Vermont nonprofits tell Commerce & Economic Development committee federal actions are increasing demand and risk to services

Members of Vermont’s nonprofit sector told the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on April 22 that federal policies and enforcement activity are producing immediate demand and operational strain for local service providers, and they urged the Legislature to adopt measures that stabilize nonprofit funding.

The hearing, convened by Chair Marcotte, featured presentations from Jill Martin Diaz, executive director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project; Renata Aylward, communications manager at Merck Forest and Farmland Center; Phoebe Zorani, executive director of the Pride Center of Vermont; Dan Barlow, executive director of the People’s Health and Wellness Clinic; and Emma Paradise of Common Good Vermont, who opened the hearing.

The most urgent theme was fear linked to federal immigration enforcement and policy shifts. “People are scared. My colleagues are scared. I’m scared,” said Jill Martin Diaz, who told the committee that some Vermonters are withdrawing from school and missing medical appointments out of fear of immigration enforcement. Martin Diaz said Vermont’s immigrant population — about 30,000 foreign‑born residents — and their families are feeling a “chilling effect” that reduces participation in routine civic and economic life. They said their organization provides full‑scope legal representation to “dozens” of people in removal proceedings, has three paid staff and one contractor, and has served “hundreds” in clinic settings; their newsletter has about 2,100 subscribers.

Martin Diaz recommended coordinated, multi‑sector planning rather than immediate unilateral responses by the Legislature or media. They cited the state Treasurer’s federal transition task force as a model and pointed to H.56 (the “office of new Americans” bill currently in the House) as an example of coordination that has advanced through that task force.

Conservation and workforce development were the focus of Merck Forest’s presentation. Renata Aylward described Merck Forest and Farmland Center as a 3,500‑acre nonprofit (originally a 2,600‑acre gift) that draws roughly 20,000 visitors a year, employs 18 people and provides hands‑on education and workforce pathways. Aylward asked the committee to “consider this your personal invitation” to visit and asked lawmakers to support H.233, which she said would create a “more predictable and responsive state grant system for nonprofits,” and to amend S.122 to include nonprofit support alongside business support.

Phoebe Zorani told the committee the Pride Center of Vermont provides statewide direct services, community programming and employer training that help retain queer and trans Vermonters. “That kind of belonging and resilience that nonprofits foster is not a luxury, it’s a necessity,” Zorani said. She said Pride Center has seen nearly double the number of callers to its Safe Space domestic and sexual violence hotline in the past year and that much of the center’s funding is state‑based; she warned that federal actions targeting nonprofit status or specific subject areas could increase pressure on nonprofit operations and service demand.

Dan Barlow described the People’s Health and Wellness Clinic as a 32‑year‑old free clinic that treats about 700 unique patients a year in central Vermont. He said the clinic combines a small paid staff with volunteer clinicians, runs a full‑scope dental hygiene program (currently booked into September) and receives roughly 40%–45% of its budget through a legislative appropriation routed through the Vermont Free and Referral Clinic Association. Barlow warned that cuts to Medicaid or related federal funding would affect both patient access and the clinic’s budget, and he described legal limits that prevent free clinics from billing Medicaid directly.

Committee members asked presenters about staffing, caseloads, housing and funding. Presenters repeatedly cautioned against ad‑hoc state actions that could inadvertently separate detained people from counsel or obstruct judicial review, urging instead that the Legislature coordinate across agencies and stakeholders before adopting new rules.

The committee thanked the presenters and indicated it would proceed to the floor at 10 a.m.; no formal votes or committee motions were recorded during the nonprofit presentations.