An act relating to prohibiting the use of private and for-profit correctional facilities
H.191 would restrict the Vermont Commissioner of Corrections from placing people in custody in correctional facilities that are privately operated or for-profit. Under the bill, transfers and assignments could only be made to facilities run by public or nonprofit entities, including out-of-state facilities used under an interstate compact or federal contract. The bill also bars the Department of Corrections from contracting with private or for-profit entities to operate correctional facilities or to provide rehabilitative, educational, health care, or other support services in those facilities.
The bill sets a phased transition. Beginning July 1, 2025, the Commissioner could no longer negotiate or execute new contracts for out-of-state placement unless the facility is public or nonprofit and used under an interstate compact or federal contract. By January 1, 2030, existing contracts would need to be terminated or amended to comply. The bill also requires the Department of Corrections to submit an implementation plan by November 15, 2025, addressing expansion of in-state capacity and the return of people currently housed out of state. The stated long-term goal is to end Vermont’s use of private, for-profit, and out-of-state correctional facilities by 2034, while preserving compact-based placements.
In terms of state law, the bill would amend the Commissioner of Corrections’ powers in 28 V.S.A. § 102 and add a new section, 28 V.S.A. § 709, creating explicit statutory prohibitions on private and for-profit correctional facility use. It would also require the Department to plan for increased in-state capacity, potentially through restorative justice, diversion, and rehabilitative programming. The practical effect would be to narrow the Department’s contracting and placement authority and shift Vermont toward publicly or nonprofit operated correctional options.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of ending private prison use and reducing reliance on out-of-state incarceration. The findings emphasize cost, family visitation, access to counsel, and oversight concerns, and the bill frames the policy as preventing corporations from profiting from incarceration. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional recorded debate or formal vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition.
The main points of contention likely concern feasibility and cost: whether Vermont can expand in-state capacity quickly enough, how existing out-of-state contracts would be unwound, and whether public or nonprofit alternatives can absorb the current population. Another likely issue is the bill’s exception for interstate compacts and federal contracts, which preserves some out-of-state placements and could be seen either as a necessary operational safeguard or as a limitation on the bill’s broader prohibition.
The bill would amend Vermont corrections law to limit the Commissioner’s authority to place incarcerated individuals only in public or nonprofit facilities, including certain out-of-state placements under interstate compact or federal contract. It would prohibit the Department of Corrections from using private or for-profit operators for correctional facilities or related services, require contract changes by 2030, and mandate a report and implementation plan for expanding in-state capacity and repatriating people housed out of state.
The bill is framed in strongly reform-oriented terms, with findings emphasizing cost, family contact, legal access, oversight, and opposition to corporate profit from incarceration. Based on the text alone, the sentiment is clearly favorable toward eliminating private and for-profit correctional facilities. No committee testimony or vote data were provided, so there is no recorded evidence of opposition or divided sentiment in the available materials.
Likely areas of contention include the operational and fiscal feasibility of ending private and out-of-state placements, the timeline for terminating existing contracts, and whether Vermont can build sufficient in-state capacity by the proposed deadlines. Stakeholders concerned about corrections management, budget impacts, and facility availability may question the transition plan, while supporters are likely to prioritize prisoner access, oversight, and ending private profit in incarceration. The interstate compact exception may also draw scrutiny from both sides, depending on whether it is viewed as a practical necessity or an inconsistency with the bill’s stated goal.