A rising number of detainees is creating prison issues; new bill would end out-of-state incarcerations

Department of Corrections Commissioner Andy Pallito. VTD/Josh Larkin

Department of Corrections Commissioner Andy Pallito. VTD/Josh Larkin

Lawmakers and state corrections officials are struggling to deal with a surge in detainees in Vermont’s prison population, which is causing ripples throughout the system.

Roughly 420 people are currently detained in Vermont prisons, awaiting trial, and about 520 Vermont inmates are housed out of state.

Those two figures are linked: When the number of detainees grows and in-state prisons are at full capacity, the Department of Corrections is forced to displace inmates with long sentences to out-of-state facilities.

While some lawmakers are exploring ways to tamp down detention, others — Rep. Suzi Wizowaty, D-Burlington, in particular — are trying to tackle the impacts on prisoners sent out of state, as well as on their families.

On Friday morning, the House Institutions and Corrections Committee pondered how to keep detainee numbers in check. Later in the afternoon, former inmates and their relatives urged the committee to stop housing people out of state. The testimony was prompted by a bill Wizowaty introduced, which would give the state a three-year deadline to end out-of-state prison housing. House Speaker Shap Smith said he supports the proposal.

Detainees are people who have been arrested and are awaiting a verdict or other judicial processing. They are housed in correctional facilities when they are ineligible for or can’t afford to make bail.

The current detainee population of 420 is not only higher than normal, but far exceeds the benchmark of 300 that the Legislature set back in 2011. The commissioner of the Department of Corrections (DOC), Andy Pallito, and Vermont’s chief administrative judge, Amy Davenport, say it isn’t a surprise that this goal remains unmet — it was ambitious to begin with. But both have told legislators they did not anticipate detainees to number in the 400s.

Home detention — an arrangement in which people await trial at an approved residence while under electronic monitoring — could help the situation, but the DOC and the court system have been at an impasse, and, as a result, “utilization has not been robust,” as Pallito put it.

The state’s Defender General, Matthew Valerio, said the problem with home detention boils down to an across-the-board aversion to risk: “Who is going to take the political heat when someone is released and something bad happens?”

There are currently only three people in home detention; at the program’s peak, there were just 10.

The problem, according to Davenport, is that judges have been reluctant to clear people for home detention because the DOC hasn’t had the resources to provide 24/7 electronic monitoring. Davenport said requests to the court for home detention, which can be made by either by the department or a defendant, have slowed to a trickle. The department has never made a request, according to Davenport, and attorneys became frustrated at being turned down.

“They had a lot of nos, and eventually you stop asking,” she said.

Matthew Valerio, Vermont’s defender general, said the problem boils down to an across-the-board aversion to risk: “Who is going to take the political heat when someone is released and something bad happens?”

Valerio offered the committee a solution that would saddle the Legislature with the possibility of political backlash.

“If people are really serious about forcing home detention,” he said, the Legislature should designate the number of detainees it wants in home detention and leave it up to the Department of Corrections to choose the least risky candidates.

Later in the day, members of the Institutions and Corrections Committee turned to their attention from people awaiting sentences to those serving lengthy stays in jail who are transferred out of state.

Vermont currently sends inmates to private prisons in Kentucky and Arizona; both are run by the Corrections Corporation of America.

Wizowaty’s bill would prohibit housing Vermont inmates in private prisons as of July 1, 2014, and the legislation would bring all out-of-state prisoners back to Vermont within three years. It requires the corrections commissioner to draft a plan.

Wizowaty says the bill wasn’t a response to any specific occurrences at the two private prisons. She said it’s important to end a practice that amounts to the state subsidizing “a private industry that makes a profit off of incarceration.”

Wizowaty, and all five of the inmates and relatives who testified, told the committee that the Kentucky prison, and private prisons in general, have high levels of staff turnover and violence among inmates and staff is frequent. The private prisons cut costs by offering little in the way of employment, treatment or other types of programming, they said.

Tim Burgess, who was formerly incarcerated at the Lee Adjustment Center in Beattyville, Ky., told lawmakers he was physically assaulted frequently: “I can’t tell you the number of times.” Medical care was “horrendous,” Burgess said, and his heart condition went untreated throughout his time there.

Dave Burge, who has served 15 years split between prisons in Vermont, Virgina and Kentucky, negatively compared the conditions in Beattyville to those in Vermont. In Kentucky, Burge said, “the drugs are more plentiful,” and he had no access to programs.

“We were sitting on the back burner, just doing dead time,” he said. He described the prison as a free-for-all “frat house,” where guards make no attempt to maintain order.

“We were sitting on the back burner, just doing dead time,” the former inmate said. He described the Kentucky prison as a free-for-all “frat house,” where guards make no attempt to maintain order.

Stephanie Jackson, whose son has been in Kentucky since September, said she is unable to visit him both because she has been fighting cancer and because she can’t afford the trip. Jackson said her son, who has mental health problems and a drug addiction, was wrenched away from the Newport correctional facility just after being admitted to the employment program there and just before he would have entered a drug treatment program.

He has had no access to drug treatment in Kentucky, Jackson said.

Another couple also testified that they have been unable to see their son since his transfer to Beattyville because of health problems they face.

Wizowaty said she thinks the corrections department is making solid progress in finding “creative alternatives to incarceration,” but her bill would “provide some extra support for that effort by urging a timeline to bring everyone back.”

Pallito called the goal “achievable,” but said the three-year time frame is “optimistic.” The state will have to make systemic changes for it work, Pallito said, with a focus on its detention policy.

Mandating home detention for certain cases and giving the corrections department the authority to release nonviolent offenders before they’ve served their minimum sentence would help the state start down the route outlined in Wizowaty’s bill.

Pallito was less supportive of the all-out ban on private prisons.

“I think it’s ideal but not realistic. Putting barriers on where we can house people is somewhat artificial at this point,” he said.

The state has had better luck with Corrections Corporation of America than it had with municipal prisons in Virgina and Louisana, Pallito said, and he’d like to preserve his capacity to “pick the best place regardless of who owns it and who runs it.”

Alicia Freese

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Christian Noll

    Alicia nice piece.

    If I may humbly suggest: Its either “Department of Corrections,” OR “Corrections Department,” not both.

    Preferably stick to the DOC or Department of Corrections. “Corrections Department” is to my understanding not the official title and misleading to some.

    • I urge you to read my response below, Christian.

      When are you publishing the revised version of your book sans its significant challenges in both content and style (most notably the constant shifting from pseudonyms to real names without any clear direction)?

      • Christian Noll

        Gordon thanks but you’re either a part of the problem, OR a part of the solution.

        You’ve done nothing but criticize my book from the start and as you know, it is not finalized.

        Those who criticize without offering help are of little use.

        Its either the Vermont Department of Corrections OR “Corrections Department.” I prefer the first one.

  • I agree that Alicia did her usual fine job. She took two fairly long hearings that were technically separate and weaved a cohesive story that made clear how the issues of high detainee populations and out-of-state shipments of Vermont’s prisoners to prison profiteers are inextricably linked.

    Christian, my friend, you are wrong. Alicia consistently uses “Department of Corrections,” which is its official title, in capital letters. (Yes, it can become “DOC,” but only on a subsequent reference.)

    When the story uses “corrections department” in lower case, the intent is to use it generically, as in “police departments around the country” (versus “Burlington Police Department”).

    Both United Press International and Associated Press style books set this rule and clearly make the distinction.

    If I may “humbly suggest,” Christian, “its” (sic) good to gain a fair mastery of grammar and usage before presuming to correct others.

    • Christian Noll

      Gordon thanks but the correction was made. You either use one, or the other, not both.

      I guess you missed it.

    • Karl Riemer

      ooooh, SNAP! We seem to be eavesdropping on a private spat in the booth behind us. It’s not germane to the subject at hand, but, for what it’s worth, Christian, you are overmatched in this contest. Gordon clearly understands English grammar, spelling and punctuation while you, clearly, do not. Not to worry. That’s no big deal and can easily be ameliorated through the services of a skilled copy editor, but archly defending bad grammar with further bad grammar is slightly pathetic, especially when you’re in error.

      • Christian Noll

        Karl thanks and you may be right.

        However Gordon also knows that I spent seven years in Europe which included my post doc dissertations in a Foreign language which didn’t do my English Grammar any good.

        I would (if I may) also distinguish between helping someone convey a message you know is true, and just criticizing them to discredit them.

        Gordon may outclass my English Grammar but grammarians “see spots in the Sun” and to just condemn someone for your own political will is like Pam Ladds says: “Ignoring the issues” by doing so.

        Personally when I had students who spoke several languages, I’d always try and help, instead of criticize.

        That’s just me though.

        • David Dempsey

          Alicia wrote the words corrections department when reporting what Suzi Wizowaty said. Besides, who cares.

  • Wil Hunter

    Those who are interested in following these issues may want to have the link to the daily population statistics for DOC. http://159.105.0.100/popstat_day.html
    The current number of detainees is 401; it was below 400 this past week. The out of state number, which does not fluctuate on a daily basis the way the detainee population does, is 509.

  • Stan Hopson

    Gordon, well said!

  • Pam Ladds

    And while we argue about terminology and numbers we are ignoring the issues. What is happening in the prison systems (and I don’t care what you call them/it) is an atrocity. If our goal is to rehabilitate then what we do is obviously not going to work. If our goal is to fund private prisons and provide a system of warehousing people for life,then we are on track. If people are in jail merely because they cannot afford bail, then we seriously need to look at this. The prison system is expensive and not an alternative to rehab. Time to really look at this and make changes that benefit people and not systems.

  • sandra bettis

    it sounds to me like andy pallito will have to earn his money and come up with a plan. out of state for profit privatized prisons are not the way to go and never have been.

  • Ted Barton

    Private prisons are an excellent way for VT inmates (who are generally cherry-picked by CCA) to mix with hardened populations from other states and learn how to be more sophisticated criminals.

    The DOC doesn’t break down recidivism rates by those who have spent substantial time out of state. If they did, you would probably find that it’s a revolving door. VT prisons never had much of a problem with the Aryan Nation or other such gangs until inmates started coming back from KY with swastika tattoos.

    These people have been convicted of serious crimes, but they are still under VT custody and shouldn’t be subjected to the bottom line objectives of for-profit prisons. It reflects shamefully on state government that we would privatize this most essential of public services.

  • Pete Novick

    As one of the few states that still supports, and more importantly, funds, programs to help inmates lead peaceful, productive lives upon their release, I support this concept in principle, provided the return of inmates serving their sentences in other states does not create a severe overcrowding problem, which is at the root of so many prison problems all across the country.

  • Finbar McGarry

    It is DOC’s stated goal to “rehabilitate” unconvicted detainees in its custody, just as if they were convicts. “The defendants seek qualified immunity on two grounds. First, they contend it was
    15 objectively reasonable for defendants to believe they could compel pretrial detainees to work
    16 because the work program advances a legitimate interest in rehabilitation. Specifically, they
    17 contend it was permissible to compel pretrial detainees to work in order to “impart skills and
    18 habits that would ease the process of reintegrating into free society” in light of the “State[’s]
    19 legitimate interest in reforming its inmates.” See http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e653bb16-a422-4e29-ae38-78b00df49844/1/doc/10-669_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e653bb16-a422-4e29-ae38-78b00df49844/1/hilite/

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "A rising number of detainees is creating prison issues; new bill woul..."