Committee refines Vermont Homeless Response Continuum bill; debates definitions, data sources and standards

The committee began detailed, line-by-line consideration of H.766 — described in the meeting as the Vermont Homeless Response Continuum — with the stated aim of codifying a statewide continuum of services from prevention and diversion through permanent supportive housing.

Chair (unnamed) said the draft trims the number of findings and narrows the purpose section to focus on how the state will implement services, not only on end-state goals. The bill would create a new chapter in Title 33 and establish definitions for alternative housing options, coordinated entry, case management and other program elements. “This is codifying in statute because right now, we don't have anything in statute,” the chair said, noting that statute is harder to change than practice and that the bill seeks consistency across municipalities and providers.

Committee members pressed staff for precise data to support findings. Legislative counsel cited the 2024 Vermont Housing Needs Assessment, saying it identifies about 36,000 primary homes needed statewide between 2025 and 2029 and that 3,295 of those are needed to address homelessness. Lawmakers also debated which count to cite for people experiencing homelessness: HMIS figures, a point-in-time (PIT) survey, or both. Several members stressed that the PIT is typically an undercount of people who do not engage with shelter or service providers; one member summarized the point by saying the PIT number “is an undercount” and urged wording that reflects that limitation.

The committee wrestled with definitions that affect program eligibility and delivery. Members discussed whether ‘children’ should be defined as 18 and under or whether the bill should explicitly recognize 18–24 as a distinct youth category. Staff were asked to insert December or January HMIS numbers into the draft findings before the next markup.

On services, the panel endorsed centering the statute on a ‘‘continuum of services’’ that includes prevention and diversion, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing. Members recommended the case management definition explicitly cover individualized, coordinated supports and ongoing aftercare or tenancy-sustaining services to reduce returns to homelessness. One member recommended language such as “ongoing supports to ensure successful rehousing” to capture post-placement follow-up.

The committee also debated diversion and prevention language and sought closer alignment with HUD’s definitions. Members flagged that diversion activities can include preventing homelessness before it happens and helping people recently homeless exit shelters quickly — e.g., short-term financial assistance for deposits or first-month rent — and asked staff to revise the draft to reflect HUD guidance.

On specialized shelters and services — including recovery residences and shelters offering on-site health or substance-use supports — department staff said programs would be expected to meet general shelter standards and any additional standards applicable to the specialized services. The chair asked staff to confirm whether recovery-residence funding (including referenced World Health Transformation Grant money) and recovery-residence licensing standards apply to any of the shelter models discussed.

Separately in early business, the committee discussed the City of Burlington’s overdose prevention center (OPC). Chair said the OPC had not been included in earlier advisory recommendations and likely came late to the proposal process; the Appropriations Committee previously allowed a BAA request, and the OPC has had $2.2 million referenced in committee discussions. The chair said the committee will require financial reporting and will accept written materials from Burlington but will not take verbal testimony from proposal entities during markup.

The committee paused for a brief break after asking staff to: tighten statutory language; insert the most recent HMIS and PIT figures cited in the draft; align diversion language with HUD definitions; and clarify whether any specialized-shelter standards apply when medical or recovery services are provided on-site. No formal motions or votes were recorded during the session; members signaled intent to continue markup following the break.