Health & Welfare committee presses for budget clarity on H.91 community action agency transition

At a meeting of the Senate Committee on Health & Welfare, lawmakers pressed state agencies and community partners for specific budget numbers, timelines and implementation details for H.91, the bill that would establish regional community action agencies and provide transition funding.

Committee members and witnesses focused on a $10,000,000 appropriation that appears in current budget language (with a $6,500,000 alternative referenced for five regions and a statewide network), the bill’s timeline for transferring duties from existing programs, and the unknown administrative costs of standing up five local CAPs and a statewide network.

Why it matters: the bill would shift programs and funding now administered through existing channels into five regional CAPs and a statewide network. Committee members said they need firm estimates of what local CAPs will require to implement services, how much the state will commit for administrative support, and whether existing hotel/motel and other emergency housing funds will be reduced to pay for the transition.

Committee members said the draft bill swaps the term “community service agency” for “community action agency,” updates antiquated language, and cross-references statutory planning and needs-assessment requirements. Lawmakers repeatedly asked the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and the CAPs to return with concrete, line-item budgets for fiscal year 2026 (start of the upcoming fiscal cycle) and a proposed FY2027 budget so the committee can evaluate whether the one-time transition appropriation is sufficient or excessive.

Amy Schallberger, speaking for BCAP, urged caution about sequencing. “If the regional groups get to make a plan and build a budget for the plan they want, it's going to be more than what you're currently budgeting for these programs because they already know they're underfunded,” Schallberger said. She and others told the committee that CAPs need to know the amount of funding available before drafting realistic plans.

Lily Sojourner of the Department for Children and Families, Office of Economic Opportunity, recommended staggering deadlines so regional plans and associated budget requests are due shortly after the plans are finalized. “If we have a plan due by this, like, a month later, the associated budget is due to allow” staff and agencies time to align scope with dollars, Sojourner said.

Beverly Bogat of the Vermont Early Childhood Advocacy Alliance flagged intake and call-center capacity as a substantive implementation issue if the bill expands centralized intake: “...part of this planning process, we'll be talking about how the intake gets done for this program and how complicated that intake will be,” Bogat said, noting that 2-1-1 currently serves as emergency backup and that expanding 2-1-1 to 24/7 coverage would be a separate funding question.

Committee members and witnesses identified several specific points the committee wants answered before moving forward: how the $10,000,000 (or $6,500,000 in some drafts) would be allocated among five regional CAPs and a statewide network; whether the appropriation is a one-time transition payment or the start of ongoing administrative funding; how much of current hotel/motel or emergency shelter funding would be reallocated; estimates of local administrative costs and staff needs for initial planning and longer-term operations; and realistic deadlines for required plans and budgets so DCF and CAPs can submit usable proposals to the governor’s budget process.

Several participants proposed an approach the committee could use: keep the appropriation in the budget but require each CAP to submit a FY2026 (implementation/transition) budget and a FY2027 proposed budget so DCF can negotiate contracts and the administration can include realistic numbers in its budget submission. Committee members said agency budget instructions, which typically go out in October–November, make an October deadline for CAP submissions particularly useful.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the discussion. Committee members agreed to continue discussions and requested follow-up information from DCF and regional CAP representatives, including: itemized administrative cost estimates, proposed staffing and timelines to stand up local operations, and clarification on how current emergency housing funds would be treated in the transition.

The committee also discussed a placeholder transition-report requirement in the draft bill directing DCF to present a plan for shifting funding and duties in its FY2028 budget presentation. Members asked that language be clarified to ensure the report includes timelines and budget implications.

Next steps: the committee will reconvene to review the budgets and regional plans after DCF and CAPs provide the requested information and to consider bill language that links plan deliverables and budget deadlines to the budget cycle.