Vermont Network urges funding for statewide supervised visitation system
Loading...
Summary
Charlie Lisserman of the Vermont Network told the Appropriations Committee the network seeks funding to stabilize six existing supervised‑visitation programs, start two new programs in unserved counties and fund a 0.4 FTE statewide coordinator; the group also asked for a small transfer of general funds now routed to the Center for Crime Victim Services to DCF.
Charlie Lisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and ****** Violence, urged the Appropriations Committee to fund a statewide supervised‑visitation system that would shore up existing programs and create capacity in counties without services.
Lisserman said the Network revised its budget request for fiscal 2027 and described the proposal as funding community‑based supervised visitation services plus a small allocation for statewide coordination. "Ultimately, the very specific details about what program budgets look like and usage of funds, would likely be determined by the programs themselves and DCF as a funder," Lisserman said during his testimony.
Under the Network’s plan, the state would support eight supervised‑visitation programs statewide — up from six currently — and hire a 0.4 full‑time‑equivalent coordinator housed at the Vermont Network. The coordinator would consult with DCF to support startup of two new programs, provide training and help set program standards and allocations so smaller providers can sustain operations.
Lisserman also asked the committee to consider transferring a bit over $100,000 in general funds currently routed to the Center for Crime Victim Services to DCF to consolidate grant administration and reduce providers’ administrative burden.
Committee members asked how the two new sites would be chosen and whether the money would simply follow willing providers rather than be allocated by need. Lisserman said selection criteria would focus on counties without current services and where needs‑assessment data and interested providers indicate viable options; staff work with Representative Donahue and Legislative Counsel was described as drafting language to make that explicit.
Members signaled support for stabilizing existing programs and asked staff to include a cost analysis and implementation details in committee materials. The committee did not take a formal vote; staff were asked to incorporate the request into the budget recommendations and return with precise line‑item language and calculations.
