In Part 1, we exposed how Vermont’s 2018 bail reform ushered in a surge in property crime while undermining law enforcement’s ability to hold offenders accountable. Now, we delve into the national landscape, revealing how manipulated crime data has been used to justify sweeping criminal justice reforms in other states like New York and Illinois, while following a model championed by Vancouver’s supervised injection sites (OPCs).
These reforms, presented as solutions to societal inequities, have often prioritized offenders at the expense of public safety. Worse, Vermont policymakers are doubling down on these policies, funding Burlington’s first OPC while expanding diversion programs and raising the age of criminal responsibility to 19 and eventually 21 under Act 201. All of this is happening despite overwhelming evidence that these reforms fail to deliver on their promises, while making life harder and more costly for law-abiding taxpayers.
The Vermont Crime Snapshot: A National Template for Manipulation
The 2023 Vermont Crime Data Snapshot, produced by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center, is part of a broader strategy. This group has created similar reports for nearly every state, shaping the narrative around “smart justice” reforms, while receiving millions of taxpayer dollars to do so. The Vermont report claims bail reform, diversion programs, and other policies have not negatively impacted public safety. Yet, the actual numbers tell a different story.
Consider the FBI clearance rate data, which shows that Vermont has experienced a steep decline in law enforcement’s ability to solve crimes. As clearance rates for property crimes like burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft have dropped, victims are left without justice, and repeat offenders remain undeterred. This trend isn’t unique to Vermont—it mirrors similar declines nationwide.
New York’s OPC Crime Reality – A Double Dose of Smart Justice
New York’s experience with supervised injection sites didn’t happen in a vacuum—it was implemented on top of an already failing Smart Justice system. The state had already enacted cashless bail, expanded diversion programs, and lowered sentencing requirements for a broad range of crimes before opening its first two OPCs in Manhattan in 2021.
This double whammy of weakened law enforcement and legalized drug use zones made it nearly impossible to track the full impact of OPCs. What we do know is this:
📉 Crime clearance rates in surrounding areas have dropped sharply.
📈 Residents report feeling significantly less safe.
📢 Quality-of-life crimes like theft, drug-related offenses, and public disorder have surged.
A closer look at Manhattan’s total crime counts reveals an uncomfortable reality: crimes didn’t disappear near OPCs—they became harder to solve. This mirrors the trends in Vermont and other Smart Justice states, where repeat offenders cycle through the system while law enforcement is left unable to keep up.

The Brown University (Chalfin) Study: Misleading Claims
One of the most widely cited studies defending OPCs is the Chalfin study from Brown University, which claims crime did not increase around New York’s supervised injection sites. But a closer look at the study raises serious concerns about its methodology:
📌 It only studied 66 acres of NYC—less than 0.5% of Manhattan’s total 14,600 acres—far too small to capture the full impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
📌 It ignored many quality-of-life crimes, focusing only on major felonies while disregarding offenses like vandalism, drug-related nuisances, and property damage.
📌 It only examined crime in the short term, failing to account for trends that emerge after law enforcement adjusts to new policies.
The study’s findings are widely misused by advocates to claim OPCs do not lead to increased crime, even though real-world data—like the declining clearance rates in Manhattan—tells a different story.
Illinois and the Harvard Study: Cherry-Picked Conclusions
Illinois’ bail reform policies, bolstered by reports like the Harvard study, claimed there was no significant rise in crime post-reform. According to the study, reforms “increased pretrial release while maintaining public safety” and “did not increase new criminal activity among those released.” However, the state’s crime data tells a different story.
Illinois’ FBI data shows that property crime clearance rates are alarmingly low, contradicting the study’s conclusions. When compared to Vermont and New Hampshire, Illinois demonstrates a consistent and troubling pattern: clearance rates for property crimes remain among the lowest nationally. These declines are undeniable, yet advocates continue to rely on studies that obscure the full picture.


Vancouver’s OPC: The Model for U.S. Efforts – And NIH’s Endorsement
Vancouver’s Insite OPC, established in 2003, became the model for harm reduction advocates in the U.S. Its reported successes—such as reduced overdose deaths—have inspired cities like New York and San Francisco to implement similar facilities. But while advocates highlight overdose reductions, they often ignore Insite’s broader impact on public safety.
📉 Vancouver’s own data reveals a steep decline in clearance rates for crimes across the city over the years, particularly after Insite’s establishment.
📢 Residents report rising concerns about quality-of-life crimes and community safety, despite official claims that “crime hasn’t increased.”
📈 British Columbians overwhelmingly believe crime has increased—even though reports insist otherwise.
The NIH Joins the Bandwagon
Adding to this narrative is the NIH’s meta-analysis, often cited by advocates to claim OPCs do not increase crime. But the NIH study has a massive flaw:
📌 It is overwhelmingly based on Vancouver. Of the 22 studies analyzed, 16 came from a single city—a city with pre-existing harm reduction policies that cannot be compared to the U.S.
📌 It ignores U.S. cities where crime increased post-reform, such as New York and Philadelphia.
📌 It treats crime reduction claims at face value, rather than questioning how shifting policies (like lowered enforcement) alter crime statistics.
The same pattern emerges in Vermont, New York, and Illinois, where claims of “no increase in crime” fall apart when viewed alongside declining clearance rates and rising public disorder.

A National Movement with Front Door Consequences
The parallels between Vermont, New York, Illinois, and Vancouver are striking. From cherry-picked data to taxpayer-funded studies that gloss over critical flaws, the playbook remains the same: sell reforms under the guise of equity while ignoring their broader societal costs.
But those costs are very real.
📌 The Safety Cost – Vermont residents are seeing the consequences firsthand. As crime clearance rates plummet, repeat offenders cycle through the system with little to no consequence. More businesses and homeowners are dealing with theft, vandalism, and public disorder, while law enforcement remains hamstrung by policies that make it harder to intervene.
📌 The Social Cost – Public trust in the justice system is eroding. Vermonters—like residents in New York, Illinois, and Vancouver—are watching their communities degrade as Smart Justice policies flood the streets with chronic repeat offenders, increase addiction-related crime, and undermine law enforcement’s ability to keep neighborhoods safe.
📌 The Financial Cost – Vermont taxpayers are paying more for policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many. Millions in state funding are now allocated to harm reduction programs, legal assistance for repeat offenders, and expanded diversion initiatives—all while clearance rates drop and law-abiding citizens see no return on their investment.
What Can Be Done?
Vermont lawmakers are not acting in isolation—this is part of a nationally coordinated movement that pushes Smart Justice policies without considering their full impact. But these policies can be stopped, repealed, or at the very least, paused and reassessed.
📢 Tell lawmakers: Stop pushing Smart Justice policies until they are fully and independently assessed.
📢 Demand a legislative moratorium—Vermont must halt any further Smart Justice expansions until policymakers can prove these policies don’t harm public safety.
📢 Insist on transparency—require full, independent data analysis that includes clearance rates, quality-of-life crime trends, and the taxpayer cost of Smart Justice.
📢 Engage with law enforcement & city leaders—Vermonters should attend local government meetings, demand real answers, and push for crime policies that prioritize public safety over ideological reform.
🚨 The bottom line? If Vermont continues down this path without reassessing its policies, law-abiding citizens will continue paying the price—financially, socially, and with their safety.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #SmartJustice #CrimeData #Vermont
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