Vermont DCF says task force recommendations need fiscal, operational analysis; abstained on most votes

The Department for Children and Families told the House Human Services Committee during testimony that state members of a homelessness task force abstained from most votes on the panel's recommendations because the department lacked time and detailed fiscal analysis to assess operational impacts.

"I really appreciate the work of the task force," Commissioner Chris Winters, Department for Children and Families, told the committee. "This is an incredibly complicated issue. There are no easy answers. There are very few quick fixes." Winters said state members often abstained where the implications for shelter bed supply, hotel rooms and staff positions were not fully analyzed.

Deputy Commissioner Miranda Gray, Economic Services Division, outlined the department's specific concerns and sections where DCF abstained. Gray said DCF was not able in the task force timeframe to estimate the budgetary and logistical consequences of suggested changes including expanding household eligibility, removing resource limits, changing maximum days of hotel or motel eligibility and eliminating income contributions. "We abstained," Gray said, adding the department was willing to provide fuller analyses to the legislature and committees as bills move forward.

Key details the department flagged include: - Eligibility changes: The task force proposed lowering an age threshold from 65 to 60 and expanding eligibility to people exiting foster care (age 19 to 24). Gray said DCF did not have time to determine the size of those populations or the fiscal impact of expansion. - Resource limits and income contributions: The task force recommended removing resource limits and in some parts eliminating income contributions. Gray said removing savings/resource tests could produce significant budgetary impacts and might allow people with substantial means to occupy limited hotel rooms. - Maximum days in hotels/motels: One recommendation would allow households up to 400 days of hotel or motel housing per year. Gray said that conflicts with recent legislative direction encouraging use of other housing options and noted the department could not analyze impacts on room availability. - Fair hearings and continued housing: The task force suggested allowing households to remain housed while an eligibility fair hearing is pending. Gray said DCF was not asked to analyze that change and warned that permitting continued occupancy during appeals could lead to increased demand for rooms and leave otherwise eligible households unsheltered in winter. - Data and HMIS integration: Gray said DCF's operational reporting needs differ from the homeless management information system (HMIS). She cited a vendor estimate that building an import capability would cost "approximately 1,000,000" and said HMIS currently lacks some of the state's required reporting and user-reporting tools. She also said each person entered into HMIS requires a unique record and that data-entry burdens could reduce the department's capacity to field calls without additional staff. - Contracting and hotel capacity: DCF warned that contracting with hotels could require hotels to meet food-and-lodging regulations, licensing or zoning requirements and could force the department to pay for unused rooms under some contract structures. Gray noted many participating hotels authorize short stays for screening and suitability, and that current per-room payments can exceed $2,000 per month in some cases.

Representatives at the hearing questioned whether DCF's approach emphasized operational feasibility over a policy baseline for goals. Representative Donahue asked whether the department's abstentions reflected a view that recommendations should be operationally implementable before being endorsed; Winters replied that DCF sought time to perform fiscal analyses before supporting or opposing specific proposals.

Committee members also raised concerns about protecting hotel owners from repeated property damage and the practicalities of enforcing behavioral rules, and asked DCF for crosswalks showing what HMIS can and cannot provide relative to the department's reporting needs. Gray said DCF would attempt to provide further detail and additional analyses to the committees.

The department did not take formal votes during the hearing; instead, DCF described areas where it would provide further fiscal and workforce analysis to inform legislative consideration of task force recommendations. DCF repeatedly characterized the task force report as "valuable" with many strong ideas but said several recommendations could not be responsibly endorsed without deeper study.

Next steps: DCF said it will continue work on fiscal and workforce analyses and provide that information to House committee staff and members as legislation progresses.