Witnesses and state officials tell House panel emergency shelter rules caused deaths and gaps; advocates press for Housing First and accommodations

Brenda Siegel, the executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, told the House Human Services Committee that Vermont’s General Assistance emergency shelter program must become a “general assistance emergency housing plan” that provides shelter to any Vermonter with a current or imminent lack of safe shelter.

Siegel said the state’s current approach — including short trial authorizations, limits tied to the 80‑day cap outside winter rules and a prioritization process — left people unsheltered last fall and produced “catastrophic outcomes, including severe declines in health and loss of life.” She said her organization tracked multiple deaths of people who became unsheltered after hotel placements ended and that staff and providers experienced “moral injury” carrying out policies that forced people outside.

The testimony, delivered at an H91 hearing on the General Assistance emergency housing program, combined first‑hand case examples, data collection work and policy recommendations. Siegel described a multiyear data project: Phase 1 interviewed 76 individuals in June 2023; Phase 2 interviewed more than 200 people across nine towns from September 2023 to February 2024; Phase 3 was under way and scheduled to run through June 2025. She said End Homelessness Vermont’s hotline handled more than 2,000 calls since June (the organization took the hotline over in 2021) and that staff performed dozens to hundreds of renewals per month during peaks: 85 renewals in September and 167 in December, for example.

Why it matters: witnesses argued the program’s structure and implementation decisions affect who remains sheltered and who becomes unsheltered, with life‑and‑death consequences for people with complex disabilities and serious medical needs.

Key recommendations from End Homelessness Vermont included: (1) redesigning GA emergency shelter into an emergency housing plan that treats shelter as a path to permanent housing rather than a temporary stop, (2) expanding non‑congregate shelter statewide so people can stay near supports and medical care, (3) applying Housing First principles so households are not returned to the street when a hotel placement is a poor fit, (4) codifying clearer reasonable‑accommodation authority and procedures so federal disability protections are honored, and (5) improving application notices, appeal procedures and annual reporting requirements.

Siegel urged the committee to review Olmstead‑related obligations for people with disabilities and to require that people remain sheltered while appealing a benefit denial. She gave detailed case examples: a client whose oxygen saturation fell to 45 and required a fair hearing to secure appropriate placement; a client discharged from a hospital to the street who later obtained a retrofitted hotel room and a Section 8 voucher after community providers and advocates intervened; and several households who were left to sleep outside when local ordinances limited camping options.

State officials provided program context and capacity data. Lily Sojourner, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (Department for Children and Families), described the Housing Opportunity Grant (HOP) program that funds shelter operations and supports a network of community providers. Sojourner said the HOP umbrella totaled about $26 million last year, with roughly $17.5 million awarded to shelter operations and on‑site basic services. She estimated a conservative cost of roughly $125 per night per household to operate shelter capacity.

Sojourner said current HOP‑funded shelter capacity is just over 600 households, with awarded capacity expected to reach about 697 households as more projects come online. She described three shelter types used in Vermont: congregate (open shared spaces), semi‑congregate (private sleeping spaces with shared common areas — the majority in Vermont), and non‑congregate (private rooms with private baths).

Miranda Gray, deputy commissioner for the Economic Services Division, delivered program metrics: at the time of her report about 1,388 households were participating in the General Assistance hotel/motel program (1,392 as of a later update), the point‑in‑time count used in planning was 3,458 people, and the department tracks thousands of coordinated‑entry assessments. Gray explained operational practices that affect renewals and lengths of authorization: some hotels and initial placements are authorized for very short trial periods (two to four days), other authorizations run up to 14 days for many households and up to 28 days for high‑risk households. She confirmed there is variability by location and by hotel manager willingness to accept longer stays.

Both officials said the department conducts habitability inspections, quarterly program monitoring, fiscal oversight and collects occupancy and utilization data through quarterly reports. Sojourner said the HOP team monitors occupancy and sees high utilization across shelter types; she identified ongoing projects to expand capacity in Chittenden, Bennington, Windham and Windsor counties and noted permitting, construction and renovation delays often slow openings.

On disability documentation and medical variances, Gray said the department uses a medical‑variance form implemented in recent policy changes; the form captures many diagnoses and is intended to let medical professionals document a need for shelter. Committee members expressed concern about the breadth of diagnoses appearing on the forms and asked whether the department provides guidance to clinicians about the form’s use. Gray said the department provided outreach when the form was introduced but did not have medical staff on the economic services team to adjudicate clinical detail; she said the department tracks diagnoses for reporting.

Committee questioning also focused on administrative capacity and system design. Members and witnesses described the shelter and supportive‑services system as a set of overlapping programs (HOP, HUD Emergency Solutions Grant, Continuum of Care funding, Section 8/Housing Choice vouchers, family supportive housing, Medicaid‑funded permanent supportive housing benefit) with differing case‑management models. Several legislators asked whether expanding a family‑supportive‑housing case‑management model to more households would standardize services and improve outcomes; officials said it could be modeled but would require additional FTEs and funding.

What the committee directed: no formal motions were recorded in the transcript. Committee members requested written, detailed recommendations from End Homelessness Vermont and additional data breakdowns from DCF/OEO (including sample medical‑variance forms, counts of diagnoses reported on the variance form, updated occupancy/GA utilization maps and a breakdown of HOP‑funded FTEs for housing navigation). Officials agreed to provide those items.

Notes and clarifications from testimony: Siegel emphasized that when hotels were exited in September 2024 many clients ran out of the program’s 80 days (not counting cold‑weather exceptions) and that her group performed exit interviews that day; she said in one exit interview sample 56 people were interviewed and only four had placements. She described two renewal peaks (85 renewals in September; 167 renewals in December) and said the organization and volunteers distributed about $8,000 in tents during an exit response (she clarified “$4,000 in tents” when speaking of an earlier distribution). Siegel said some clients died after becoming unsheltered and that providers and hospitals (she named University of Vermont Medical Center, Rutland Regional Medical Center and Central Vermont Medical Center) had been partners in care for many clients. Sojourner and Gray both noted that HOP funding leverages federal, state and private funds and that the shelter system remains capacity constrained.

The hearing did not produce votes or formal committee actions recorded on the transcript. The committee asked for follow‑up materials and said it would review witness recommendations and departmental data in subsequent meetings.