Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Supportive Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council report urges $10M/year for five years to build supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities
Summary
Kirsten Murphy of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council presented 'On the Road Home,' a 13‑point plan that estimates a need for roughly 600 supportive housing units for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and recommends $10 million annually for five years, expanded vouchers and licensing reforms to deliver 50–60 units a year.
Kirsten Murphy, executive director of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, told the Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee that the task force’s 'On the Road Home' report estimates roughly 600 additional supportive housing units are needed for Vermonters with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
The report divides the challenge into two financial needs: capital to build units and ongoing rent subsidies to make those units affordable for tenants who often live on Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Murphy said people on SSI typically have under $1,000 per month to cover rent and living expenses. To address capital needs, the task force recommended a state investment of $10 million per year for five years, administered through the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board; staff estimated that level of capital could allow the system to build about 50–60 units annually and move toward the 600‑unit goal.
Murphy also urged the state to pursue federal grants targeted to very low‑income people with disabilities, expand targeted voucher strategies and consider a proposed statewide pool of "virtual" vouchers that would aggregate limited special‑population vouchers across programs (psychiatric, developmental disability, reentry and other AHS populations). She noted existing state‑funded vouchers for long‑term mental‑health supports (about 80 vouchers at roughly $1,000 per month each) as a precedent for targeted subsidies.
The report calls for improved data collection to target supply: case‑management entities recently consolidated to two providers (as of October 1), and Murphy recommended a 9–12 month rollout where case managers routinely record housing needs, family caregiver ages and provider ages so the state can map where units are needed by county over the next 3–5 years.
Murphy identified policy barriers that may slow development, including narrow and inconsistent licensing categories, outdated payment structures for intentional communities and the need for a state housing coordinator within AHS to align VHCB, the state housing authority and disability service agencies. She asked the legislature to create an advisory oversight group to monitor the five‑year plan and report progress.
Committee members pushed back on the assumption that 100% of the estimated 600 units will be needed immediately, noting that many people currently live with aging family caregivers and not all will require state‑built units. Murphy acknowledged data limitations and said the 600 figure comes from an evidence‑based algorithm other states use; the task force recommends improved data collection to refine the estimate.
No formal vote occurred; the council asked the committee to consider funding, oversight structures and licensing fixes as next steps.
