Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont DCF presents FY26 budget overview, cites caseload shifts and a fund swap
Summary
The Department for Children and Families told legislators it expects an overall 3.3% increase in its FY26 budget driven by special‑fund adjustments, caseload changes across divisions and pay/benefit updates; general fund support is projected to fall 3.5%.
For the record, my name is Chris Winters. I'm the Commissioner for Children and Families, and joining me today is Megan Smeaton, who's our financial director for the very large and complicated DCF budget, and also Nellie Marble, our legislative and communications lead, Commissioner Chris Winters said as he opened the department's overview to the legislative committee.
The Department for Children and Families (DCF) told legislators the FY26 proposal mixes decreases in general fund support with increases elsewhere. DCF said the FY25 base appropriation adjustments show a 3.5% decrease to general funds, a 1% increase to Global Commitment and a 3.3% increase overall; the department attributed much of that appearance to swaps and re‑classifications among funding buckets.
Why it matters: DCF runs programs that deliver cash assistance, child care subsidies, housing supports and child welfare services across the state. Shifts among general, special and federal funds affect the state's near‑term general fund obligations and how the department presents tradeoffs to the legislature.
DCF said it manages roughly 989 positions in the base budget, with total staffing closer to 1,100 when limited‑service and temporary positions are included. Major federal revenue streams named in the presentation include Title IV‑D (child support), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/3SquaresVT), LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Child Care and Development Fund, Title IV‑E and Medicaid/Global Commitment. The department listed additional federal grants (Preschool Development Grant, Social Services Block Grant, IDEA Part C, SSDI, Department of Energy weatherization funds and others) as smaller funding sources.
Megan Smeaton, identified as DCF financial director, walked members through adjustments the department modeled: downward caseload adjustments for subsidized adoptions and substitute care, child care financial assistance and Reach Up; revenue and accounting shifts including a CCFAP fund swap and a random moment in time study adjustment; and across‑the‑board pay act and benefit changes. The department told the committee it built vacancy and step projections into each appropriation rather than applying a single uniform vacancy rate across the agency.
On the Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD) line, DCF said the administrative cost increase stems from a federal change: the federal entity that processes some benefits raised its per‑transaction charge, which the state must now absorb. Deputy and division leaders described declining caseloads in several benefit programs and explained that caseload estimates are produced by a consultant using macroeconomic inputs and an average cost‑per‑case model projected over multiple years.
Child Development Division deputy Janet McLaughlin told the committee the Child Care Financial Assistance Program has seen "tremendous growth" in uptake over the last 18 months after eligibility expansions and an online application went live, and that the current mix of recipients includes more families at the higher end of the eligibility scale, producing a lower subsidy per family than initially modeled. The department said a $19 million conversion between general fund and special fund in the CDD appropriation explains part of the apparent general fund decrease while preserving program continuity.
The department proposed a mix of one‑time and base funding adjustments across programs. DCF asked the committee to consider those proposals while noting that some federal awards are time‑limited and that the department is tracking which revenue streams are ongoing versus grant‑based.
The presentation closed with DCF asking to return for a follow‑up session to go line by line on remaining questions.
Ending: DCF said it will return to the committee to continue detailed line‑item discussion and to supply additional requested data on federal funding longevity, vacancy‑savings percentages by appropriation and the modeling underlying caseload projections.
