In 2024, Vermont lawmakers passed Act 180, a wide-reaching bill designed to expand restorative justice programs across the state. Championed by a coalition of Democratic legislators, including Representatives Karen Dolan, Angela Arsenault, Ela Chapin, Kevin Christie, Martin LaLonde, Barbara Rachelson, and Senate President Pro Tempore Philip Baruth, the bill focused on reducing court backlogs and offering alternatives to traditional prosecution for minor offenses. Governor Phil Scott vetoed the bill, expressing concerns over its impact on public safety, but a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature overrode the veto to enact it into law.
Act 180 represents a significant shift in Vermont’s approach to criminal justice. Its advocates argue that restorative justice reduces recidivism, lowers costs, and addresses root causes of criminal behavior. However, the practical effects of this approach, particularly on local law enforcement and small communities, are raising questions about the law’s unintended consequences.
Success Rates and Challenges in Diversion Programs
Restorative justice, at its core, is designed to rehabilitate offenders by addressing the root causes of criminal behavior through community-centered solutions. For first-time offenders, diversion programs are often cited as promising, with a focus on personal accountability and community engagement. However, the numbers are starkly different for individuals with prior convictions. Repeat offenders in Vermont’s diversion programs showed a recidivism rate of nearly 90%, highlighting the challenges in preventing reoffending among those with established criminal patterns.
The policy intent of Act 180 is clear: divert minor offenses from the court system to lessen judicial congestion. But critics point to Vermont’s dramatic increase in “quality-of-life” crimes, such as petty theft, vandalism, and disorderly conduct—offenses that have been proliferating in the wake of restorative justice policies. For many Vermonters, these “make life miserable” crimes are more than an inconvenience. They disrupt the sense of safety and well-being in small communities and stretch the resources of local businesses and police departments.
In response to these trends, many residents and local leaders argue that the benefits of restorative justice have come at a tangible cost to community security. Local businesses, in particular, feel the impact of Act 180 when it allows perpetrators of minor larceny, for example, to be diverted from prosecution. For small, family-run operations or farmstands, a $250 theft is not minor; it can represent a week’s income, essential stock, or irreplaceable goods. Multiple such losses could be catastrophic. Yet, under the current law, these crimes are often directed into restorative programs rather than the traditional justice system.
The Shift in Responsibility from Courts to Police
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Act 180 is the shift in workload from courts and State’s Attorney offices to local police departments. Before Act 180, police officers typically issued citations or made arrests, while the State’s Attorney determined eligibility for diversion programs. With the new pre-charge diversion protocols, police officers are now required to assess each case’s eligibility on the spot. They must weigh various factors, such as offense type, public safety risk, and victim considerations. Eligible offenses under Act 180 include minor larceny, disorderly conduct, and simple assaults, all of which contribute to the increase in “quality-of-life” crimes that Vermont residents are reporting.
These changes place additional burdens on local police. Officers must not only assess eligibility but also document the case thoroughly and refer it to diversion programs, adding time and paperwork to each case. If a referred individual fails to complete the diversion program, the case returns to the police, who must then restart the prosecution process. For small departments, this additional administrative burden can strain resources, particularly when officers’ time is already stretched by responding to repeated calls from the same offenders.
Without state funding to support these new duties, local departments are forced to cover the costs, ultimately funded by local taxpayers. Local citizens bear the financial weight of a state program that is intended to lessen judicial backlogs but instead redirects workloads onto community resources.
The Financial and Social Impact on Local Taxpayers
For local taxpayers, Act 180’s shift of responsibility to local police departments represents a complex budgetary issue. Local tax dollars fund police departments with the expectation that officers will address community-specific needs and focus on public safety. However, Act 180 effectively redistributes the burden of certain criminal justice functions without redistributing funding. Meanwhile, courts and the State’s Attorney’s offices maintain their usual budgets despite the reduced caseloads, with any efficiency gains benefiting state-level agencies rather than the communities bearing the additional workload.
Additionally, the “make life miserable” crimes that have increased under this model disproportionately affect smaller businesses, which often lack the resources to absorb repeated losses. The frustration is palpable among business owners, who feel that the diversion of cases away from prosecution devalues the impact of these crimes. Many argue that for restorative justice to succeed, there must be a clear distinction between large-scale retail theft and theft from small, vulnerable businesses.
As police departments take on these new roles, there is also an added cost in training officers to assess diversion eligibility consistently. Officers need to understand not only the nuances of eligible offenses but also the broader impacts on community safety and small businesses. This training, if not funded by the state, represents an additional financial strain on already tight local budgets.
A Call for Accountability and Reassessment
Attorney General Charity Clark, a supporter of restorative justice reforms, played a key role in Act 180’s development and implementation. Clark has advocated for policies aimed at reducing recidivism and expanding community-based solutions to crime. However, her office has faced scrutiny from local leaders who argue that while these policies aim to address systemic issues, they also place heavy administrative and financial burdens on local police and taxpayers.
As Vermont experiments with Act 180’s restorative justice model, the question remains: are the benefits worth the trade-offs? While reducing recidivism and judicial congestion are commendable goals, the burden placed on local law enforcement and communities is a tangible, daily reality. Many critics, from local taxpayers to small business owners, argue that the state should bear responsibility for its programs by providing financial support to local agencies tasked with implementation.
The architects of Act 180, including Representatives Dolan, Arsenault, and Baruth, envisioned a Vermont where restorative justice creates safer, more resilient communities. However, as the impacts play out, the feedback from local communities suggests that the model may need reassessment. Many argue for a more balanced approach—one that provides funding to local law enforcement for their expanded role and that recognizes the impact of “quality-of-life” crimes on small communities.
Without these adjustments, Act 180’s legacy risks becoming a cautionary tale about well-intentioned policies with unforeseen costs. As Vermont continues to navigate this path, local voices and the real impacts of diversion will need to be front and center in any future policy discussions.
For more details on the pre-charge protocol introduced under Act 180, you can view the full document online at the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs’ website.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #RestorativeJustice #VermontCrime #CommunityImpact
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply