Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Okay, folks. We're back live. The agency human services. Not wish. We should make some different decisions. All right. Are the House Human Services Committee. We're going to hear from the final witness of the week End Homelessness Vermont and understand the perspectives both on May and some of the data that the organization has been compiling over a period of time. So welcome, Brenda Siegel. And I don't think we need to do introductions. I think everybody knows you and you know all of us. So welcome to the committee and thank you for your flexibility around changing to this afternoon. No problem.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: For the record, I am Brenda Siegel, the executive director of End Homelessness Vermont. Before I start, I just wanted to answer one question because I'm afraid I'll forget it from before, which is that the NOE, they already collect an address. The department already collects an address. That's how NOE is. Sorry, the notice of eligibility. Okay. It's been a long week. The diploma is something that's already sent, and they already collect an address or email address. So that is probably what will be said. But actually, they collect it as part of the process right now. Okay. Thank you. And Okay. So I want to start by saying that we would not be able to support H594 drafted or the governor's proposal as presented. We have several concerns, but rising to the top is that in both proposals, too many people are left outside, and ultimately what that does is create more traumatized people with significant disabilities and medical conditions. I worry that it is addressing the crisis with a broad sword when we should be addressing it by expanding the parts of our system that work without unsheltering people and new parts. I think the plan we create has to jive with our current systems. Addressing homelessness in an and productive manner requires listening to people with lived experience and following the science. I am not today going to get into concerns on every part of the bill, because there's a proposal coming that I believe I'll be able to sign on to that will be presented next week. I will go over a few high level concerns and then some solutions that I think we should make sure to include in any proposal. To begin, I want to talk a little bit about why we should not reduce eligibility. That would be the antithesis of ending the housing crisis. We have already seen why the reduced eligibility is dangerous in real outcomes, death, loss of limbs, medical conditions and more, all of which you've all heard me testify about. And also from many who have testified in this committee already. Reducing it more will likely lead to more loss of life and more catastrophic outcomes, And ultimately, it ends up costing the state more money through all the reasons that you have heard already in this committee. We heard yesterday from Norman that the effect of living outside on someone with medical conditions. But I want to share three examples of times when people were outside and what happened to them. We have one client who was trying to find a place to camp and got into an accident. He lost his leg. He now qualifies for the program and will be much more difficult to house because we have to find an accessible apartment. He would have benefited from immediate support, and perhaps his homelessness could have been resolved more quickly. Qualifies, now he qualifies, and he didn't then, he wouldn't have qualified with the eligibility we now use. We have another client whom had never used substances. However, after months outside in the cold, she did one time, and she died outside. We have worked with her for years, and this was preventable. She had given up hope. We have a client who was outside. She did not have a qualifying factor in her 20s. She was raped multiple times. And on the last time, she was brutally beaten and ended up hospitalized. This is a story that is not uncommon for women outside and men. And most often, the act is not by another person experiencing homelessness. People living outside are three to five times more likely to be victims of a crime than to commit one. That is data that was used by the Washington County State's Attorney last year. Reducing who can use this program only creates more people who are medically vulnerable or living with a significant disability. Another factor that I can't support is the return home program. In our work, we often folks who might have lived for we often see see folks who might have lived here for a long time, but have a distant relative out of state who they believe they might be able to live with if they and if they up and go often find the doubt that they can't, and the outcome is terrible for them. We have to find a way to support them in coming back because Vermont is their home. Also, there is already a way for people to return home. If if it is the right move for them, if it doesn't put them in danger, if we have to work if we have worked together on a solid plan that we know is a strong likely has a strong likelihood of success, a plan that doesn't end up shipping Vermonters who are suffering to another state. In this world today, that just doesn't sit with me very well. But also, that is just not what we should do. The funds already exist. I have asked for support for our clients from cap agencies and AHS field services flex budgets for this purpose exactly, when it is the right thing to do. Here's what a broken plan can look like. Client A tells us that they have family in Florida that they can go live with. We ask, would it be okay with them if we help them plan that? They agree. In the meantime, client decides to just get on the bus and go, which can happen anyways. Asks someone else for money. Within six weeks, they're calling us asking for help to get home. Why? Because they couldn't really live with that family member. Because they couldn't get access to services that they must have and had in Vermont, and because that is not an actual plan. Success moving somewhere looks much different. Our client, we'll call him Charles, he has developed dementia, and he wants desperately to live where his sister lives in North Carolina. It is the only family he has left besides his dog, but his sister is also taking care of his mother. Charles believed he could live with his sister. We asked if we could talk to his sister, and we did. She did not feel that it would work because she also takes care of another person in her house. So we worked with him and her to find an assisted living facility in that area. Not his first choice, but would do it if he could be closer to family. This process had a lot of starts and stops. It took about six months to coordinate safely. And one of our partners then asked AHS for flex funding and to transport Charles. Charles couldn't take a bus or any other transportation because he has dementia and would get lost. He's still there safely and doing well today. The people who safely have somewhere else to go, and safely is the keyword, is an extremely small number. The plan risks the state paying to send people back to domestic violence situations, to to streets of another state, or away from medical care. And when you make it a program, it becomes something we have to offer our clients, even when it might not be safe. But when they have no other choice, they may choose it. Now those decisions are made together right now with people they trust, the feasibility, what it's vetted, the services that they need are identified and found in the other state, and we know that the plan is solid. There is not a need for a new program. This is not an underfunded part of our system. And it's part of what already exists. Now, I'd like to turn to the definition of disability. As you know, End Homelessness Vermont works primarily with people living with disabilities and complex needs in our state. The definition of disability is protected by both state and federal law, and it would be inappropriate to redefine it for benefits. In our state, we really value the decisions and opinions of our medical providers. That's what I think we all do. And the privacy between a medical provider and their patient. I cannot imagine that any disability group would be comfortable in narrowing this definition. We also noticed that this was a proposal in the governor's plan. And one of the reasons that they gave it in testimony was that it because they said it was self attestation. I think they did say self, but I can't remember. That is simply not true. Verification of a disability, if you do not have SSI or SSDI, is done by a medical provider using their expertise. Under the current practice, people have to re verify at least once a year, again on a form filled out or signed by their medical provider, though for some it's shorter timeframes depending on what the provider checks off. So there is no self attestation of a disability. It is medical providers who I imagine are not keen on risking their license and are actual experts who fill out the form. I will include that form in my written testimony. In both H594 and the governor's plan, there seems to be an intent to create shelters that segregate people by category. I understand the desire to do that. I have broad concerns about that, especially when it comes to people living with disabilities. If any of you have ever been to Brattleboro, this is just what keeps coming to mind, and know the history of the retreat or any kind of institution that has been around a long time, the retreat hour keeps popping into my head and what used to happen there. It's not the same thing, but it keeps popping into my head. But our state and our country has a long history of segregating people by their abilities and many other ways. But the truth is that it is not best practice unless it's what the person wants. I implore you to have mixed shelters where it is fine to have 10 shelter beds dedicated to people with complex medical needs where they can get support or 20 beds, but they should not be isolated away from everybody else, especially because we're a shelter first state. That in turn becomes a forced institutionalization, even if you call it voluntary, if people do not have a real choice. It is with the exception of families with kids, people do not need to be segregated. Even with families with kids, they don't need to, but I understand the desire to do that. I think we need to find a way to do this that offers this option and capacity without separating. Also, we need to support shelter providers to address issues where people with disabilities cannot access their shelters. This is not the fault of shelter providers, but they have not been funded to make these changes and updates. Because understand that when you say eighty day max, everyone else has a chance to get into one of these 600 shelter beds, But people who need something accessible for the most part can only go outside with very limited exceptions. Also, all people are program ready if we find the support and program that works for them. So I have a problem with that language. The idea that people have to recover first is just not what the science says, and not what we have found in our work. Like we heard from Ernest Cormia yesterday with Tamara Hodge, they both needed the housing and Tamara Hodge, they both needed the housing first, and then they were able to engage in other models. What is important is that they still have access, not requirements, for support when they enter housing. Overall, I do not support many of the provisions of the bill. But what I will say is that I know it was brought forward in good spirit. And I'm confident that with the input and proposals we are bringing forth can help this highly amendable bill I wish Eric was here right now And be reframed in a way that many providers can get behind. And of course, all of you. I did want to go over a few things that I heard in the governor's proposal about verification. I need more time to really dig into all the different elements of the proposal. But a lot of it seemed not to be investments, but just letting people know what they do. And I'm hoping that the good parts of that, the parts that don't just limit who gets help, are expanded, not left at the level they're at. I do want to first talk about residency verification, which I won't go deeply into because I know this committee has already talked about it a lot. But I want to just start by saying that beyond it being already decided by the Supreme Court, it also has connotations in this environment that is that are a little bit stomach turning. I apologize. My child apparently didn't know as a testimony. That and We We don't want to build a wall around Vermont. We want people to move here. Also, this is not something that one can verify because the law is here with an intent to say, an intent to stay. An intent is there's nothing you can verify that you have an intent. That's a self attestation. It just is. Next, I want to talk about verification of homelessness. Because I was doing the same work when ESD used to do that, it was very invasive. If Theresa, let me use your name, stayed at a friend's house last night, they would insist on calling the friend to see if Theresa could stay there longer. Theresa's friend would feel very uncomfortable and never let her stay there again because she didn't want that call next time. Also, if you could not get ahold of Theresa's friend, they would not let you be sheltered. Also, let's say Marie is from the LGBTQIA community. They would also call all your family members and ask them if you could stay. So they would call Marie's mom who would say that she let Marie stay there if she just stopped being in the gay community, but her mom wouldn't say that to ESD. And so she'd just say, Sure, she can stay here. And Marie would not qualify because she could stay with her mom. Also, this happened with young adults who were no longer living with abusive parents, and the list goes on. People are not lying. As we heard yesterday, the hotels are not a luxury. When we do find an alternative placement with family, it is after a lot of relationship building and connections. Verification of income should be changed to monthly or every three months. And I'm just saying that verification of income is we already do. I don't know why that was in there, it's already done. And we already talked about the disability variance form and that verification piece. Another big concern I had was the idea of permanent sanctions. I can think of many clients who had disabilities for whom that would have happened in their description, but just needed treatment of some kind for their mental health. And once they were able to get the right support, the right access to services, they never had those challenges again. And I just want to give an example of a client who was housed last week, who was on the wrong medication. He had severe autism. And he, at one point, wielded a knife in the hotel. And he agreed to go to the hospital. He got the right medication. And he had several other times when things like this happened not quite as scary as that one. But he eventually got the right support at the Broadaberry retreat, and he has done incredibly ever since and was housed last week. And he is doing amazing. And he would have ended up with a permanent sanction. We heard multiple times over the last week the theme that human beings are complicated and systems should be simple. And we heard from witnesses yesterday and over the last many years that with lived experience, how overwhelming the requirements of the system are right now. This plan for the governor and age five ninety four, if we to be successful, must listen to providers and most importantly, with lived experience to create more simple, not a more complex system. Paying staff in the department to verify things that don't need verification is money that could go to getting someone into a home. That money gets taken out of direct service and support. It should not. As you are all aware, End Homelessness Vermont works with the highest some of the highest needs individuals in the state. From September 2024 to September 2025, six point one percent or fourteen of our clients, our highest needs clients for that time period died. Most of them outside, but if not outside, within a few weeks of an exit. Since October, we have already seen three deaths that we know about. And though there are other clients whom we've not been able to find, and so we actually don't know with them. I want to tell you about one of those situations. Duane had a severe heart condition, and he ran out of his eighty days in October. We did try to find a way to keep him sheltered, but finding none, we made sure he had a tent and hoped he would make it. He died six days later, out where he thought it would be safe to camp near a fishing landing, in the cold and alone because of a heart attack. And then another client of ours, John, who had been outside several times and had multiple strokes. And in this past December, he was hospitalized again for another stroke, but he had been outside all of last winter. And so he asked the medical providers to take him off of all of his medication, knowing that that would make him, that he would die, that his life would end because his only other option, because he did not want to be in a nursing facility, we did try very, very hard, was to live outside. He didn't have anyone else. And so it was an homelessness Vermont who had to release his body and pick up his ashes. Those are just two stories of many I could talk about today, but I want to share with you what a positive outcome looks like and then some options. You heard from three people today, yesterday with lived experience who now work with us in the field, with our staff in the field. It was not accountability. They got or will get them to the point of housing. It was not that they were program ready. It was that they needed to be heard, supported and believed. Tam was always going to be successful in housing, but you had to see that in her. The same with Ernest, and the same with Norman. Crystal, I want to also share a story or two more. We have a client we're going call her Joy. We worked with her for three years. In October 2024, she was exited at the end of her eighty days while she was in labor. We were able to find bridge funding through a program we then collaborated with from Good Samaritan Haven, who helped us with a few of our clients in Rutland, even though that wasn't part of their plan. One that really could not continue past last fall with the resources they had. That kept her and her baby inside until winter weather. She did everything she was supposed to. She met with her reach up workers, her broth case workers, us, her medical providers, everything. She's blind with a 10% field of vision. She qualified under the governor's executive order. Then the rub got pulled out from under her this summer, or June, when she was told that those eighty days had already been used. And we don't need to go into that right now. But we went through a fair hearing, which ultimately the Human Services Board found that the days could not be counted until July, because the budget did not begin until July. I'm oversimplifying, but in the interest of time. She paid after before that, though, she paid every dollar of her social security check to stay sheltered with her baby. And then ultimately, we were able to find her housing. She had to leave her home district, but she and her baby made it home. Where she has still has us for support, but only needs limited support, a light touch. We check with her every month to remind her of her rent. We check with all our clients. And we are helping to connect her with services with Vermont Division for the Blind, especially leaning on the success that I've had with them. And she calls us if she needs support or has anxiety, and we talk her through that as well. She was not experiencing homelessness for so long because she wasn't engaging in services. She was experiencing homelessness because she could not find housing. We also have a client who has seizures that are specifically exacerbated by stress. So every time there was an exit, would have seizures like 15 times a day. We did find her housing. She has been successful in her housing. The landlords moved her to an even little bit larger apartment, same rent, because it was better for her. But she is paying all but $50 of her social security to live there. So it's really critical that we find all the other services to connect her. But she is successful in her housing despite that. And what works is that we several different we do have tiers, but not the way they're talked about in this bill. We have people who just call us for an emergency support. They need help talking, talk through the process. We talk them through the process. We have around 600 people who we talk to and help them very regularly. We talk to them at least weekly. We help them through housing case management. And we give them support and guidance through how they get through the process.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: How many people did

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: you say? 600. And there's about three We answered 3,000 hotline calls last year. So emergency calls last year. They aren't necessarily 3,000 individuals, but 3,000 emergency calls. And we also have right now near 300 people who are highly complex needs, which if you heard my testimony last year, is about a little over a 100 more than we did last year. I will say that when we have an extreme exit, people come out of the woodwork needing extra support and our client load grows every time. But we also have several clients who can't read or write, or with severe medical conditions or disabilities or dementia, as you heard this morning, and we can't get through the renewal process or don't understand the renewal process. So to ESD, they may seem like they can, but they don't understand what happened when they got on the phone. And so we connect them to services. We work with the other providers as a team, and we work on adult lit referrals with AHS. And we always are coordinating with services and providers so that we can split up the work. And we seek to make an incredibly complex system more simple so that people can make it to housing. We don't add requirements, we lift them off of people. We are just about to launch, as some of you may know, our Make at Home program, which is basically just bringing all the services that we do together for people with disabilities and putting them in one place in our organization. We work with four volunteer nurses, but right now, five, including me, disability specific non categorical case managers, or whatever other word we want to come up with, a chair would. And I am the technical expert on the rules and support people in fair hearings. We also consult with legal aid and other attorneys when we have to find a way to work through the processes. Our goal is never to give up on someone and to help people in every way that we can until they make it home. And by home, I mean whatever is home for them. And now I want to just give you a little bit about study. I'm not going to take a long time with it, but our study was done from September 2023. This is a four phase study and we're about to start our third phase in February now. The report, I'm not going to tell you when it will be done because I have learned that getting it reviewed is very, very challenging. And so that part is still, but it's completely drafted. But I was able to pull the slides to share some of them with you. It was Can I ask you before we move to that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: So I'm aware that with the hundreds of fair hearings that you have assisted people with at the Human Services Board, that the Human Services Board at one point asked the department if they were willing to what's it called when they agree and not agree that you consolidate? No. You've already had a number of rulings and Right, right. To apply it to all. To apply it to all. It's not a legal term. No. Yeah, a C word, I think. But anyway, and they refused to do that. And so, and they in fact have appealed that to the Vermont Supreme Court. And have those arguments been heard? Has there been a decision? So

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: I was in the Supreme Court that day. There is a decision. First, I will say that they ruled that it was moot because the person had already used their eighty days. And but so they didn't they didn't comment on the legal perspective at all. So that means that the legal position of the Human Services Board stands in my understanding of the law as a non attorney. But we are meeting next week for us to hear how they plan to process these going forward. So that will be new information as a bench, I call them bench bar and Brenda meetings, because I am neither the bench nor the bar. But there is, I will say that I've been in front of the Human Services Board since last April, over 300 times, since July, over two fifty times. And we not, and it is exceptional amount of time that I could be spending doing other things.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I hadn't heard a resolution. Knew that there had been

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: an appeal. Hadn't heard a resolution. What I just wanted to add to that was that the human I was in the room, and the justices were very it's worth think you can go back and watch it, it's worth watching because the justices were very clear that they don't understand, wouldn't you make it the broadest interpretation for people this vulnerable? And all of them made comments to that effect. So I just thought that was interesting. Who knows what will happen with new Supreme Court justices. Yes, slides. That's where I was. Okay. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time in it. And I don't because we don't need to go through this, but you guys can look over them and feel free to ask me questions in another time. So this is phase two of our study. Phase one was just a rapid survey. So this is different. Phase three will include interviewing people who have been housed since.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Sorry, stipulate was the word I

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: was looking for. Okay, stipulate. Yes, stipulate. That's correct. Sorry. It's okay. And it will include also people who are outside. This phase was done mostly with people in the hotels. And it's really important to note that it was when we had broad eligibility. So we're also looking at data from people when before we went even limited verification to what it is now. So first of all, where would people come from since it keeps coming up, thought I should include this. So the length of time in Vermont, you'll see on the first slide. I don't know, I forgot to tell you. Yeah, I'm having a reasonable accommodation right now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That's fine. Yes. You, Laurie.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Sorry, Laurie.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: We'll give you an accommodation. I'm not sure you're always reasonable, Brenda.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: That's true. That's true. I know that's not true. I'm always reasonable. I know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I'm just joking with you. It's getting that time of the day on Friday.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: So where people come from, the length of time in Vermont. So first of all, you can just see that 103 people that we interviewed out of 200, I should say there were 200 people in this study, and they are volunteers. They voluntarily took the survey. So we would go to the hotels and they would and say anyone could participate. And we'd stay for we'd go back for as many days as all the people that wanted to participate. We didn't know most of the people that participated the first time we interviewed them. So these are people we did not know. The length of time in Vermont, as you can see, the majority of people were more than a year. And the length of time in GA, thirty six to forty eight months is where a lot of them are from the less than a year. So that makes sense. But there's 103 people who were lifelong Vermonters and 33 who had been there for ten years or more. Literally all but four, three, no. Five. Five, thank you. Can't read. All the five were last housed in Vermont. That may end up, we knew the reason of three of the five people that were not last housed in Vermont. One had come here fleeing domestic violence, one had come here for a job, and one had come here thinking that they were gonna live with their son and then that did not work. So I'm just gonna move on from there, but equaled about 4%. Just wanted to actually, let me add one thing, which is that the data from the AHS for the same year said that about four percent of people had come from out of state. So our data matched their data. And I think we all know that that's not necessarily like a likely.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And these 200 people, what part of the state? Were they all over? Were they concentrated in one or communities?

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: No, they're in Thanks for asking that question. They're in five counties and 10 towns. Have It's in the report and I can send it to you. I couldn't seem to pull it from it, but I will send it to you that so that you have the exact number. But it is a of a lot were in Rutland, that there was a lot of volunteer, people who volunteered in Rutland. And we could pull out the Rutland data too, which would I think show that most people grew up in Rutland. And that would be helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Honestly, that would be helpful because we continue to hear from our colleagues here, particularly from Rutland, that the perception is that all the people are So trapped into

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: something that's important about that, that we can talk more about later. But something that's important about that is that when, like in Brattleboro and Rutland and all these places, that perception, I can understand why the perception is there. But it's important to remember that people are coming from the whole county. So what you might not experience as someone who didn't live in your town is they go by district. So these are people in that district for the most part. People don't like to leave their communities. So we found. So now homelessness history is the next slide. And in the homelessness history, you can see that fifty seven point one percent were previously homeless, 4.8% didn't wanna tell us. And we're very clear that they don't have to answer any questions. And 37.6% were homeless for the first time. But what's important also to see is that 20.6% of people said that they were first homeless as a child. So that previous homeless experience was as a child.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: It says 33% had their first experience as a child. On your graph. That's how fun.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: I don't know where I am.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Top left. Top grad.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Oh, yes. Because sorry. Of homelessness or housing insecurity. I think that is. Right?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That one's homelessness here.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Oh, right here. Okay. I may have to fix that. Thanks for picking it up. So But it's supposed to say homelessness or housing insecurity. Okay. Yeah. So But And 3.5% said they might have been homeless as a child, and 2.5% said they were housing insecure as a child. So that data actually matches federal data in terms of the risk of homelessness if you are homeless as a child first. And then there's an age breakdown of when people first entered homelessness that you can see on the chart. And then you see again, the length of time of GA, we just put it back in there so that that you can see how long people are, were in GA at this point. Because there was an idea at that point, there was this idea that people had been there for three years. And that really wasn't what we found.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah, that note about the almost 50% when you include, I just want to make sure that's part of the conversation when you include people who were in foster care. That

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: was a pretty alarming, something I didn't know. I checked it later with other colleagues if there was data and both research colleagues. And also I reached out to people who worked with kids in film services and found out that that was actually a very common statistic.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And the next slide.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Right, the next slide really brings it together. So we asked about SRS or family services because then it was called, sorry, yes, we're on the next slide. I'm not good at this. The SRS or family services, we asked about that. And we found out that there were a lot of people that had had social DCF or SRS involvement as an adult, but they often were for reasons that would never happen to somebody who's affluent. So we talked a little bit about that in the narrative of the study, things like somebody reported that their house was really messy or somebody reported that so their involvement was not necessarily long standing. And the data does show that being in poverty increases not because you did something wrong, but just increases your research. So then the current involvement was a lot less. There weren't that many people with DCF involvement in family services involvement in that section. But if you look at the foster care in foster care as children, twenty two point five percent of all participants reported having been in foster care as children. And there is federal data and an ACLU study, the national ACLU study that shows that experiences in foster care lead to experiences of homelessness. And so it's really important to we'll talk more about the study talks more about what the recommendation is coming from that. I think that the idea is that trying to not remove children unless it's absolutely necessary is really important. Vermont does not have a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: We are gonna hear more on Tuesday from a youth service Yeah.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: So the health of participants, you can see here, our data is much higher for mental health illness than this coordinated entry. Oh, sorry. We're really not, it's not my strength. On the, want to move when I move it. The, illness was ninety two point five percent of the people. Some of that is situational anxiety or situational depression. And it's really important to also note that when you go into coordinated entry, it is linked to your housing. And so some people don't share data when it's not separated from your housing. And that's part of the reason that a separate study, an independent study might be a good idea because what we found out was that people who said like in coordinated entry that they didn't have mental illness did say to us that they did. Or they would say, No, I don't, but I have really severe anxiety disorder. So they didn't know that as mental illness. And so we did that. We asked the question in multiple ways so that we could get true sense.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: You referenced that in coordinated entry that's linked to housing. Can you explain what you mean by if I say I have depression? How is that linked?

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: It may not actually be linked to whether or not you'll be prevented from having housing, but it's everything you do when you're in poverty and especially when you're experiencing homelessness feels invasive, kind of what we heard from the last two minutes ago, guess. It does feel invasive. And so have to enter at some point, you have to enter the coordinated entry process, Not necessarily right away. It's not a requirement. Only housing case management is. But getting there is part of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: the system. I think we don't like to believe that it happens. And it could be a perception that people feel, but I think it also bears out in reality is the discrimination that happens when you disclose a disability. And just happens. I think we've all seen it in one form or another. And so if you're trying your darnedest and you know this is one way you're gonna maybe get a referral for housing, you're gonna disclose the least amount that you can while providing the information that you need to.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Right. And it partially depends on building a relationship. But I just think independence in terms of that kind of data is really important because people should feel like we told them it was not connected to their housing. If they reach out to us later for help, we'd still help them. And swear at us and leave in the middle of this thing, in the middle of the questions if they didn't want continue them. So quite literally, we said that. I used more different language. So there were a couple of things that we pulled out, which is past or current experiences of trauma reported on sixty four percent of the participants. That's a lot. And that many of the answers about why there was trauma was that they were survivors of abuse as a children, partner violence, rape, or death of a child or parent. And so that was very likely answer. And thirty nine point five percent of the people we interviewed had a device that needed to be plugged in or a child that did. And seventeen percent reported having a medication that needs, it says needs to be plugged. That's another thing I need to. And zero point five percent have a special diet that requires electricity. So that means forty two percent of the people we interviewed needed electricity for their health needs. The learning disability history is much shorter. One thing that I want to say Yes, sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah, that's right.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: You got it? Okay, you got it. Okay. The learning disability history is much briefer. But the reason that I was astounded when we pulled out this data, because having five percent of the people that we interviewed out of 200 say they can't read or write in the 2000s, that's a lot of people who can't read or write in our state. When we look at the age breakdown, a lot of them were not older when that might have been more likely. They were in their 20s or 30s. And four point five percent said they have trouble reading or writing. That's nearly

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: ten percent. That's not dissimilar than what I've heard from adult basic ed and the statistics that they share. We're spending the most in the country on our education system. It's true.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: And substance use disorder. This is just an interesting pull out. There's a lot of false narratives about how many people have substance use disorder in the hotels and how many people have substance use disorder experiencing homelessness. It's not true. A lot of people are in recovery. Once they are exited to outside, your chance of relapse is over ninety percent. So that does happen. But you can see that fifty three of the people that said they had substance use disorder entered recovery before they entered the hotels, and fifteen entered recovery when they got to the hotels, which is a really big success, I think. So I think that's the last one I have today. And only seven point five percent were in active use. And of course, some people probably didn't report that to us. But we did have harm reduction packs with us. And so we would also ask if they need a harm reduction pack if there was any question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: What is it?

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: That's like Narcan test strips and things like that. Yeah. So that's what I wanted to share today. There's a lot more data in this, but I thought this would be helpful to this discussion to some extent. And I will correct the two slides that I have mistakes. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That is very helpful to the discussion. And we've been asking about data all week. And so having some sense, even though it's a subset of the full population, but a subset that we hear a lot about. I think it's helpful. So thank you. And then the last thing I

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: have is some suggestions. So I want to offer the suggestions of a program that might be more successful. Success in ending homelessness requires us to follow data and the advice of those doing the work and people with lived experience. Most importantly, it requires us to believe those people who are impacted. I guess I said that twice. And we must remember that we are not looking for an edification of the people in the program, but rather a program that meets the needs of people in it. Here are some of the suggestions that we have, and I believe more will be roped into the proposal that the president presented next week. We must build a system that truly follows the ADA, Vermont disability statute and the Olmstead decision. When people feel heard and have choices, they're more likely to be open to a myriad of options. We must do one to one match, you've heard this often times, as we transition to a stronger, bolder move to get people into permanent housing so that people remain sheltered until they are permanently housed. We have to broadly expand our permanent housing options to include alternatives to the traditional low income housing options. Those are not right for everyone, and they have barriers. Know that some people disagree with me on that, but I will stand by it with the clients that we work with. Those options are critically important and must be fully funded. But there should be more options for those who don't fit those models. Options like tiny homes, single room occupancies, and manufactured homes. This has to include loosening regulations on where people can build and using state and municipality land that is available to create a rapid transition. We have to include rapid access to treatment for both substance use disorder and mental health, not for all people, but for whom this option is what this person wants. Different kinds of recovery are better for different people. We had a client recently for whom the verification to get into treatment took so many days that by the time it was available, he no longer ready. He tried, but we to have it available the moment immediately when someone says they're ready, because it's a scary thing to do. Fully fund services and supports so that people know that they can get support. We have never met someone who refused to engage on Feel Listen To Them and figure out exactly what they need. And this includes case management in the hotels, which was removed. I don't know if people know this, and I feel like it maybe hasn't been testified today yet. But hotel case management and street outreach were defunded in most districts almost entirely. And so that has created a big problem and also a huge influx on our organization. Pathways meets people where they are in whatever apartment they're in for primary mental health needs, as does End Homelessness Vermont for all disabilities. And we often partner with Pathways when working with individuals complex needs that includes primary mental health. These models work and the expansion of both is critical to build into any permanent housing model. Alternative rental subsidies like CVOEO's home model, but I would also suggest one that is specific for people living with disabilities and aging so that when someone finds the needle in the haystack that is accessible housing, we can immediately get a voucher and not go through a lot of bureaucratic process to get that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I'm presuming that you're supportive of the I don't remember if you were here in the room when the state housing authority was here about establishing a state funded, state run rental assistance program? I am. The only thing that

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: I would say is that there's a lot of barriers to getting a housing voucher. And so we need some alternative rental subsidies that are accessible to people who have a criminal record, that are accessible to people who have been evicted or have paid rent due. Maybe their rent got increased extensively and they have rent due. And so I think that that's my one concern is that it not follow the same model as what is required federally because there are some people who will never get a voucher then.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah, I think that, I mean, we didn't get into the details of how the housing and care or whatever it is, call it the mental health part or they run another one. We didn't get into the details as whether they do it along the same definition or along different definition, but that would certainly need to be worked out. Would love to have

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: a disability, some kind of separate disability subsidy that would come from somewhere where you can easily access it without the piles and piles

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: of paperwork. If we did something like this, we're not going set up a

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: separate program. I hear you. It's still my recommendation.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: But we did talk about that, maybe there would be, if people are interested in pursuing this, that there would be maybe specific appropriations within an overall or specific set asides for And people I am all about what we heard from Chad Simmons earlier this week. I've kept that in the back of my brain the whole time is about, yes, people are complex, but systems need And to be we come to the assumption that people are trying to get something that they don't need. And in the disability world, we talk about presuming competence, not presuming when we're talking about people with intellectual disabilities. Anyways, thank you.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: And I think that there's I want to say that I have a housing voucher. And I just did my recertification and I had a hard time with it. And I help people every day, but it was overwhelming amount of work. And I just want to say that that is something that I think is really important to know is that even people who we see as very able to do a lot of things, it's still complicated for them. So I just have the last few, which is to promote and expand the team models, not where all providers talk to everyone because there's a few of those models around, but where teams of providers have the resources to talk about specific clients they work with and work together on that client. And then the system has to have guardrails. The system has to have guardrails, I'm just going to read it. The system has to have guardrails and protections, or as some may say, accountability, so that people who advocate for themselves or others cannot be penalized for doing so, nor can the people they work with. The assumption that people are protected is not enough. It has to be named. The last couple are municipalities cannot we have to name that municipalities cannot dictate if people if a hotel can be used or not. That has to because it that shouldn't be happening at all. It's not within their rights. And it needs to stop because it actually harms places who are willing to do it, first of all. And second of all, it leaves a lot of people outside because that's their home communities. The disability form, I know that we just heard from legal aid not to keep it or that self attestation would work. I think of it as a very compromise. And I think we should keep it. It works. And we can work with we work with nurses and help people get connected to medical providers. It's my fault.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Somebody's phone. Somebody did this for me.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: It's a nonstop activity in my phone. I tried to turn all the way silent. Apparently, I failed. And then my last thing is that fair are the fair hearing, the Human Services Board, kind of what you were stating. The Human Services Board should be able to say, this is the legal interpretation of this, and you have to change your policy. Because this is a massive waste of state resources. The Human Services Board. So they make decisions and then they're not followed. I didn't miss that part of me. And I know we're talking about that bill, but I just wanted to say that I would recommend against having being able to secretary being able to overturn it because in any administration, it would make it a little bit of a sham process. And this and it is a really it is a process that has I have a lot of positive things to say about the process because it has helped hundreds of people literally this year. But they need to be able to say, this is the legal, there needs to a legal guardrail.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: It shouldn't have to do casework. Yes, right. And what people don't have right now, which people who receive Medicaid services do have, is that pending your appeal, services continue. So they would not be able to evict somebody for services pending an appeal, the outcome of an appeal. That's standard practice.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: And now we have to go through a hearing to get that. We can get it, but we have to do a hearing first to get it. So that means for any person we're doing one or two or three hearing days to get through a process. And the reasonable accommodation hearings, just because you asked that question earlier, are extremely long. They often take us two days of three hour hearings to get through. And we're really just looking for people's rights. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: let me just ask a question about that. So let's just say somebody, a hypothetical, somebody has appealed the decision of the department, goes to the Human Services Board. In order to get them to be able to stay in housing, you have to do a reasonable accommodation hearing, which is a separate hearing, not at the Human Services Board. Yeah. With the department, Is that what you're saying?

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: So yeah, you the you mean to be able to be stated pending the appeal? Yes. Yeah. So you do what's called a housing pending. So you go in that depending on on if you're being represented or not, you don't necessarily have to be there. Could be the lawyer or your advocate. But you have to make your case and they sort of decide whether or not they think that you're most likely to win. And the problem with that is that sometimes people end up outside and then they do win. And now they've been harmed for three or four weeks. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And we don't require that of any other service in the agency, human Yeah.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: So it's not great. And the other thing is, I think you're going see that in their thing anyways. But some clarification, we have a hearing that the person just doesn't understand that it's not within the Human Services Board jurisdiction. And I'd love a way for that to be explained so that people don't go through these invasive processes when they don't. But we're not talking about that. So I'm happy. I know you guys really want to go home. Happy to take any questions

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: if you have them. No, that's all right. I appreciate you being here this afternoon and appreciate the data you provided and we will await your written testimony to be able to post it on our Facebook page. Not on our Facebook page, but on our committee web page. So thank you very much, Brenda. We appreciate it and appreciate all that you're doing for the people out there and know that it's been a rough week for you and for the people that you're trying to support. And this weekend is still really cold.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Yeah. The thing that I was going to say in the beginning is I have worked twelve days in a row right now, and I have to work all weekend because it's freezing again. So it's going be nineteen days by next Friday. And I know that every provider across the state is feeling this way, and I'm barely able to keep my eyes open at this point. So I think one of the things about making sure that people have funding is so that in a crisis situation like this, you can swap off of other people just like you wouldn't want a doctor working.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah, right. I appreciate that. I really, really do sincerely appreciate what you've done and how you've helped a good number of people find a place to live. And the other thing that I really appreciate is that you provide ongoing support to them. And even though it might gradually wane to like once a month that you said earlier, I'm sure that still means a lot to that individual that they know that if something's going wrong, they have some place to turn. So thank Thank you for what you're doing for Vermonters. Thank you. Okay, committee. We're done for the day. Next week, I know you're going to be very surprised, but we're working at H594. Our last day of testimony on this will be on Tuesday, and then we will be working on wording. And I'll have some information, more information for you about that on Tuesday. Okay? So what I would say at this point in time is get some rest. Thank you for everything that you've listened to and learned from this week. We've had a long week of a lot of testimony, and I appreciate the fact that you've stuck with it. And I know how tired I'm feeling right now, and I'm pretty sure that everybody in the room is feeling the same way. So I really appreciate it. So have a good weekend. Try to stay warm. Help somebody if you can, we'll see you next week.