Committee questions need for $150,000 in S243 after state language-access fund explained

The House Human Services Committee pressed witnesses on whether a $150,000 appropriation in S243 that would go to the Vermont Language Justice Project (VLJ) is needed when the state already maintains a language-access fund.

Daniel McGibney of the state Office of Racial Equity told the committee the state fund is a state resource the office helps manage to pay for translation and interpretation of "vital" information. He said the Office's language-access fund originally received $2.3 million; as of March 31 the Office reported about $1.8 million remained, plus a standing $700,000 per year set aside for maintenance and updates of previously translated materials.

McGibney walked members through the Office's three-question test for determining whether material is "vital": whether a person could access or participate in a program without understanding the information; whether someone could be terminated from a program for not understanding; and whether a person could suffer significant financial or physical harm. He said those criteria guided decisions about whether Health Department immunization notices, substance-use treatment information, and other public-health materials should be translated.

Several representatives said they wanted to know why the Health Department would need an extra $150,000 if it already has an MOU with the Office of Racial Equity. McGibney replied that the Department of Health does have a memorandum of understanding with the Office and can access the language-access fund for translating vital information, but that some procurement hurdles have limited use of VLJ specifically. He said a procurement specialist is drafting an RFP that would allow VLJ to be placed on a state contractor list so agencies could use the vendor without a full competitive procurement each time.

Committee members also heard that the VLJ's primary public product is recorded, translated videos, while some existing state retainer contracts are focused on live interpretation. McGibney emphasized the difference in services as part of the explanation for why VLJ is not already on all state contract lists.

Representatives noted that the Office's one-time fund and the recurring maintenance fund already support translation and asked staff in appropriations for the fiscal details. The chair told the committee that S243 and related bills would go to the House floor the next day for further action.

The committee left the hearing with a clearer picture of how the state manages language-access work and with follow-up items about procurement, the RFP timeline and how the Health Department has used VLJ services in the past. The fiscal note and submitted testimony were posted to the committee website for members to review before floor action.