House Human Services reviews revised H.91 to create statewide homeless assistance program

The House Human Services Committee reviewed draft 4.1 of H.91 on the Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsible Transition to Housing program, discussing definitions, who will operate the program, and how local systems such as coordinated entry and 2-1-1 would be used as part of implementation.

Committee staffer Katie McDonough, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Council, told members they were looking at “draft 4.1” and summarized recent edits, including renaming a referenced survey to the “Vermont 2024 point in time count,” changing a definition labeled “precariously housed” to “at risk of homelessness,” and adding a standalone subsection for services for households affected by domestic violence. Katie McDonough also noted edits intended to avoid duplicating current local systems and to reflect feedback received from shelter providers and domestic violence advocates.

Committee members said those edits aim to clarify how the bill would function. The committee chair said this was a final-stage review and that sections marked off during this meeting would not be re-opened, signaling the committee’s intent to move the draft toward a formal implementation plan.

The draft would establish a new chapter (referred to in the meeting as the program or VHEARTH) within state statute and direct the Department (referred to in the bill text as the department that administers human services) to have statewide responsibility for meeting the chapter’s intent. The bill as revised names Community Action Agencies (CAAs) as the entities that “shall” operate the program to the extent funds exist; members and staff debated language to ensure the program both uses and does not duplicate existing local systems. Committee discussion produced this working description: the program is established in the department and “shall be operated by the Community Action Agencies to the extent funds exist. Community Action Agencies shall collaborate with other community partners, including municipalities, the Chittenden County Continuum of Care, the Balance of State Continuum of Care and local housing coalitions; the program shall utilize coordinated entry and utilize, but not duplicate, the work of community partners.”

Members pressed staff to clarify how that governance structure would work in practice. Several committee members and outside commenters expressed concern that naming CAAs as the operators could centralize authority; others said CAAs’ statewide coverage and existing grant infrastructure made them a natural administrator. The committee asked staff to revise wording so the program clearly builds on and leverages existing local systems rather than overriding them.

The committee discussed specific operational elements the draft adds or changes: - Definitions: the draft replaces the term “precariously housed” with “at risk of homelessness,” and retains HUD-derived language for “unsheltered homelessness” (described in the draft as sleeping in a location not designed for regular sleeping accommodations). The committee asked staff to cite the HUD source for the at-risk definition and to ensure consistency with federal definitions. - Intake and initial contacts: the draft proposes using 2-1-1 as a first-line intake mechanism (the bill text says the program “shall use 2-1-1 for initial intake services, which shall operate on a 7 day, 24 hour a day basis”). Committee members asked staff to treat expanded use of 2-1-1 as a subject for the implementation plan rather than an immediate mandate; staff agreed to seek written confirmation from 2-1-1 about capacity and to move expanded reliance on 2-1-1 into implementation planning language. - Supportive services and shelter types: the bill lists supportive services (intake, diversion, peer supports, housing navigation, case management, and others) and separates extreme weather shelters, emergency temporary shelter, transitional shelter and a new section for services for households experiencing domestic violence. The committee agreed the domestic violence services should be a distinct subsection implemented by a statewide population-specific provider and asked staff to place that subsection as a labeled component of the overall program while preserving its separate operation. - Participation and conditions: draft 4.1 adds that services “shall be voluntary.” Committee members flagged a tension between voluntary participation and the operational reality that some ongoing shelter placements require expectations (for example, participation in a housing plan, assessments, or other elements). Members agreed to remove mandatory language from the statute and to require the implementation plan to define what elements—if any—may be expectations tied to continued shelter and in what circumstances, including accommodations for disabilities. - Rules, oversight and allocation: the department would adopt rules under VSA chapter 25 in consultation with CAAs; staff added duties for the department to convene stakeholders, provide technical assistance, and develop allocation formulas that consider economic indicators, point-in-time counts, and other variables. The draft also creates an advisory committee with seats for people with lived experience and multiple stakeholder appointments; the advisory committee would provide recommendations on triage and intake standards.

Committee discussion touched on funding and the draft’s transitional appropriation lines. Members noted prior drafts showed a $10 million transition appropriation; draft edits reallocated line items (committee discussion captured different line-item figures and a continuing intent for a $10 million total), and staff said they would return with clear, reconciled appropriation language and with language that clarifies how domestic violence-specific funds would flow (whether as a distinct line or as part of the program allocation).

No formal vote or final action on the bill text occurred during the session; committee members agreed to send some items—most importantly the 2-1-1 expansion and the details of participant expectations—to the implementation plan and to reconvene for further drafting. Katie McDonough said she would circulate revised language and incorporate feedback, including a clarified definition of “at risk of homelessness” tied to HUD guidance.

Committee members and staff also agreed on several drafting specifics: removing the word “arbitrary” from a time-limits clause about nightly shelters, changing “incorporate” to language indicating the program should be “modeled on Housing First principles” (with further detail to be added in the implementation plan), and creating a separate subsection for domestic violence services that will be administered by a statewide population-specific provider while remaining a component of the broader program.

The committee scheduled follow-up work; staff said they would request capacity confirmations from 2-1-1, provide HUD definition citations, reconcile appropriation line items for the transitional funding, and redraft the domestic-violence subsection so it appears as a clear component of the program without placing operational control under CAAs for those services. The committee did not take any statutory votes during this meeting.