Self-advocacy group urges House Human Services to reject forensic facility placement for people with intellectual disabilities

Max Barrows, outreach director for the nonprofit Green Mountain Self-Advocates, told the House Human Services committee that S193 — a bill to create a forensic unit — should not be used to house people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

"This is indefinite imprisonment," Barrows said, arguing that the bill would permit people found unable to stand trial to be held in a forensic facility for the rest of their lives without a criminal conviction. He said people with intellectual disabilities are not candidates for "competency restoration" because their disabilities are not an illness that medication or therapy can cure.

Barrows traced his group’s work back to the closure of Brandon Training School and warned that closing one institution does not erase the attitudes that support segregation. He said federal law — including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision — requires states to serve people in the most integrated setting appropriate, and that sending people with intellectual disabilities to a forensic institution risks unnecessary institutionalization.

He also cited state history and recent reporting on abuse at Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center to argue that the Agency of Human Services (AHS) has not been held publicly accountable for past institutional failures. Barrows asked the committee not to authorize a facility until AHS answers questions about past incidents and until the bill specifies independent, outside monitoring with funds to pay for unannounced inspections.

Barrows urged alternatives to institutionalization, saying $3,400 per day (an estimate previously offered to the Legislature) to place a single person in a forensic unit would be better spent building community-based supports. He recommended the state issue an RFP to develop therapeutic residential programs in the community — models he said have been used in other states — and pointed to Act 248 and designated agencies as existing mechanisms that can provide 24/7 supervision in community settings.

The committee asked Barrows whether he had been invited to testify before Judiciary (he had not) and whether his organization includes members with prior criminal behavior (he said some members have such histories and typically have staff oversight when participating in group programs). Chair Teresa Wood thanked him and said the committee will continue working on S193 next week with agency and designated‑agency testimony.

Next steps: The committee plans additional hearings on S193, including testimony from the Agency of Human Services and the designated agencies; members said they will provide suggested language to Judiciary and other committees that must also consider the bill.