Witnesses urge Vermont to fund "Road Home" plan to build service‑supported housing for adults with developmental disabilities

Kirsten Hartley, executive director of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, told a joint House General and House Housing hearing that the Act 69 "Road Home" report outlines a five‑year plan to create service‑supported housing for Vermonters with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

"We estimate that there are about 600 people that need some kind of housing or will need some type of different housing arrangement than what they are currently in over the next 5 ish years," Hartley said, and the report places the cost at roughly "$56–61,000,000 over 5 years." She warned that the report’s recommendations must be implemented as a coordinated package — building homes without rental assistance or supports will not work.

Why it matters: witnesses said the shortage affects both people who want to live independently and family caregivers who are aging. Max Faroes, outreach director for Green Mountain Self Advocates and a self‑advocate, told the committees that ableism and discrimination limit options and drive poverty and housing exclusion for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

"Ableism is built into systems and it limits our opportunities," Faroes said, adding that housing policy should support independence rather than reinforce family dependence. He cited a 2024 study that found about 30 percent of respondents reported experiencing housing discrimination.

Family perspectives and legislative asks: Beth Davis, a family caregiver involved with the Developmental Disabilities Housing Initiative, described her 43‑year‑old son Craig’s desire for an apartment of his own and summarized several Road Home recommendations: a permanent housing position at the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living; additional VHCB capital funding; state rental assistance targeted to participants in DAIL home‑and‑community‑based services; an advisory committee to oversee implementation; and a housing navigator at the Land Access and Opportunity Board. Davis referenced legislation and funding proposals, saying S.3.28 includes a $3,000,000 line for housing and that bridge rental assistance proposals discussed would initially fund about 30 vouchers at $500,000.

Provider and funder perspectives: Polly Majer, director of policy and special projects at the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, said VHCB can provide capital support but emphasized that supports, licensing and rental assistance must be aligned. She pointed to Act 186 pilot projects in Randolph, Ferrisburg and Burlington as proof of concept and described licensing as an area that may require statutory or administrative changes.

Personal testimony: David Fry of Burlington described moving from shared living arrangements to an independent apartment with a Section 8 voucher. "I have more ability to be part of a community, and I can be myself, and I live alone," Fry said, using his experience to illustrate how existing programs can work when people are assisted to access them.

Crisis signals and capacity: Gloria Quinn, executive director of Upper Valley Services, described provider strain and rising homelessness risk: she said a recent statewide survey identified 144 people "on the precipice of homelessness" and reported that providers are aging, staffing is limited and the state currently operates six crisis beds for people with complex needs.

Committee questions focused on technical feasibility: members asked whether the 600‑unit target could be met using existing affordable units and vouchers, how Section 8 waiting lists and prioritization would work, and what data (case management counts by county) are needed for planning. Witnesses repeatedly said more technical follow‑up and targeted policy design would be required.

No formal votes or directives were recorded at the hearing. The hearing concluded with the committees thanking witnesses and adjourning to their next scheduled business.

What’s next: witnesses and committee members signaled follow‑up work on licensing, funding detail, targeted voucher design and county‑level counts; the Road Home report and several bills (including S.3.28) were identified as likely vehicles for legislative action.