Committee hears plan to keep hotel-motel emergency program for two years while planning regional transfer to community action agencies

The Health & Welfare committee discussed a phased plan to preserve the current hotel‑motel emergency housing program while preparing to move administration and funding to regional community action agencies.

Commissioner Chris Winters, Department for Children and Families, told the committee that “we agree that HOP should continue as is for at least the next 2 fiscal years,” and described a planning timeline intended to avoid disruption of existing shelter and homelessness services.

The committee was told why the change matters: the proposal aims to combine several emergency housing funding streams and shift day‑to‑day administration from a single state hub to five regional community action agencies (CAPs). Supporters said regional control could tailor services (shelter beds, medical respite, family shelter, low‑barrier shelter and extreme‑weather responses) to local needs, while critics warned of added administrative cost and uneven capacity across CAPs.

Most important details

- Timeline and structure: Commissioner Chris Winters said HOP would remain administered through the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Planning would proceed so that, in fiscal year 2028, emergency housing funds and HOP funds would be combined into a single continuum under regional administration. Committee discussion referenced a possible funding/operational transfer date of July 1, 2026, as a planning target.

- Reporting and milestones: Committee members and staff proposed an earlier reporting cadence than the bill’s Feb. 1 date, including an October report that would present the process for conducting regional needs assessments, a progress report in mid‑January, and a further implementation/budget report in spring (participants discussed April 1 as a target for a final implementation report tied to the FY28 budget planning cycle).

- Needs assessment and performance measures: The group agreed the October report should outline a process and template for regional needs assessments so each region can identify required capacities (beds by type, medical respite, domestic violence accommodations, extreme‑weather plans). Committee members asked for some statewide, comparable performance benchmarks alongside region‑specific measures (access, proximity to services, transportation links).

- Oversight and continuity for existing providers: Several community partners, including representatives from local shelters and statewide nonprofits, pressed for language that would prevent abrupt changes to existing local programs. Participants discussed a DCF or Agency of Human Services oversight role so that “no existing COP program changes without DCF having some role in that decision making,” as one participant summarized during the meeting.

- Capacity and budget concerns: Senators and committee members repeatedly warned that spinning administration to multiple CAPs risks duplicating administrative functions and reducing funds available for direct services unless upfront transition resources are provided. At one point a committee member summarized statewide funding roughly as: about $30 million for technical assistance, $30 million for HOP, and $10 million for transition work — figures cited during discussion as illustrative of the scale under consideration.

What was decided vs. discussed

- Agreement (not a final vote): Committee members and Department staff reached a working agreement to preserve HOP under OEO through FY26 and FY27 and to plan a combined emergency housing model for FY28. That agreement was described repeatedly as conceptual and contingent on further planning, reporting, and budget detail.

- Directions given: Staff were asked to prepare draft statutory/reporting language and to convene regional and provider meetings (several participants recommended continuing “cafeteria” or hallway meetings used earlier) so the October report can present a clear process for regional assessments and recommended performance measures.

- No final legislative action in the meeting: The committee did not take any formal vote or adopt final statutory language; members asked staff and administration to return with proposed bill language, reporting templates and preliminary budget implications.

Stakeholder views and concerns

Commissioner Chris Winters said the administration and CAPs had already met and that a year of planning followed by a year of transition would reduce the risk of disrupting current services. Multiple committee members voiced concern that assigning administration to multiple CAPs could increase overall administrative costs unless some state positions or services are eliminated or reallocated and transition funding is provided.

Community providers and nonprofit representatives urged a human‑centered needs assessment process, continuity of reporting data now used for planning, and assurances that locally effective programs would not be “bumped” without administrative review. One representative from a statewide homelessness organization said statewide groups face heavy burdens if they must replan for each region individually and asked for mechanisms to streamline that work.

Next steps

Staff and agency presenters were asked to produce an October report describing the regional assessment process and suggested statewide benchmarks; a progress report in January; and a further implementation/budget report tied to FY28 planning. Committee members requested draft statutory language for review and emphasized the need for clarity on funding flows, reporting requirements and a backup plan if a CAP declines or cannot meet required benchmarks.

Ending

Committee leaders and agency officials said they would continue convening CAPs, providers and community partners to refine obligations, reporting and budgets before the committee considers final statutory language. No final transfers or designations were approved in this session.