Vermont Legal Aid warns H 5 94 could worsen homelessness without housing and due-process fixes
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Vermont Legal Aid told the committee H 5 94 relies on residency checks, time limits and sanctions that would push people into unsheltered homelessness unless the state significantly expands shelter, affordable housing and case management; the witness urged written notice, less punitive sanctions and investment in permanent housing.
Deanna Hartog, the poverty law fellow at Vermont Legal Aid, told committee members that H 5 94 — as drafted — emphasizes restrictions, deadlines and sanctions that do not match Vermont’s current housing supply and support capacity. Legal Aid argued the bill’s residency verification and a so-called "return home" relocation approach could be unconstitutional, ethically problematic and practically harmful.
"The bill assumes that if we tighten eligibility, impose deadlines, and require compliance, that people will move more quickly into permanent housing," Hartog said, but she added that Vermont does not have enough affordable housing, shelter capacity, case managers or supportive housing to make that assumption true. She cited point-in-time data showing the majority of people experiencing homelessness have been unhoused for well over 90 days and said 60- to 180-day timelines in the bill are unrealistic in Vermont’s market.
Hartog raised particular concerns about due process and punitive sanctions. She described a recent case in which a client lost emergency housing for five days over a documentation issue and urged the committee to require prior written notice, allow multiple electronic contacts (including email), and avoid automatic 30-day ineligibility periods for noncompliance. Legal Aid also recommended more flexible disability verification procedures and better access to appeal processes.
Instead of rationing shelter and enforcing time-limited placement exits, Hartog urged investment in proven approaches: committing to housing, expanding permanent affordable and supportive housing, scaling robust case management and building a well-supported workforce. "When those structural realities exist, rationing shelter does not reduce homelessness," she told the committee.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about verification practices and notices; Hartog recommended email notice where appropriate and criticized rigid forms that require provider signatures as barriers for people without consistent clinical access. Legal Aid offered to work with the committee on redrafting the bill.