Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers hear testimony on H.657 omnibus bill to shield foster youth benefits, lift Reach Up asset limit and expand services for unaccompanied youth
Loading...
Summary
At a House Health & Welfare hearing, advocates and agency staff described H.657, an omnibus child‑welfare bill that would stop the Department for Children and Families from using children’s Social Security benefits to pay foster‑care costs, eliminate the Reach Up asset limit, allow unaccompanied youth to access services without parental consent and tighten restraint/transport rules; witnesses cited fiscal tradeoffs and data on increasing restraint incidents.
The Vermont House Committee on Health & Welfare heard two hours of testimony April 17 on H.657, an omnibus bill that would change how the state handles several child‑welfare policies, including eliminating the Reach Up asset limit, protecting children’s Social Security benefits from being used to offset foster‑care costs, authorizing unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain services without parental consent, and tightening rules on restraint, seclusion and secure transport.
Lauren Digby, deputy advocate with the Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate, said the bill responds to an unfair practice in which some jurisdictions apply children’s federal Social Security benefits toward foster‑care costs. “This practice is not unique to Vermont…it's clearly unfair and unjust,” Digby said, and she urged the committee to adopt reforms that conserve benefits for children and put SSI recipients into qualified ABLE accounts or trust accounts so the funds are available for their future needs.
The proposal would prohibit the Department for Children and Families from using any portion of a child’s Social Security benefits to offset the state’s cost for the child’s maintenance, except where needed to preserve the child’s eligibility for SSI or to avoid triggering federal asset limits. The bill would also require the department, with the treasurer’s office, to establish trust or ABLE accounts, monitor federal asset limits and provide an annual accounting of benefits and any expenditures made at the child's request.
Heather McClain, revenue enhancement director for DCF Family Services, told the committee there are two distinct federal benefit types at issue: SSI (needs‑based) and survivor/SSDI benefits (non‑needs‑based). She said SSI funds can be placed in federal ABLE accounts administered with the treasurer’s office, while survivor benefits would require a different account structure and that DCF is still working through implementation details.
Advocates and providers who testified described both the human stakes and data behind the bill. Digby cited DCF reporting that restraint and seclusion incidents rose to 461 in 2025 from 324 in 2024 and noted children ages 0–10 represent a disproportionate share of those incidents. Christina Brown, chief program officer at Spectrum Youth and Family Services, said allowing youth to consent to services could prevent entries into state custody and help keep homelessness “rare, brief and nonrecurring.”
Youth witnesses urged lawmakers to act. Rafael Labadi, a 17‑year‑old OutRight Vermont intern, said H.657 “directly addresses this gap by allowing unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain essential services without parental consent,” and described delays that occur when clinicians cannot obtain guardian consent.
The hearing also focused on costs. The Joint Fiscal Office previously used a proxy model that produced an estimate of about $140,000 for lifting the Reach Up asset limit in fiscal 2027; DCF told the committee that removing the department’s practice of applying children’s Social Security benefits to foster‑care budgets could require $700,000–$812,000 in backfilling (phased in for FY28) and the addition of a full‑time DCF position to manage appeals and annual accounting (roughly $124,000 annually). Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses for implementation details and clarified that the bill delays some changes for two years to allow budget planning.
Proponents pointed to experience in other states and federal technical assistance: Digby cited a December letter from the Administration for Children and Families offering resources, and witnesses said many states have already adopted similar protections for children’s benefits or unaccompanied‑youth service pathways.
DCF staff also addressed procedural concerns raised at the hearing. An agency official said strip‑searching is a narrowly permitted and rare practice, allowed only in a single secure facility (Red Clover) or under medical direction, and that the department would welcome follow‑up discussions about operational detail.
The committee did not take a vote; members asked participants to submit written testimony and follow‑up materials for the committee record and signaled plans to continue consideration at a future meeting.
Next steps: the committee requested written materials from DCF and advocates and left the record open for additional comments before formally moving H.657 to later floor consideration.
