Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate Health and Welfare reviews H.938 to create Vermont homelessness response continuum
Loading...
Summary
The Senate Health and Welfare committee reviewed H.938, which would create a statewide homelessness response continuum that defines service levels, eligibility rules and program responsibilities; members debated a broad disability definition, participant autonomy and seasonal caps on hotel and motel use. Committee and advocates asked for more data on costs and utilization before final votes.
The Senate Health and Welfare committee spent its April 23 session reviewing H.938, a bill that would create a Vermont homelessness response continuum, set service levels from prevention through permanent supportive housing and assign program administration to the office referenced in the text as OEO. The measure lays out findings (a December 2025 statewide HMIS count of 4,022 people experiencing homelessness, including 863 children) and a purpose: reduce reliance on hotels and motels, establish tailored housing plans and ensure accountability and equitable access to emergency and permanent housing.
Legislative Counsel Katie McDaniel read the bill's definitions and program structure for committee members, noting that the continuum would prioritize early intervention, rapid resolution of housing crises, and individualized case management. McDaniel said the bill requires the office to maintain separate budget line items for prevention, shelter types, specialized services and permanent supportive housing and to maximize federal receipts "as applicable." She also noted an effective date and transitional language so elements can phase in; staff said parts of the program could be ready by July 1, 2026.
Committee debate centered on the bill's definitions and on how services would be offered. Members pressed whether the statutory definition of "disability" in the bill is broader than the ADA or federal definitions and whether it might encompass people whose homelessness stems from economic hardship. One committee member said the definition "would be really broad" and asked whether the bill intends that broad scope or instead should target a specific population; another suggested keeping the federal/ADA definition and using a separate "targeted population" description for program eligibility. When describing advocates' input, Brenda Siegel of Homelessness Vermont told the committee the language submitted by disability advocates "was closest to the ADA definition" and said she would send the committee the recommended text from Disability Rights and the Vermont Center for Independent Living.
Members also debated how the continuum would place households. The bill currently directs the office to "place the household in the appropriate level of care," language that prompted concern about implied coercion. Committee members and staff proposed changing the phrasing to "offer to place" or clarifying that placement depends on availability and household participation. The chair flagged public feedback, including from the ACLU, that raising the program could be read as surrendering participant autonomy; the chair said, "we've had comments, in particular, from the ACLU saying that people are giving up their autonomy," and added, "I don't I don't see that as I go through the bill. I see an opportunity to help people." Counsel and members agreed to revise language to avoid implying loss of custody while preserving pathways to services.
The bill defines four service tiers: Level 1 prevention and diversion (problem-solving, standardized brief assessments and partnerships with community providers); Level 2 highly structured shelters (case management, treatment and employment supports) and low-barrier shelters with time-limited stays and transitions; Level 3 specialized services; and permanent supportive housing (long-term rental assistance combined with voluntary wraparound services that may be funded in part by Medicaid when eligible). Committee members discussed removing permanent supportive housing from the tier labeling to emphasize that those services should be available at any stage.
H.938 also addresses the state's current use of hotels and motels for emergency placements and proposes seasonal caps: 700 rooms per night between April 1 and Nov. 30, and 1,000 rooms per night between Dec. 1 and March 31, excluding placements under the domestic violence program. Advocates pushed back on fixed caps. Chad Zimmerman of the Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont urged a data-driven approach: "I think removing the cap is a good idea," and recommended tying limits to available shelter capacity and utilization data. Committee members said the cap language came from the House and would remain for now but agreed to add utilization reporting and annual rate recommendations to departmental reports so lawmakers can revisit the limits with current data.
Committee members repeatedly raised the question of funding and appropriation: who pays for the continuum elements and whether the committee can shift funding between programs. Counsel noted the committee cannot change the overall bottom line and asked members to identify priorities and the most cost-effective uses of available funds; members asked staff to include utilization metrics and proposed reporting language in the department's annual updates.
The committee paused markup after a building evacuation; members indicated work on H.938 will continue in subsequent sessions. No formal motions or votes were recorded during the session reviewed.
Ending: The committee left multiple drafting items unresolved (disability language, wording on placement/participant autonomy, seasonal caps and reporting metrics) and asked staff to return with clarified statutory text, suggested alternative language and cost/utilization data at the next markup session.
