Witnesses urge permanent funding for Vermont’s support service program for people who are deaf-blind

Renee Pellerin, a DeafBlind resident of Waterbury Center, told the House Committee on Human Services on Oct. 12 that H.143, a bill to establish a support service program for people who are deaf-blind, would sustain a service she said has restored independence for participants.

“As a blind person and a deaf person, it is even more difficult to communicate with the general population,” Pellerin said, describing how the program helps with communication, navigation and transportation. She said the SSPs provide “environmental cues” and “haptics” that allow her to shop, attend appointments and participate in community events.

The testimony came from both people with lived experience and the contractor managing Vermont’s pilot program. Corey Bruner, senior vice president for Vancro, the contractor operating the pilot, told the committee the program serves people with dual sensory loss who otherwise rely on family, friends or inconsistent volunteer supports.

“This is why the SSP program is important,” Bruner said, describing SSPs as professionals who serve as sighted guides and provide “visual, social, and environmental description of surroundings and providing transportation access.” She said Vermont’s pilot has been funded by a mix of federal COVID-relief dollars, independent-living funding, and home- and community-based care dollars, and that the current funding approach is “piecemeal.”

Pellerin and Bruner gave specific operational details used by the pilot: participants are allotted up to 25 hours per month under the current pilot; the program has a roster of trained SSPs who receive background and DMV checks; and Vancro currently supports about 25 SSPs in Vermont. Bruner said the contractor supports two other state programs and cited comparable programs: New Mexico’s fully funded program at about $450,000 annually serving 99 people, and a Nebraska pilot at about $110,000 serving roughly 25 participants.

Both witnesses described impacts on mental and physical health. Pellerin said the service helps overcome isolation and enables routine tasks such as grocery shopping and attending medical appointments, while Bruner said participants report reduced stress, greater independence and increased participation in community life. Bruner also said SSP employment creates flexible, local jobs for college students, parents and retirees.

Committee members asked about staffing, training and coverage. Pellerin said she usually gets an SSP when she requests one but sometimes faces last-minute shortages. Bruner said there is a training program and a wait list of people who want to be trained but that training has been limited by funding uncertainty.

On funding, Bruner told the committee that a recurring appropriation would stabilize services. She estimated that about $200,000 annually would maintain the current level of service and allow modest expansion; she warned that lower funding would force the program to reduce hours or the number of participants. Bruner said Vermont’s pilot began in 02/2022 and that the current pilot funding was expected through the end of the calendar year; committee members said they had encouraged Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living staff to seek funding through the Budget Adjustment Act to extend coverage to June 30 of next year.

Committee members did not vote on the bill during the hearing. Representative Rae Gerofano said the committee will “tee up work for the beginning of next year” and pledged to gather budget information and consider including a request in the committee’s budget letter to Appropriations. The testimony was recorded as background for that work; no formal statutory change or appropriation was adopted at the hearing.

Supporters highlighted school and youth uses: Bruner said the pilot can supplement school-based services (IEP or Section 504) for social and out-of-school activities, noting that the pilot includes at least one 16-year-old participant and that schools sometimes contract for additional SSP hours for events.

Bruner and Pellerin described efforts to seek grant funding and noted repeated denials from traditional foundation sources that prefer systems-change grants rather than direct service provision. Bruner said there is no dedicated Department of Health funding for SSPs and that other department programs have not set aside funds for deaf-blind services.

The committee accepted written testimony from Pellerin and indicated staff will follow up with the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living and with the contractor to collect cost and coverage data for budget planning. Committee members emphasized the need to treat a low-incidence population’s needs as valid for budget consideration even when the affected cohort is small.

If enacted, H.143 would formalize a statewide program; witnesses and committee members agreed that formal, recurring funding is needed to avoid gaps, reduce wait lists and allow the contractor to train new SSPs and reliably schedule services. No legislative action was taken at the hearing; committee staff will continue to collect information and may propose budget language next session.