be achieved
through sustained efforts in communities, not through the construction or expansion of
prison facilities or the continued lodging of Vermont offenders in lower cost private
prisons located in other states.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate. The membership of the Vermont League of
Cities and Towns looks forward to being an active contributor in this discussion when
the legislature reconvenes in January and at any opportunity between now and then.

136

APPENDIX G: CONCEPTUAL EXAMPLE OF A CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY CLOSURE
Fiscal, Human Resource and Operation Considerations
The information below explores an option to close the Northwest State Correctional Facility in
St. Albans. The potential savings in FY 2009 will be dictated based on the closure timeframe.
For example, if the Legislature elected to close the facility and to have the DOC do it by January
1, 2009, this would yield a maximum of six months savings for Fiscal Year 2009.

Annual
Projected Savings of Closing Facility (in FY 08
dollars)
Personal Services
Operating Expenses
Contracted Services (including health & mental health)
Community High School of Vermont
Savings

6 Month

3 Month

(6,700,000) (3,350,000) (1,675,000)
(1,600,000) (800,000)
(400,000)
(2,300,000) (1,150,000) (575,000)

(265,214)

(132,607)

(66,304)

Anticipated Maintenance Cost Once Facility is Closed

500,000

250,000

125,000

Cost to House Inmates Out-of-State (CCA Current
Facilities)
Beds @ FY 09 prices (250 offenders @ $59.74/day)
Additional Medical Costs

5,451,275
166,667

2,725,638
83,333

1,362,819
41,667

NET SAVINGS:
(4,747,273) (2,373,636) (1,186,818)
*Savings listed does not consider payout for accrued annual, personal, or compensatory leave
Issues Related to Closure of the Facility
Moving Offenders Out of State
ƒ Partial savings might be achieved if a gradual move-out plan is used. By moving
offenders out incrementally, savings could be achieved by closing the facility unit by unit.
ƒ Finding eligible inmates for placement out of state would require changing current
selection criteria, for example:
o Eliminate the current Community High School of Vermont education requirement
for all inmates less than 23 years of age.
o Send inmates with short terms, even below 60 days, which would increase
transportation cost.
o Inmates sent out of state would not have the current treatment programs
available to them, unless there was an arrangement for CCA to provide such
treatments which would increase the per diem rate and decrease savings.
o Collapse Re-Entry planning window, returning offenders to a Vermont facility
closer to their release date.
ƒ Our current contractor (CCA) is proposing a NH facility at a significant cost increase,
compared to our current arrangement. If CCA were to build locally, our entire out-ofstate population would need to be located in NH (with a minimum population of 8001000 offenders) at a considerable price increase compared to what we pay now. Such a
commitment might be financially attractive and might give Vermont more negotiating
leverage, but would increase Vermont’s reliance on this contractor.

137

Local Impact
ƒ What would be the economic and other impacts to the towns of Swanton and St.
Albans?
Current Staff
ƒ The current staff of the facility would need to be reassigned to other facilities,
offered positions elsewhere in State government or be displaced through the
Reduction in Force process. There are currently 114 staff positions (plus
medical and mental health contractors and adjunct faculty), including:
62 Correctional Officer I’s (CO I)
20 Correctional Officer II’s (CO II)
6 Correctional Facility Shift Supervisors (CFSS)
2 Security Operations Supervisors (SOS)
9 Correctional Services Specialists (CSS)
2 Corrections Living Unit Supervisors (CLUS)
1 Superintendent
2 Assistant Superintendents
7 Administrative Positions
4 Teachers - CHSVT
ƒ Due to regular turnover in the CO ranks (especially at the nearby Chittenden
Regional Correctional Facility), many security staff could fill vacant positions.
The state could also authorize the replacement of some Temporary CO positions
with permanent classified COs, which might also assist the DOC in reducing
further staff turnover.
Vermont Offender Work Program:
ƒ The Vermont Offender Work Program located at the facility which provides
printing services for state and local government, would have to be re-located or
closed.
Future Site Use
ƒ Given the difficulty of citing a new facility, the site should not be released from
correctional purposes and should be considered for the following future uses:
o Refurbish and use as a female facility
o Site of the new work camp
o Co-location of a work camp and a correctional facility
o Location of a significantly larger state correctional facility
Buildings and General Services (BGS) Staff:
ƒ On-site BGS staff would also be displaced at some point following the facility
closure.
Federal Detention Beds:
ƒ Address issue of 20 beds at this facility are reserved for Federal detainees
(current revenues are $1.3 M annually)
Other Impacts
ƒ Auto Shop Program, which rehabs cars for The Good News Garage.
ƒ

Garden, which donated 20,000 +/- pounds of food to the local food
shelves last year.
138

139

140

141

142

143

144