ACLU warns H.594 would shrink emergency shelter access; urges independent study before cuts

Alex Grimbliss, a policy advocate with the ACLU of Vermont, told the House Human Services Committee on Jan. 30 that H.594, as drafted, would reduce Vermont's emergency shelter capacity without an adequate replacement and could increase unsheltered homelessness across the state.

"Homelessness is a housing problem," Grimbliss said, summarizing the ACLU's analysis that a shrinking supply of rental housing — including a reported drop in vacancy rates from 4.5% to 2.1% — is a principal driver of rising homelessness. Grimbliss said median rents in Vermont rose roughly 34% between 2019 and 2024 and that private‑market rentals affordable to the lowest‑income Vermonters have largely disappeared.

The ACLU argued the General Assistance (GA) emergency housing benefit has long served as a critical backstop and that the committee should not cut shelters absent equivalent alternative capacity. "We are already leaving over 1,300 people out of our system," Grimbliss said, adding that eliminating or reducing GA ‘‘absent of an equal number of alternative beds means more unsheltered people on our streets.’'

Jessica Radbord, the ACLU senior staff attorney joining by Zoom, emphasized legal obligations under federal and state disability law, saying the homelessness response must accommodate people with disabilities in integrated, community‑based settings. "It prevents them from dying outside," Radbord said of shelter capacity, framing access to immediate shelter as a life‑safety issue.

The ACLU opposed several elements of H.594 as written. They flagged three core concerns: a tiered eligibility scheme that they say risks deprioritizing people with disabilities and other currently eligible groups (including disaster survivors and households displaced by a family death); proposed limits on motel and hotel room usage that the ACLU said could reduce available rooms by a large percentage; and residency‑proof requirements (for example, leases or utility bills) that the witnesses argued would impose de facto durational residency conditions and could be unlawful.

Grimbliss also criticized the bill's stated emphasis on fraud prevention as ‘‘unwarranted and redundant’’ given existing DCF regulations, and said administration testimony relying on anecdote about out‑of‑state arrivals lacked supporting data.

As an alternative to immediate cuts, the ACLU recommended the state issue an RFP for an independent, research‑based consultant (citing the 2017 Roadmap to End Homelessness process as a precedent) and convene a task force that includes Vermonters with lived and professional experience of homelessness. The group called for a granular, evidence‑based transition plan specifying how many SROs, vouchers and alternative beds would be needed to replace any GA rooms taken offline.

Committee members pressed the witnesses on details. Rep. Donahue asked whether ‘‘low‑barrier’’ and ‘‘service‑enriched’’ models would create inequitable access; Grimbliss replied services should be voluntary and available to all, not a condition for shelter. Representatives from Rutland and other regions raised concerns that motel placements have concentrated pressure locally; witnesses said any transition must address regional equity.

No formal action or vote on H.594 occurred during the hearing. Committee members said they will continue to gather information from housing, shelter and state agency partners; the committee also noted a follow‑up presentation on another agenda item was canceled and the day's business would continue with other scheduled items.