Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents and advocates back S.157, urge stronger appeals, disability protections
Loading...
Summary
At a House Human Services hearing on S.157, residents and recovery advocates urged the committee to add disability protections, require written exit notices with appeal rights, limit removal grounds to substance use, and strengthen reporting and reengagement supports. Providers described existing reengagement beds funded by grants.
Chair Teresa Wood opened the House Human Services Committee session by saying members would continue consideration of S.157, a bill to certify recovery residences and set standards for operation. Witnesses with lived experience and one provider spoke in favor of the bill but pressed the committee to add clearer legal protections and procedural safeguards.
Brenda Siegel, executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, who said she also consults on human services and drug policy and has lost family members to overdose, told the committee she does not support “a wholesale exemption from a landlord tenant law for recovery residents,” and urged several changes if the bill moves forward. Siegel recommended that the statute require agreements to “clearly state that there is a landlord to tenant relationship” for the portions of the residency not covered by any exemption, and that operators “owe a duty of care to the tenants.” She also pressed the committee to add disability-specific language and stronger reporting so the legislature can track where people go after an exit.
“People with substance use disorder have a medical condition and they often struggle with severe trauma and mental illness,” Siegel said, arguing that the law should protect residents’ rights and limit removal grounds. She recommended that removal be limited to return-to-use and cautioned against expanding a temporary two-year exemption to a broader permanent carve-out that could increase homelessness.
Several witnesses urged clearer notice and appeal rights. Siegel recommended that the statute require written notice of any reason for an exit and that the notice include people’s appeal rights. She also suggested studying or creating an independent appeals body instead of exclusive in-house review by recovery residences or a single department, noting that self-regulation has proven unreliable in other systems.
Two residents who testified described program practices for handling relapse and reentry. Victoria Thompson, a resident at Jenna’s Promise, said when she relapsed the program’s safety plan included contacts with family, short-term placement and a structured reentry process that required a negative toxicology screen and a written relapse-prevention plan before returning. “I would not be sitting here in front of you today if I was never given that second chance,” Thompson said, describing how staff arranged short-term treatment beds and daily outreach during relapse.
Angelica Phillips, a person in recovery and a former regional manager, said recovery residences provide “structure” that is “a lifeline” in early recovery and defended the need for rules that protect the house as a community. Phillips also recommended that the bill ensure consistency in definitions — especially for “safe alternative placement” — and that the department’s responsibilities include harm reduction.
Committee members asked for specifics about how removal decisions are made, whether residents vote, and how reentry supports are tailored for people with learning disabilities. Phillips said residents’ perspectives are part of a documented review and that reentry plans can be submitted in multiple formats to accommodate varying abilities.
No formal vote on S.157 was recorded during this hearing. Chair Wood paused the session to allow members time to review a separate draft (S.239) and said the committee would reconvene to vote on that item after a brief break.
The committee heard both personal accounts of how relapse is handled in programs and concrete policy suggestions: require written exit notices with appeal information, strengthen disability protections, limit removal grounds to substance use, require duty-of-care language for operators, define safe alternative placements, and explore an independent appeals mechanism. Those changes were presented as technical and procedural fixes that could keep people housed while preserving community safety.
The hearing provided direct examples and procedural details the committee can use if it amends S.157. The committee did not take a final vote on S.157 at this session; next procedural actions were left to the committee’s agenda after its short break.
