Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Providers and young people urge legislature to fill gaps in Vermont youth housing and supports
Summary
Service providers and a young person with lived experience told a House committee that federal funding has not kept pace and that the state must invest to expand host homes, shelter options and transitional housing; providers estimated about $25,000 per youth for 12 months of housing plus wraparound services.
The House committee convened April 22 to mark Youth Homelessness Awareness Day and heard testimony from providers and young people describing gaps in services across the state and urging legislative action.
Representative Kate Logan, who also directs the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs, told the committee the coalition covers rural regions and that "federal funding has remained level for decades" for services for 12–17 year olds. She estimated that ‘‘on average, our services can be provided to a youth ... for about $25,000 per youth’’ for a year of rent and wraparound supports.
Logan and other witnesses emphasized that youth homelessness in Vermont is often hidden: many young people "couch surf" or rely on motel vouchers. "When young people have access to stable housing paired with really good supportive services, that are youth centered, trauma informed, and flexible, they achieve stability at high rates," Logan said.
The committee heard a first‑hand account from Riley Campo, who said they had been homeless intermittently, lived in a car and relied on hotel vouchers. "Now thanks to Star Barton and housing navigation with NKeys, I am housed and have my own apartment and finally able to focus on my next steps," Riley said, urging continued support for motel voucher programs, shelter and low‑income housing.
Representatives of service providers described the range of programs and the strain on capacity. Christina Brown, chief program officer at Spectrum Youth and Family Services, said Spectrum runs drop‑in centers, emergency beds and supportive housing and urged the legislature to "move beyond awareness and towards action." Heather Geddy of NCSS read a housing case study of a young mother who moved into a two‑bedroom apartment and said the housing navigation and subsidy had been "life changing."
In questioning, committee members pressed agencies on why services are uneven across counties and how exits from programs are funded. Witnesses said programs "braid" federal, state and private dollars and that some programs require participants to pay part of their rent; providers said federal policy caps rent contributions at 30 percent of adjusted income but local arrangements vary. The committee also heard that host‑home (short‑term) programs typically provide up to 21 days of shelter and that hosts undergo training and background checks.
Members raised practical hurdles: a closed rental assistance wait list and limited housing vouchers make transitions to stable apartments difficult, providers said. Jesse Warren, director of Return House (an Elevate Youth Services program serving youth in DCF custody), described the program’s five beds and the intensive independent‑living work needed to prepare youth for exit.
The committee did not take votes on funding measures at the hearing. Members asked witnesses to submit written testimony and data to staff. The committee moved on to other agenda items but signaled it would continue review of housing needs and funding options in future meetings.
The committee plans additional discussion as bills proceed through markup; witnesses urged clear, sustained funding to expand youth‑specific shelter beds, transitional housing and navigation services across rural counties.
