Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome. Welcome to the House Human Services. There's another version on this can we do this week? Okay. So we have a bit of time this afternoon before we start going into the governor's proposed budget and the slate of witnesses that will be joining us over the next, this afternoon and tomorrow, most of the day tomorrow. So I would like to point members to the website. Laurie has been busy posting documents that we have received, some over the weekend, from various entities, including the secretary's office. And so you will see those on our committee's web page. Are those under today's? I'm just looking there's a bunch under today, but these are not everything. But I've tried my best to make sure that everybody receives. If it didn't go to the whole committee, I've forwarded it to people. But Gloria has also been doing a good job of seeing them. And so then you will see them posted on today's today's. But are there some posted like last week too, Laurie? I think. People are looking for specific ones. Just let me

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: know, like, in this week.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm going to suggest to folks that they may want to, I know I don't normally say this, but may want to print them all out. Because much as we did with last year's version of a bill, we went through each piece of feedback to say, what are the things that we think that we can build upon? What are the things that we agree with, don't agree with, need more information about? I do wanna let folks know that on What day, Laurie, are we having Chad and the crew come in? Afternoon, tomorrow afternoon. So felt like we needed so we've been operating under this notion that we would utilize as many of our existing systems as possible and build upon those, one of those being coordinated entry and the assessment process in coordinated entry. And one of the thoughts that we had had about that is that that process results, after completing the assessment, results in a prioritization, if you will, of individuals and a needs assessment that identifies what are the next steps for this person, essentially, this household. I felt like before we 100% landed in that direction, that we needed to have more information about that process and what that actually looks like. We've been told that it results in this score at the end, if you will. But honestly, I haven't ever seen that. And so I thought it would be helpful for committee members to hear more about that process, and especially if we are going to rely on that for prioritization of needs. And so on Wednesday, we have the Chittenden County group, and we have the Balance of State group, the two COCs coming in to give us a presentation and kind of walk us through that. So they'll be here tomorrow afternoon. That will, I think, help solidify for us, is this going to be a viable tool for us to use? What are the things that we can build off from with this tool? And do we need to have something in the interim between when we have expectations that there'll be a wider variety of community partners in the state who utilize the tool. Do we need to have some process in the interim or not? I think that's an open question. So I wanted to let folks know that we are gonna be doing that tomorrow. I also wanna call people's attention to the fact that we received a copy of the written comments, as I mentioned, from the Agency of Human Services. We have some from community providers. We've heard from COTS. We heard from HHAV. HHAV has additional materials that will be coming. And I do want to let people know that I had a long conversation with Brendan Atwood over the weekend. And, you know, we talked about a path forward. I It didn't seem from the testimony that there was a belief that there was a path forward. And I think that we are trying to maintain the hope that there can still be a path forward somehow. And so we, for people sitting here on the outside and for committee members, just so you know, we will not be voting on this bill this week. We're gonna have continued work on it, and we'll see where we land. We we will get if we do get to something, we we will have a vote next week, primarily because our we want to make sure that we do this while we have Katie here. And so I just wanted to give people an update about sort of things that have been transpiring over the last few days. Any questions about that? So I think it would be helpful for us to take a look at the Agency of Human Services feedback. It's on the web page under Jenny Samuelson, under her name.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Looks like it's what the testimony was.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's what the testimony Yeah. It's not anything So I think that the I'm just going to come to the oh, all right, in the end. I think that some of the things that they talked about was time frame, appropriations. And of course, we hadn't gotten to the appropriations section yet. So no, they didn't see it in the bill yet. Probably been a placeholder. And I will have to say that sometimes when you're at the point where it seems like you have one party saying you're opening this wide up broadly to anybody, and then you have another party sending you feedback saying, this is far too narrow. You're limiting access. It leaves me confused. They're both looking at the same document and coming up with different conclusions. And so sometimes, I don't think this is one of those cases, yeah, sometimes when you have different parties and everybody's unhappy, then you've struck the right balance. But that's not the case yet. I'm just saying that out loud. The working

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: towards making everyone unhappy. The

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: one thing that will be clear when we are finished with this bill is that we will have made no 1100% happy, including ourselves. So I think that is something that we all have to get comfortable with. And it's a place of being uncomfortable. I'm looking at we can go through each one of these pieces of feedback. We've got legal aid. We've got HHAV. We've got COTS. We've got End Homelessness Vermont. The Department of the Agency of Human Services, it's not I mean, other than saying we need more time and saying that it needs continued refinement, that's essentially what they say. And that it needs to pair the system with the money, which we know already. I think that why don't we why don't we take a look at a couple of these pieces of feedback today? And let's start let's start with Vermont Legal Aids Just because that one's on the top of my printout list.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: You know where that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Somebody want a printing copy of that.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: That's what it says.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I will start. You may have this Okay. It was on mine too instead of saying, Laurie, will

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you do that? I asked Laurie really nicely and she I did. She was very good. Okay. Alright. I'll wait till people get.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Go ahead, Zon. I just would like to say that I really appreciate that we're able to, that you're talking and we're getting a lot of these comments and things out on the table. I have like six kajillion questions to even kind of get it into my bear in sort of way.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So I'm hoping that I think that's great.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Think that these questions will, or I mean, I hope that as we go through this, can keep, my dream would be that we can keep our concerns at a rather high level and not get down into rabbit holes and details because I think the question it seems to me is, the big question is, is this moving forward? And if it is, how is it gonna move forward? And I don't expect an answer to be just like that, but we'll discover that all of this strikes me that staying at the highest level possible will get us more toward that question, just to say that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. And I and I, just as a I know that last week, we allowed comments and questions from the side, not doing that this week. So comments and questions will only be from committee members or alleged counsel. We're also I'm going to start with the broadest concept, which is creating a continuum of services. So that's kind of like the biggest notion of change here is do people on this side need a written copy? Do. Katie, did you get one?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: All right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's do that. Because I think that it's important to have some discussion among committee members. Is the concept of really a system redesign? We've started with the hypothesis that what we currently are doing needs to be changed. Can I ask, are people in agreement with that hypothesis that what we are doing currently needs to be changed? Because if we're not in agreement with that, then we don't really need to go any further. Yeah, this is just discussion. So anybody, as long as five people aren't talking over one another, so. Well, I agree. Yes. It's not work on. Yeah.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Current system is not working, I'm in agreement. We need

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: to change.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is that consensus around the rooms?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Actually, I think we're fine.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You think we're fine? Okay. Anybody else have any thoughts about that? Yeah. I think my only thought is

[Esme Cole (Member)]: that it's nice that this is really It seems to be an agreement point between us and the agency right now. In their first paragraph and their last paragraph, they thought redesign is the exact word that they use. I think our visioning of how that looks is maybe different, especially on the case management piece and coordinated systems piece. Yeah, that's a good point of consensus. Yeah.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, I just think every month when we look at the report and we see older Vermonters, that number, we can do better on that portion of it. I always think we can do better. The fact that there's all the people are there, but specifically that cohort, look at and say, should be able to do a little better there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Allow for some pregnant pauses here, people.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, I mean, it's worded variously, but in terms of change, I think most of the perspectives have shared that a hotel motel system is not a system and is not the ideal way to move forward. So how that transition occurs may have a widespread of opinion, but that seems to be pretty broadly held as part of why current, why what we're doing now doesn't work. One of those components is that relying on putting people in hotels is not the right path.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I would add that while it appears differently as far as how the administration is suggesting we advance in some of our discussions, I think overall the tenor is that there are more people to people supports for Vermonters who are experiencing homelessness, whether that's in the cornerstone aspect, I think of what the administration is looking to do, which is specialized to a larger degree, specialized shelters, or what I'm taking as a significant part of our conversations is the coordination of services or case management. Both of those approaches focus on giving more direct supports, I think, to Vermonters, finding them where they are and moving people forward. So again, I think that's a common ground that can be focused on as part

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: of our work this week. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that it's that right behind what Rev Cole said is the notion of where we agree that what Rev Bishop has suggested is that with this the next thing that we're turning it, we're looking at a project or a program that can turn to face every Vermonter in this situation, finding a way to address them, whether or not we'll be able to do that or not, but that's the mindset it seemed to me that I also very much appreciate that in this last conversation that there are so many players, so many thoughts, so many ideas, so many people engaged in this in the in the thinking of this. Again, we're not at a solution quite yet, but that there are many, many good ideas playing here. And so hopefully we can weigh all of those and all these good voices can continue to come forward and we'll be able to get to a place that's workable.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I thought H594 was actually moving us in a good direction and I was shocked when it was taken off at the time. Was very disappointed because I had talked to some people somewhere, and they were even happy and they were the ones that we really need to make happy, to make things happen. But I just didn't like the return to home because Brenda said, sometimes people don't have a home to go to. I know my brother told the nursing home, I'm going home to my sisters. They called me and said, I guess, is your brother moving in with you? No. So it does happen because I've had it happen. It was hard to say no, but, so that was the only piece. I think H594 would really kind of move us somewhere. So we still have components of May.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think that's it. I'd have to go back and look at it to remember. Yeah,

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: how did that one differ? Where did we make changes? Go ahead. I think another place where I think there's alignment with administration, which I don't know if it's been explicitly said, or at least in my opinion, there's alignment, is that I think the administration is really thinking about reducing the number of hotels and hotels that are being used. That's our goal as well. But also, in my mind, when I think about an integrated system that we're proposing, I do think that it will mean that we won't be able to provide those services to everyone that needs it, because we have limited resources. And as much as I don't want that to be the case, I have to be practical that that is going to be the case. So I think the testimony from the department kind of made it seem like we just want to house everyone that would need housing, which ideally that is the case. But if we want a system that will help people through the process and get them to transition to permanent supportive housing, that will mean that we are not going to have resources to house and provide those services to everyone because we have limited resources. I think that's a place where we align, but I have not heard that explicitly set in the committee. Right, and I

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think the problem, I mean, when I first read the definition of eligible population or family, whatever, my reaction, if you took that in isolation, you'd like, well, if everybody's eligible, I mean, we might as well quadruple the budget. We can't do that. And if you read that, that's clearly not the intent. And when we talked about the prioritization of need that we think we'll find out what happens with the coordinated entry, if you're talking about prioritization, there's no need to do that if it's not a recognition that there isn't enough and that only the higher level is going to get what we'd like to do more of. But I think that's part of the tie to the budget and the part that we haven't gone through yet. Think, I brought it up once last week in terms of, well, we don't have a process here yet for how people appeal. And of course, if everyone got everything they wanted because everybody was eligible, you wouldn't need an appeal system. And I think that's part of maybe how some people got a misimpression that it meant that using that just definition for eligible population and not being explicit about the connection with the budget because we hadn't gotten there yet creates an impression of a system that isn't sustainable no matter how much it might be the ideal. Whereas I think our intentions are more aligned with what and I would have to go back and read the original bill to remember how that one gets structured, because my mind went to what we were doing in front of us. But in terms of the intent and the direction that we want to go, I don't think it was that different in intent. Think we were trying to come up with a clearer structure and a clearer the idea that being a clear continuum of what was available at what point just makes a lot of sense. The more we discussed, I think the clearer it became that that was foundational.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think one of the things, I I know I've said it half a dozen times at least, that I didn't have any intent of going beyond the governor's budget. Right. Just that repeatedly. Repeatedly that this would be within the budget that the governor has presented. So I think that that's I guess I would hope that that would be a level of agreement between us and the administration. I'm not sure that we will 100 agree on all the different buckets, but I think that there'll be some substantial agreement about those buckets. But I feel like I need to say it again, because if don't feel like it was clear, then other people might not have felt that that was clear. That we have a lot of good feedback from people saying we need to do more for more people. And I just have to be clear that we're not going to be serving everybody. And I know that that's a hard thing to hear. It's hard to say when we know that there are people in need, our fellow Vermonters. But we do have resource limitations. It's not an unlimited world. And it's how do we invest those resources that's going to get us to outcomes that include more stability for people who have been unhoused, for people who have maybe been unhoused for long periods of time, for people with health issues, for people with other disabilities. I keep thinking about, we heard about in our Democratic caucus this morning, we heard about government accountability and a bill that's coming out of GovOps. And I'm thinking about, Okay, how will we measure the investments that we are making? How will we know whether or not Vermonters are any better off as a result of this whatever system that we end up agreeing with? How will we know if they're any better off?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Ideally, when I think about the accountability piece and of a look back and outcomes, is each bucket should have its own kind of measures and what we're looking at. Obviously the whole system does as well, but I think to our committee's point and to your point, like up to now, we haven't had an integrated system that is easy to measure. We've had a kind of piecemeal effort. We've had a lot of community providers that are getting grant funding to do the work, but it's not a coordinated integrated system.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Nobody is measuring outcomes. Nobody's measuring So

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: not only is it hard to do, nobody's been assigned to do it. But if we have these buckets of funding- Can somebody

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: turn their cell phone off, please? Thank you.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: If we have these buckets of funding and then we tie actual outcome measures to each one and have a frequency of what look back, is it annual, is it every three years to kind of see, okay, we said theoretically by offering more supportive housing and supportive services, the reliance on hotels and motels should decrease because we're building more shelters, we're building more housing. How is that continuum working? And are we seeing that correlate what we envision actually happen? I was going to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: say that likewise, the investment in case management that we are envisioning I mean, I think one of the tangible things that we can measure that's been a stickler for me is the number of individuals who return to homelessness after having them placed. And so having follow along services for that group of individuals, if we can see a reduction in the number of people who return to homelessness, we automatically reduce the number of people who are homeless. Those are positive outcomes. Do they ever keep data on the drug bust of people that are getting in a free hotel and then they have a drug bust and they end up getting arrested and the rape and assaults, do they keep data on all that? They being who? DCF? Don't know. I know when I worked there, we had to put it in the system,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: but nobody ever did anything with it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, don't know what data they keep on that. Yeah, I'd like to see that data. How many people are receiving it that have abused it? Because that's not fair to the people that won't abuse it. Doug and then Dan.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: So a piece that I'm struggling with and going back some history before my time here, the legislature and the governor reached, I'll just refer to sort of a grand bargain in reducing the number of motel rooms that would be utilized. And that was a difficult choice. The governor was trying to spend less on behalf of Vermonters towards program, we were trying to support as many people as we could, etcetera. I'm not quite sure where the grand bargain is here with respect to the numbers, because they're so far apart. If we look at the number of adults and children that are currently in the motels, that's sixteen seventy six and four eighty one, and we have six eighty beds in shelters, so that's 2,837. The one concrete number we have as far as rooms or people served is the governor would like to get the motels down to three twenty five rooms. Not sure how many individuals that translates to. And there's obviously a big gap, And I am not saying that the governor wants to reduce to the fact that we're gonna help three twenty five people. The difficulty for me is there's lots of different specific shelters and dollar amounts that have been provided. I'm not sure how many people those are intended to serve. So between 2,837 people and three twenty five rooms, where are we getting to with the governor's proposal with these dollars spent on how many people we're going to be supporting?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They highlighted that in one of their graphs when they did their proposal. They showed current and they showed future. I'll hold up, keep going.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: No, well that would be helpful for me, because I think in part, how we support the individuals who are gonna receive supports through whatever program we create is part of the equation, but I think it's hard to overlook the fact that the number of people served will be an important part of this discussion. And I apologize that I was not recollecting that or it didn't sink in when we saw that number. But we haven't had a lot of discussion, I guess, on that part of it. And so I'd like to ensure that we do that. Think another grand bargain needs to be struck.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Dan and Zon. And then

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I just want to go back to the accountability that Ray was just talking about and you were talking about in the buckets, and how do we Hold on just a second.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Laurie, let me see if you

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: could find that presentation for me. It was their housing

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's theirs?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, they said that when they provided additional detail, I think, DCF to us. I think it was a week before Ness.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Go ahead. Thanks. So just back to the buckets of accountability and what those buckets are and what the accountability is around each of those, whether it's the state, the providers, the individual. But there's other things, the hotels, right? There's also some accountability to the hotel about, is it livable? What does it look like? And think about how do we figure out what all those buckets of accountability are? And then do we basically, in our legislation, are we thinking about assigning what the accountability is? Or do we say, look, this is the city. Here's the accountability we want from the state. And then the accountability to the providers, the hotels, the individuals, that comes in outside of the legislation working. I don't know, I'm just Do we say, all right, come up with the accountability standards for people to, whether it's individuals to participate in the program or the state to get the money out on time and make sure that people are paid and that the providers are making sure that the individuals receiving the case management. So just, what does, it's kind of a bigger picture than just a few buckets. Seems like there's lots of different pieces that could be measured for accountability to make everything kind of work.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, part of what we did in the childcare bills, we charged an independent organization to evaluate whether or not we were making progress.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Which

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I would vote in favor of doing that here

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: too.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I know that costs money, I think it's a great investment because it is a third party and oftentimes the people in it don't have the capacity to do it or the expertise to do it well. And this is no, this is on the administration, but to charge an external expert to actually book to see, we hear testimony of recommendations for a study to figure out actually what will it take to address. But I think this is a step towards that is, okay, you implemented this bill, we need someone who is not implementing it to actually tell you how it's doing, rather than because it's a big investment, it's a lot of money.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, and we've heard all different things in our testimony. So back to Ray's point there that someone who can look at it from the outside, who can actually ground truth everything, could be helpful.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I would add on to what Dan has said that I'm getting spoken to about, and we've talked about this a little bit, but communities are having to bear huge amounts of alternate responsibilities related to this issue. And there's no accommodation for those necessarily, or that they'll tell you stories in which there aren't. And while I don't think it's probably the scope of a bill like this to deal with all that, but that is part of what it means for Vermont to be accountable for this entire situation and it needs to be looked at as well. So we have data, it's data that we need to collect. So I support the notion of a consultant.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I did try to read through some of the newer sets of comments that had come in, one of the things that came in from several different ones is the issue of transition versus implementation. And I know that that's something we've of had in the parking lot. We know we have to put in some ways. Not getting into any discussion is part of the problem because I think we have a sense, you can't be shutting down hotel rooms if you don't have shelter rooms yet. That's kind of that discussion of one for one versus, but if you only have so much money, how do you do both? That's really all about transition and how it happens how it happens within the budget. And how long do we anticipate that it's going to have to take? Because I think we're working on creating a system that's where we think the system ought to be, at least then it gets revised as things work or don't. But we know that July 1, that's not the system we're going to have. We don't really have a timeframe or how that phasing happens and how the pieces start working together. What happens immediately and what doesn't really crosses over and impacts some of the questions that are being raised about how far afield is it from the original thinking or what the administration worked on jointly and so forth. Because I think we've been talking a lot about the ultimate plan, but not talking about the transition, which is in some ways the very toughest part.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Absolutely. It gets to this gap that Doug is talking about. Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's right. Okay. Sorry, I'm trying to on February I think that that is.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Housing Initiative and also the DCIP budget presentation.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah, it's Thursday, February 5, found the document. Ah.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's just addressing homelessness in Vermont, AHS housing initiative DCF. I'm remembering is a graph in that presentation. It's not that one.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's another one where she said we have additional details. Came and they gave additional details.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: After that? Yes.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I remember them saying they were going to write, do we have the valuers? That was February 5.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That was

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: after February 5. Right, and that's that much.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is anybody else besides me remembering that?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Remember the part about additional details.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It rings yeah. But I don't remember us a presentation on that, and and We did. It it rings a bell that it had that more detail that you're talking about. I

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: think they were here before February 1, perhaps, and so the details might have come each just for Well,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we had somebody on the side who might I see

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what Chad sent January 28. Okay. So if you go to January 28, that's funny. I thought it was after that, but I'm not sure this is the exact one that I was thinking of. But it does have the high level overview on the second that shows the breakout between the shelter beds and different kinds of units, shelter like options, traditional GA, emergency cold weather,

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That's Christa McClure's five ninety four test. Okay. So that's it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They were broken up by departments so that the one you're talking about is in the AHS and DCF.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Here we go. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: People find that?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I see this

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: in I remember that, yep. Phased approach over a few years. That's what part of the phasing question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Feel like there was even an additional one that but this has got the graph that I was thinking of, the one that says high level overview, and it shows them side by side. That's what I was thinking of, Doug, when you asked your question about.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Right, and there was additional information, one of the budget documents, I apologize, I didn't remember. Does medically vulnerable, 60 people, family shelter, approximately two forty rooms. Well,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: also has, it does have suggested phases, but it does say, well, so

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: The timing, I guess, to a point I think Donahue was making, and we all are concerned about, is the ratcheting up, ratcheting down one

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for one concept. Well, I think that reference that you made, Doug, to the 300 and something, that was, I guess, what they were referring to as traditional GA. So and then, you know, we we do have a a combination of what they call shelter like options. That's the use of hotels as well. And then cold weather is the use of hotels as well. So it's just looking at those different shades in blue as they're labeled differently, but there's a lot of continued hotel usage in the They're just not paused. AHS proposal. Yeah. Right.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Maybe to just continue on that point, I mean, if we're looking at the other shading, large, really dark blue chunk, those people can be housed for more extended periods of time, whereas the adverse weather conditions, emergency cold weather, those are going to be a day, one day, two day. So we can expect for most of the time until somebody can acquire really affordable housing, which is going to take a long time to include. I I hope I'm not being out of line here and saying it's approximately just about another thousand folks who are gonna be not having long term shelter because they are not included in this bottom chunk, which is shelter, which implies longer term housing. Like this adverse weather, emergency cold weather, that's a nice period. So it's like, that's huge. If they're not in shelter, and they're not in affordable housing, they're on the streets. So I think we can assume that that chunk is long term going to be increasing or getting up to 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 people on the streets instead of I don't know. I mean, maybe that's a story.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that's a story.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay. I'm sorry. Maybe in the last statement there, but hopefully my point coming across is clear. The shelter piece, which is saying just slightly larger than on the left side graph, that huge chunk is for one night, two night. I don't know where those folks are gonna be otherwise. Whereas they were included in the F26 piece

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for more extended periods of time. I don't think it's well labeled enough.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: That's it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I understand that. That's not the problem.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: If the colors were to be, if that is what they meant by the color being side by side, then that would be my interpretation of it. But it isn't clear with the labeling.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it's a little, you

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: know, you look at the bases and what the, you know, the transition discussion, which is really about how many options are you closing down before new ones open up, right? That's really it's where in part it's saying, at least for whatever targeted populations mean, which in some ways are maybe the old prioritized ones. And all we're saying different in a way is use a different priority system that's more individualized through the coordinated entry. Saying utilize hotelsmotels to function like shelters. In other words, still using those spaces, but using them differently. Well, I guess one of the things that I It's kind

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of making some presumptions that we don't really know yet about the willingness of community partners to step into those spaces. So I think from a transition process perspective, utilizing shelters plus services is a decent way to transition from one space to a more preferred space. But I don't know that there are people out there who are whether the department has engaged with whether it's community action, whether it's existing shelter providers, whether it's the members of our local housing coalitions, what's been the engagement. I know that they had kind of a working group going at one point in time this fall around sort of, I guess, future planning a little bit. We can set up a system that utilizes that. But if we don't have somebody who is willing to step in and provide that, I think that's an outcome to be measured. That wasn't successful. But I guess that's important to know. Absolutely.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Keep moving forward.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because I want to make sure that we've kind of delved into specifics now. We've moved up from the sort of high level general discussion that we were having before. So I made some notes on things that we seem to all be at least have consensus around, that the system needs to change, that we need to reduce reliance on how motels and hotels are utilized as they are being utilized right now. That we need a program that is facing Ever Glacier where they are, that we're living within the governor's budget as recommended. Those are all sort of key elements of things where there's consensus, if not a 100% agreement, but at least consensus on. So we've talked about utilizing a continuum of supports and services. So everything from prevention and diversion through to services that more supportive housing types of services. And supportive housing services doesn't just mean sort of what is known in the DCF world or in the shelter world, but also in the Dale world, in the mental health world, in the DSU, VDH world. So we're looking at broader, when we say, supportive housing. And we've thought about how you transition in in phase. We've thought about having to have more case management in the community so that essentially everybody has a lead case manager. And we've talked about everybody needing to participate in coordinated entry and having essentially a needs assessment done so that we know how best to match them with whatever supports and services that might be necessary for them. And make it required. Yes. Okay. That's where the breakdown is. You can say you have to do it, but you have to require it or you lose your housing. Otherwise, it's never gonna happen. Some of my nephew owns one of the hotels and they sleep all day. It would actually be good for them. Give them a purpose, give them somewhere to get out, somewhere to go. And his hotel is on the bus route.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That is the requirement in there now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But it's

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: not enforced.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I mean, I think that is that'd be one of those outcomes that is measured. Yeah. You know? How many people are participating in the coordinate you know, how many out of the total number, you know, how many coordinated assessments were done? How many people been engaging in employees housing because they didn't do it. It's gotta be followed through. So that's this notion of this continuum of services and supports that has elements that we've talked about. That's that's sort of the concept of a redesign that we've talked about, which is, I think, saying in a different way, but saying similar things as what five ninety four did with the use of the tier. Just reading it right now. Right. The tiers. It's just calling them something different. That's the way I look at it. Other people might have different ideas. So what are people's thoughts? I mean, again, I'm coming back to basics. What are people's thoughts about establishing a continuum of services and supports?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: So I have thoughts in the sense that everything that you've just summarized sounds like to me a reasonable way to frame all this and the way to go. The question that comes to my mind is as it is right now, if we were to adjust, stop at the continuum of care notion but just talk about all the things that you listed prior to that, that it seems like there's agreement both between among numbers of parties. How many Vermonters could be addressed? How many people would be left out? I guess would be the question. If we were to make, just make that transition, would we still be leaving people out?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're always gonna be leaving So people

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: the question for me starts to be, because there will always be people left out until we are able to supply either more money or more services or more housing, all of that. This is we're trying to transition towards systems that will move us in those directions. All three of those are in the future. So there will be people left out. That seems to me part of the transition that we're making. So what are the systems that we can put in place or what do we need to think about? What are the challenges that are not or the barriers that are not deal breakers. It seems to me like right now we're kind of stuck with the administration at some deal breakers, it appears, it feels like that. But maybe they're really not deal breakers. Maybe there are challenges that we can look at that we can solve together to get toward better numbers inside of, right now, a budget that won't allow us to take care of everyone, but we can nonetheless start thinking about a transition that if we were to make greater investments, might be able to make some headway this. Am I making any sense?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think so. You lost

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: me a little bit, I'll be honest.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Okay. I don't want you to try again necessarily.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, that's okay. I trying to I I was I wasn't sure exactly what you were saying that So that there's a recognition that we're not gonna serve everyone.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: We know that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We know that.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Okay. So so

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: trying

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to figure out if you were suggesting there needed to be some sort of prioritization. You didn't say that, that's what I I was trying to figure out if

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: think in the transition, it strikes me that there's no way that we can do this out some sort of prioritization. There just has to be because we can't address everyone's needs. So either we say we're not addressing anyone's or we're gonna move forward and what does that look like? And we move toward the notion that we're gonna try to meet everyone's needs in the future. I don't see how else we can do it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we are talking about, people don't like to hear this word, but I wanna say it out loud, rationing services. Yes, I understand. And rationing services to particular individuals or households with particular presenting So

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: for me, that's where we are now. We're already rationing at this moment. We are rationing. So we're not changing, we're not going backward as in my view, as the administration suggests that we might be going backward. I don't think we're going backward. I think we're seeing the situation as it is and trying to figure out how can we go forward toward a different future. That's what interests me. And so what mechanisms are that we can put in place to move toward a place where we're rationing less and less as we go forward? Or more effectively. More effectively.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: More effectively. Effectively. Or if someone is going into admin and that is not directly serving

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Efficiently, all that effectively, yeah.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: One, I think the bigger issues I have with the administration's plan is it does focus most, if not all the resources, except for those kind of emergency ones, the ones who they view as the in most need. And one thing I really like about the HUD continuum of care and the programs and funding opportunities available is that there are different options for people with different needs, some with very high level needs and some with lower level needs. And yes, I think we, obviously those with higher needs, those cost more money, and that will be where the bulk of the funding is. But if we are ever going to ever make any kind of progress on actually addressing homelessness in Vermont, we do need to actively be addressing the needs at all levels. So we're not going to meet each of those categories needs in full, but if we're not doing prevention, we're just going to continue to have more and more people entering homelessness and becoming unhoused and then eventually getting to that chronically homeless status. So I think that's why I prefer where this committee bill is going is because it does bulk up all of those different kind of levels in the system, whereas where the administration and I think May was going is really putting those highest needs first. And I think that's something we, this conundrum we come up in a lot in our systems of care and serving older Vermonters as we, it becomes this crisis. And so we have to, we feel like we can't do anything but focus on those highest level of needs, which are the most expensive. But in doing that, we're never truly solving the problem.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To use old Vermonter analogy, it'd be like if we were taking all of choices for care and only funding nursing homes, the most expensive part of the continuum. Now they take up the bulk of the funding, I will say right now, but there's tens of millions of dollars going to community based services. And that was actually a major shift that happened thirty something years ago, because we really only were funding nursing homes. And so I think that it helps me to think about that analogy when I think about the system. And I think we're very shortsighted if we're not funding on the prevention and diversion end, because that just makes us more customers on the other side, and that's not what we want.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So that's, I mean, we can say that about almost What all of our we're looking at this year's budget for DCF, we are putting millions and millions more on six or seven kids in the highest level and we're cutting prevention and not the DA systems, all of those different things. Works the same way. It was helpful for me just in terms of some of it maybe even from what you're just saying, the labels, how one deems who's the greatest need, because our discussions also focus on a way within budgetary constraints on who's the greatest need through the coordinated entry. It's more individualized rather than categorical, but it's still focused on who's the greatest need. And when you look at the budget components in the administration's plan and the investments, I think there's a lot that's really similar. There may be some shifts in how much goes where, but there's a lot of similarities. They're not the same titles, if you will. But it's like goes up from 71 to 74,000,000 between the emergency hotels, the HOP shelter funding and other shelter like options, which is the hotels and motels, but with you know, run as And so it's shifting that money, but, you know, in the bottom line, it's $8,000,000 more than it was last year in the total expenditures. So we may see a priority in terms of case management, but it was zero before and it's almost $131,300,000.0 in this, and rental assistance from 752,000 to 2,100,000.0. So some of those things that we've been talking about are actually there. The concepts, I think are defined differently and I think we have them more as a flow, as a coordinated flow of where you move rather than more isolated. But I think there's a lot in the definitional and wording concepts rather than fundamental, except for that conundrum of can't both fully fund the community based system and the hospital beds. So what do you do? You say, well, these are the most critical, so we've got to fund lockup DCF facility, we've gotta fund the hospitals and the community systems and prevention falls apart, and then we go in a downward spiral. But the very first year I was here, we were talking about alcohol issues specifically, and should there be a separate department for alcohol addictions and so forth. And it was like we know, dollar worth of prevention saves $10 worth of care. The problem is right now we're spending the $10 on care and we don't have the extra dollar and the only place to do would be to take it from the care that we can't do because then people don't have any care. And I don't know how you get around it. I'm just recognizing that this is the pattern that we have to try to break here. And as folks already know, my perspective is when we acknowledge we can't serve everybody, I still fall back to, but we've got to serve everybody at a certain level of not being out in the weather, even if it's only offering the opportunity at having a congregate shelter with cots, like in Red Cross flood, because we can't do everything that we want to do to help people move. We can't do all of the higher end supports that people need. But I still think we have a baseline that has to be available to everyone.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I don't disagree, but I think to an extent we're struggling in opening the extreme cold weather shelter, creating that capacity that we have this year. And I think a system we're moving towards is going to have more people who will be in need of that basic gymnasium and a cot. And I don't know where that growth is for that. I don't know where the community capacity is for creating the basic, to your point, at least having a gymnasium and a cot. I don't know where that capacity is.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, either. I don't think the communities can do that on their own. I don't think that, you know.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Well, but even if given resources, it's hard to see where, Burlington opened a shelter with capacity of 70 plus people. The other locations around the state that have agreed to be part of this program are much smaller numbers.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm talking concept and direction rather than transition. Like next year, have to do that first.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Oh, I I and and I get I get that. I guess I'm just struggling to see I'm trying to now put the number of people to the the numbers in this presentation about household. Some of them reference households, some of them reference people. And there's a fairly significant gap between the number of people we're serving today with the number envisioned here. And that's not surprising if we're upping the level of support services with the same number of dollars, gonna support fewer people. So I was just making a point that if we want to then ensure that those who are gonna be left behind to a degree, and the number of people served now, I don't know how we would provide that basic roof over your head sheltering capacity, where we struggle today.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That is, that's where we in terms of priorities, where we would make the priorities, which are never going to be identical. Any individual life, you

[Esme Cole (Member)]: know, how you Rey, I wanted to respond to the piece about prevention in Jubilee too. Prevention, of course, exists on sort of a spectrum. Prevention could happen from birth to how you raise a child to way down the line. And I think in this time of crisis, the kind of prevention that especially is within our committee's jurisdiction is, I think, shelter and case management. Prevention from hospital rooms. I think that is what we hear testimony from the nurses. This point, of course, want to invest in Prevention is really housing, affordable housing, and that we can work on and the committee on housing can work on and everyone can work on. But I think to prevent this with the tools that we have right now in this committee, case management and just access to a roof over your head, those two pieces, I think is not for nothing in terms of prevention. I think it actually will save a little bit for those who really shouldn't be having to navigate what they're navigating or taking on right now, municipalities, emergency rooms, etcetera. I think that is one of the most lingering questions that I have with the difference between the bill that we have now or the draft we have now and the administration's proposal, which is this case management piece, which is in the beginning, in the header piece, they say, we know that case management is important. We know we are not meeting needs in terms of case management. And there's a bullet point about how this will increase access to case management. But I really, in terms of implementation, I do not see, especially at the head of the table, we heard we know there's a lack of trust there. And sometimes when they use language on the record, such as dorm parents, I can't see the promotion of engagement unless they are really bringing in all the We don't even know with whom in terms of case worker, case providers, social services, who they were engaging with in the process. We engaged with housing services, but I think maybe it was one or two. It sounds like it may not have been from the way that we are getting testimony here in this room, and we are privileged to have a space to be able to take that testimony here. So I really think the language that we have worked out with the combination of five ninety four and this draft that exists today in how, not just talking, the talk in terms of case management. And I don't mean that in, to brush off anything aside, but truly the implementation of case management in a way that maximizes the efficiency of our very, very limited resources that we're working with here. I think that language needs to be very specific and that is why we're being so deliberate in who we're hearing from. And I just, that plus recognizing that the one for one consideration of shelter, the time it'll take for shelter beds to come on versus like who's Yeah, I don't know. Those two pieces, really, I think I don't see how they will be followed through with and what we represented with, but I feel more encouraged. And not to shut down any ideas that are coming forward, but I really just, I don't see the reality.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think I'm just reflecting on we're gonna take a brief break before we move into budget testimony, in case you were wondering. I think that

[Esme Cole (Member)]: one of the things that is going to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be hard for us sitting around the table to grapple with is the fact that in order to make some of the shifts, in order to invest more in that case management that we know is necessary, it means we're gonna have to spend less in some other area. And that less in some other area is likely to be the hotels. And so it's not gonna be a one for one.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And that's kind of to my point earlier, right in the beginning. Why you can't say

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that we're going to invest unless we reduce from someplace else.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: We know that that is costly because that takes human resources. You can't automate that. That takes very deliberate on the ground work. You can't do

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it with case loads of 75, Right.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: You need to have small case loads to be intentional. You need to have trained professionals doing the work, and that is an investment. So if we're going to be doing that, we're going to have to have less investment in hotels and motels. That's just a reality, which is not easy to No, grapple

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that is essential. It's why I was just trying to specifically call attention to it because it's a hard reality to live with. But that is the reality, that if we think that what will make things better is really that one on one attention that people can get with caring individuals in the community who can help them, who can really take them by the hand and say, what is it that you need to help you be more stable? We hear over and over again that it's relationships are what makes the difference. And we need to invest in those relationships in the community. And I don't mean with, and I mean no disrespect out there to the department people who are listening. I don't mean with 21 staff people I in the mean with focusing that on our community partners who are going to be the ones who are going to be there on the nights and weekends when people call. So I needed to say that upfront because it's a hard decision that we will have to make if we are going to make anything move forward. Alright. On that note, let us take a fifteen minute break until 02:30. And please be back there right at 02:30 because then we have we have