Committee examines S.232 to help public libraries access cannabis‑funded after‑school grants

Johannes Hench, the Agency of Education official who oversees after‑school and summer programming, told the House Education Committee on Feb. 11 that S.232 aims to "expand the afterschool" fund to "specifically highlight and raise up the work of libraries in summer and out‑of‑school time programming." Hench said the agency wanted committee members to understand current practice and the obstacles libraries face.

The bill would explicitly call out public libraries in the same eligibility language Hench cited from "16 PSA section 51," which he said already allows public, private and nonprofit entities to apply for after‑school special fund grants. "We know libraries are running this programming," Hench said, "We just haven't been able to convert that interest into submitting applications." He described two application tracks: a smaller program track for single activities and a larger center track for comprehensive, multi‑year after‑school centers.

Why it matters: The after‑school special fund—largely supported by cannabis sales and use revenue—has grown from about $4 million in its first year to roughly $9 million in its third year, money that can support literacy and summer learning programs. Committee members and library leaders said many Vermont public libraries have little capacity to complete the 10–20 hour application or to meet ongoing fiscal monitoring requirements tied to larger awards.

Key details presented by AOE include that the program track often funds smaller awards (Hench said the smallest grants are around $6,000 and the larger "center" awards can be up to $150,000 a year), that the agency has issued roughly 61 awards of which 40 include literacy enrichment and 15 include literacy‑centered tutoring, and that 24 libraries appear as named partners across 18 funded applications. Hench also explained administrative barriers: AOE's electronic grants management system was designed for schools, so non‑school entities must create profiles and submit IRS/UEI documentation, which slows participation.

Catherine Delnao, State Librarian and Commissioner of the Department of Libraries, told the committee the Department's entire summer reading program budget is $50,000 statewide and that "Each public library in our state has an opportunity... to apply for $350 for 1 program each summer." She urged the committee to preserve language that would give the Department a statutory seat in grant development and to explore a subgranting or streamlined approach so smaller libraries could access modest awards without an onerous application or monitoring burden.

Committee members asked whether lighter application or monitoring paths would require statutory change. Delnao and Hench cited existing administrative rules—Delnao pointed to "bulletin 5," the agency of administration granting process, and to routine subrecipient risk assessments—that currently shape how grants are awarded and monitored. Hench said AOE has used partner listservs and the state librarian's office to improve outreach but that some eligible organizations still learn of competitions late.

What happens next: Committee members asked AOE and the Department of Libraries to provide a short pros‑and‑cons list comparing leaving the bill as written, explicitly naming libraries, or drafting new streamlined language. The department and agency were invited to continue discussions to identify practical fixes—such as subgranting arrangements or process changes—that could help small libraries apply for and manage awards without sacrificing fiscal accountability.