evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Vermont's Statutory AI Inventory — 16 Tools Disclosed, Only 2 Bias-Tested

United States of America · Montpelier · See the United States of America profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 46% 60/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A 2022 law requires Vermont's Agency of Digital Services to inventory every automated decision system state government uses. Its 2024 report logged 16 AI tools across agencies, but found only 2 had been tested for bias — showing the gap between disclosure and assurance.

16 tools
AI tools disclosed in state inventory (2024)
2 tools
Tools with documented bias testing (2024)
6 tools
Tools citing efficiency gains as a benefit (2024)
2 tools
Tools citing cost reduction as a benefit (2024)
2 tools
Tools citing improved security posture as a benefit (2024)
2 tools
Tools flagged as directly affecting citizens (2024)
10 tools
AI tools disclosed in Connecticut's comparable inventory (December 2023)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Vermont Agency of Digital Services, Division of Artificial Intelligence
Period
2022-2026
Keywords
digital government, AI governance, cybersecurity, tax administration, transportation

Context

Vermont's Act 132 (2022) created a Division of Artificial Intelligence inside the state's Agency of Digital Services (ADS) and requires ADS, under 3 V.S.A. §3303, to file an annual public report to the legislature inventorying the automated decision systems state government uses.

Activities

The January 2024 annual report identified 16 distinct AI tools in use across state agencies — ADS itself accounted for the most, mainly for cybersecurity threat detection; the Agency of Transportation uses AI to classify roadway pavement quality; the Agency of Administration uses a tool called Gen TAX to screen tax filings for fraud risk.

Results

Of the 16 tools, only two — Bing Copilot and Azure OpenAI — had undergone any documented bias testing, and only two were flagged as directly affecting citizens. An independent GovTech comparison (October 2024) found neighbouring Connecticut's inventory (10 tools, December 2023) was vaguer still, listing general-purpose software such as Zoom and WordPress as "AI tools" and reporting zero completed AI impact assessments.

Conclusions

A statutory inventory is a necessary but not sufficient step toward accountability: naming the tools that exist does not by itself establish whether those tools are fair, accurate or safe to use.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years)
Staffing & skills
Division of Artificial Intelligence within the Agency of Digital Services

Conditions for success

  • a statutory reporting mandate with a named responsible division
  • clear inventory criteria distinguishing genuine AI tools from general-purpose software (a gap seen in Connecticut's comparable inventory)
  • mandatory bias/impact testing to close the gap between disclosure and assurance

Common failure modes

  • disclosure without mandated bias or impact testing leaves an accountability gap (only 2 of 16 tools bias-tested)
  • vague inventory criteria undermine comparability, as seen in Connecticut's inventory

Where it fits

Governance type
US state government, statutory reporting duty
Scale
state-wide, multi-agency
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful