Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Good

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: morning,

[Amy Shollenberger]: We're going to spend a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: good chunk of today hearing from different community partners about budget asks that they have. And we are going to start off with Gail Zatz, who is speaking for Vifor. Service organizations. Aid services organizations, okay. Yes, it is. All right, Okay. For my aid service urgent. Sorry. Thank you. And just as a reminder, we have fifteen minutes per witness, and then we'll allow another two to three minutes after that for any questions that people might have.

[Gail Zatz]: I'll be relatively brief. Give back some of your time. So my name is Gail Zatz. Before I begin my testimony on the HIVAIDS services language, Laura Byrne is here with me on that. I am going to be wearing my Recovery House hat and testify on behalf of Chad Vajay, who's the executive director. He couldn't be here today, but just for a moment, even though I look nothing like him. Pretend I'm him.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So

[Gail Zatz]: as you may recall, in S36, there was a provision that recommended or that asked the agency of human services to look at rate setting for residential substance use treatment. So Chad was scheduled to testify to request that increase based on the findings that are to be reported to you as a follow-up test 36. But he was not able to get the numbers as of right now. So he decided to hold off for right now. And when he does get that report, he might come back to probably the Senate to request an increase in Medicaid reimbursement. But for right now, it's all good. Okay, and that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, okay, I was just trying to, you're doing a twofer? Yes. Okay. Yes. Excuse me for a moment, because she switched to aid services and then went back to recovery housing. We were just members just speaking about recovery housing. The bill that the witness is speaking about is a bill that we passed out of the general assembly, really looking at similar to what we are looking at in our homelessness bill, the Agency of Human Services establishing rates for the services that are being paid, especially things that are ongoing in nature, like recovery housing. And we don't have the report yet, I

[Gail Zatz]: don't think. Right? Right. Couldn't find it on your website. I couldn't find it. But he did see a draft a while ago, but it wasn't final. So he didn't want to testify And on even though Recovery House is unfortunately named similarly to Recovery Housing, but Recovery House, the organization, does not provide Recovery Housing. They do residential substance use treatment. Unfortunate, Okay. Similar name, often confused.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Getting confused in my head now. So Chad is from over in Addison County? Rowland. Rowland, down Rowland, do I? Okay. Alright. Uh- Post Addison. Well, no, I just, I remember, I believe he testified about, public and need beer programs for Addison and Rowland Counties. Okay. All right. Okay. I've got my head about where we're at.

[Gail Zatz]: All right. So, basically, in a nutshell, Chad is not here today because he doesn't have all the information yet to Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. Thank you. Now we will move on to the AIDS Services Organization.

[Gail Zatz]: With my other hat on, my name is Gail Sats. I'm still Gail Sats. And I'm here today representing the AIDS Service Organizations, and I'm here with Laura Byrne. Laura, would you like to introduce yourself?

[Laura Byrne]: Hi, I'm Laura Byrne. I'm the Executive Director of the HIV HCV Resource Center.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Welcome, Laura.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: Thank you.

[Gail Zatz]: Laura's area is in the Upper Valley area, both in New Hampshire and Vermont. So thank you for the opportunity to testify today. So Virginia Renfrew and I have been representing the AIDS service organizations for twenty seven years now. And I think for twenty seven years, we have come before your committee asking for some change in the language. Not a whole lot has changed in twenty seven years, except the font on my notes is significantly bigger than it used to be. But this year is no different. Here we are asking for a change. So we have a few requests for the f y twenty seven budget. So first is related to the language and the section of, the governor's recommended version of the budget. So, in all previous years, HIVAIDS and harm reduction language has resided in section E3.1.2. This year, the administration split the funding into AIDS and HIV services in section E312 and harm reduction services in section E312.1. In the department's amendments, the funding in E312.1 can no longer be used for both HIV and harm reduction services. So as previously drafted in many other years, the funding for the different sources of funding were able to transcend both uses: HIV and AIDS services and harm reduction. So this is a significant change. They've always been able to use it for both. Sometimes there's overlap, and so they can't really be broken up into two separate sections cleanly like that. So we're requesting that the language remain as has been drafted for years and set forth at the end of our memo that I submitted with our proposed language change. So that would ensure that the funds can be used for both HIV and harm reduction services. So the only increase in funding that we're asking for is, and I'm not sure if that's the right word, but a continuation of the FY '26 BAA amount that both the House and Senate approved in the BAA, which was an increase from 295,000 to 340,000. You may recall it, an additional 45,000 in section two for the HIV and reduction services. We would like that new amount, 340,000 to continue in the FY twenty seven budget. So then there's a provision in the budget that I wanted to explain that is no reduction of grants without prior approval from the Joint Fiscal Committee. So, the provision says that the Department of Health shall not reduce any of the three grants to levels below those in the current fiscal year without receiving prior approval from the Joint Fiscal Committee. I want to note that this language was put in several years ago by representative Fagan, who is also representative Maguire from Rutland. So it looks like people from Rutland are always destined to have this part of the budget. And that year, what happened was the department had unilaterally reduced the grant amounts despite the language that was in the budget in that current fiscal year. And so representative Fagan put that language in so that that would not happen again. The department, in their proposed budget language, kept this language in, but they put it in section e three one two, so that point one, the harm reduction section, that no reduction of grant language would only apply to those grants, not all the grants. So we have to adjust that. There's something that we call gap funding that has become an issue. So, a couple of years ago, the department changed the grant period from a calendar year to a fiscal year. What ended up resulting was that the ASOs were going to receive six months less funding because they changed the grant cycle from the year to the calendar year plus six months to align with the fiscal year. And so we have been working with the department to get that additional six months of funding. The ASOs at that time did not ask for budget language to that effect as they trusted that the funds would come to them. To date, they've not received the funds.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: What year was that? I believe it was 2024. Laura, do you recall this year?

[Laura Byrne]: It yes. Go it was no. It was '20 it was last year.

[Gail Zatz]: So it the FY '25 or mhmm. It was in FY '20 it was in '25 2025. It extended the period from the FY from calendar year '25 into through June 2026. So like an additional

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: eighteen You should have received eighteen months in

[Gail Zatz]: that grant period. Instead of twelve months. Right. Exactly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We didn't appropriate any less. No. We appropriated the full twelve months in both years. There should have been It's not for lack of resources Right.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: At the health department. Yes.

[Gail Zatz]: It's the method of funding. Yes. Finally, the last issue. This is really more for your information than an ask for us, because we didn't really even know if we could make this ask, but we're going to be thinking on it a little bit. So in the past, all of the grants have come from the Division of Laboratory Sciences and Infectious Diseases at the Department of Health. And those grants flowed really relatively smoothly. Now that most of the grants, the harm reduction grants, are distributed by DSU, they are not distributed in a timely fashion. So we're looking at whether there might be an amendment we might be able to propose to address this issue. So we'll come back to you if we think of any amendment that we might be able to propose in the next few days. Okay. So thank you once again for having us come in and testify. Thank you so much for your support over my twenty seven years and probably beyond. It's a small part of the budget, but it's a really important part, and we are greatly appreciative. Thank you. Laura, you

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about four minutes before.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: By any chance you know what the rationale is or reasoning why the you said there was a funding that was out of one bucket, but now that bucket's been split. Do you know the reasoning and the

[Gail Zatz]: rationale My behind guess, and Laura, you can jump in on this if you know something else, but my guess is that there was, because they've DSU is now handling harm reduction, they put the the pots of money that have some harm reduction related to them in the new section. But it says only harm reduction in those funds are for HIV and harm reduction services. So you can't really evenly split them unless we rework the whole, we give more money in Section three thousand one twelve and less money in Section three thousand one twelve point one, but

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it would be very difficult to Well, do people are not easily divided up into pieces.

[Gail Zatz]: That's a more succinct way of saying it, though.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Laura, I think you were going to say something, I just wanted to make sure you had an opportunity.

[Laura Byrne]: Thank you so much. No, I just really wanted to say thank you so much for supporting our programs over the years. And I didn't have anything specific to add, but I'm happy to answer questions if anyone has some.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Gail, you referred to your testimony, but I don't see it online here. I sent it to Laurie just for you mean just now? Okay. Alright.

[Gail Zatz]: I haven't gotten anything from you today. Wi Fi has been acting up, it might I'll try. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it will appear on our page eventually, folks. So are there any questions from committee members? You very much, Gail. Appreciate it. I saw Susie.

[Susie Walker]: Good morning.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There she is. Okay. How are you? I'm very well.

[Susie Walker]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Welcome to both of you. And just as a reminder, we're allocating fifteen minutes to each witness or pair of witnesses on their issue, and then we'll allow another two to three minutes after that for any questions that the committee might have. So floor is yours. Do we have anything up? We do have something under Jeff's name.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: And Susie. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Susie's too? I believe so. Yep. Okay. Thank you very much.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The floor is yours.

[Susie Walker]: Okay. Thank you so much. And thank you for hearing my testimony today on behalf of Vermont's Peer Recovery Centers. My name is Susie Walker, and I live in Brattleboro. I'm a woman in long term recovery, and it's my privilege to serve as the Executive Director for the Recovery Partners of Vermont. As you know, RPV represents 14 peer recovery organizations across the state, including recovery centers and recovery residences. We're tremendously grateful for the funding support the legislature has provided to ensure that our recovery service organizations can provide life saving services to our friends and neighbors. Please level fund recovery centers with another $800,000 in prevention funds to be distributed according to the consensus recommendations of Recovery Partners of Vermont. This renewal would preserve current services at a time when recovery centers are facing increased demand. People in or seeking recovery benefit from recovery programs that provide access to services, and importantly, connect them with a community of people with lived experience who guide the way to healing and purpose. Recovery organizations have seen a significant increase in demand for our services, and we expect this trend to continue as federal actions make it harder for individuals who are struggling with substance use to access resources and services. Recovery organizations are also seeing an increase in the number of visitors who are accessing recovery spaces for more general support as other community partners and local agencies downsize or close. In particular, we have seen an increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness who access our space. We do everything we can to support any individual who comes through our doors. As the former director of the Turning Point of Windham County Recovery Center, I know the impact peer recovery support services can have on people and places. People become contributing members of their communities and their families and provide compassion and hope for others. One impact we see over and over in the recovery centers is that people who once accessed the Centers for Recovery Support and Resource Connection become trained recovery peers themselves. Their lived experience with substances and with overcoming substance use and related problems provides a skill set and sensibility that no one else can offer. Their experience overcoming painful and seemingly insurmountable problems provides tremendous hope for program participants, and their insights help improve the system they now serve. Program participants become volunteers, trained peers, certified coaches, supervisors, directors, and people who come to the State House to testify on behalf of hope. The recovery system pays it forward in profound ways. Recovery supports and services are the long term solution for helping people realize the power they have to break free from their addiction. Peer support is a key element to the success of those supports and services. Recovery coaching is an effective service offered at centers and through center programs throughout the community in schools, treatment facilities, community policing programs, and more. Level funding would enable coaching programs to continue and new coaches to come on board. Continuing this essential work is why we're asking to level fund recovery centers with another $800,000 in prevention funds to be distributed according to the consensus recommendation of the Recovery Partners of Vermont. Thank you for your time and support.

[Gail Zatz]: Thank you, Susie. Jeff, why don't

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we move on to you,

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: and then

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we'll take questions for both of you.

[Jeff Moreau]: Fair enough. Well, thank you, Chair Wood and members of the committee. It's an honor to be in front of you this morning. I have submitted written testimony, so I won't belabor that, but I just would like to make a few highlights. The first being that as Susie has so well articulated, the recovery centers are absolutely critical to the success of the recovery residences across the state. So I just want to echo their request for their level funding. I know it's an incredibly difficult year budget wise, but they've been instrumental to the success that we've had so far. I also want to acknowledge all of you. The investments that you have made in the recovery system in the state is making a tremendous difference. We're seeing really wonderful growth in our certified recovery residences. Currently, we have 150 beds that are certified across the state, and the department has set a goal of achieving 400 certified beds by 2030. I have not seen in my seven years the level of commitment and energy towards, you know, really expanding this resource at this kind of level. So it's incredibly exciting. And one of the things that we've asked for your support on over the years is the reengagement beds that are now available at our treatment partners. And as you'll remember, this is a place where an individual can go if they're waiting to get into a recovery residence, if they're experiencing a recurrence of their disease, and they need a place to go as that ultimate safety net, or if frankly, they're just someone that has entered one of the recovery centers that Susie has talked about, that needs some help to develop a plan for their recovery. This is something that's been in the works for at least five years and now those beds are available and it's incredibly exciting. We support anything in the governor's budget that brings on additionally certified recovery residences that get us towards that goal. And we're so grateful to you folks for the support that you've provided to recovery residences through the opiate settlement funds and your memo in support of that as well. We look forward to the future of coming in front of you again to discuss S-one 157. Without those protections and safety of all the residents in the home, all this becomes mute. So we're going to have to come back and work through that. But in terms of dollars and cents today, again, anything that helps us achieve that goal of 400 certified beds is the right direction for us to be headed in. Thank you for your time this morning.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Jeff. So for for both of you, I guess this is a question. Last year, the prevention fund, the special fund was tapped to provide resources, as as you noted in your testimony, Susie, $800,000 for recovery centers and then 300,000 for recovery residences. And I at least from what JFO is sharing with us, that doesn't look like that's being requested this year in the governor's budget. Is that your understanding?

[Susie Walker]: Yes. And that's why we're requesting it again out of the prevention funds, if I understand your question correctly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. It was one time doll it's one time dollars. So That's right. There was no request to, again, on a onetime basis, appropriate that. So I guess my question to you first, Susie, is so what would that mean to recovery centers across the state if that 800,000 is not appropriated from the prevention fund? As you can probably tell, the Department of Health has different uses for that fund this year.

[Susie Walker]: Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes. It would be it would be a hardship. Absolutely. Because as I testified, it's we're asking for that funding again to level fund the services that are already happening and as we're seeing the increased demand. So without that $800,000 that would impact the number of recovery coaching staff and hours that were available at the centers themselves and doing the outreach into the communities and with community partners that's happening in very robust ways. It's the centers are much more than the buildings they were years ago. They are they're a hub that connects out into the community through community policing programs, the schools, the hospitals, etcetera. It would harm the incredible success that's happening right now and the connections that are being made, the services that are available to help support our recovery residents' partners. It's a very integrated system, and disrupting any portion of it could result in disruptions in other places. So it would be hard for recovery centers to try to fill the gaps. We don't enjoy the volunteer teams that we used to have pre COVID, and our work has become much more sophisticated and complicated due to the issues that we see in our communities. So we need to have a fully staffed team, a fully staffed trained team that continues to get training to keep doing what we're doing. And without this asking for this funding again, we would have to curtail some very essential services.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And do can you tell me, does that 800,000 represent what percent of operating for, you know, the total group? What what percent of a cut would that be?

[Susie Walker]: I would have to look at the you know, what that amounts to per center.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: About 57,000.

[Susie Walker]: Yeah. Thank you. If you look at just their center programming, I would wanna say that's about

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Mm-mm.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It happens if it were distributed equally and

[Susie Walker]: Right. And it wouldn't be It

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: wouldn't it wouldn't be equal across all centers, imagine.

[Susie Walker]: It wouldn't. I'd be glad to follow-up. I don't wanna give you an inaccurate

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I I appreciate that. If you could get that back to your budget team of representative Maguire and Eastes, that would be great.

[Susie Walker]: Okay. Sure. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I get likewise, Jeff, you know, there's 300,000 from that was appropriated in '26. And what is you know, while we're working towards, more recovery housing, and there are definitely proposals on the table, doesn't include that, moving that 300,000 to base funding, I don't think.

[Jeff Moreau]: Well, the good news at this juncture is we feel very confident with our work with the department that the rural transformation funds will address the funding that's needed to scale this resource. So knowing this is a difficult year, we certainly don't need fight for that. I will say that the way we've been funded and the little that I know about the recovery centers have been funded, It's been through these buckets over the years, which has been wonderful. But taking away a major source such as this for the recovery centers, I think Susie is being generous, I think it would be crippling. I know I've been in meetings with my colleagues through Recovery Partners of Vermont. And with the extra cost of insurance and everything that's gone up these days, there was a real need to come to the legislature this year to ask for increases. And they've taken that off the table knowing what a difficult year this is. And, but at the same time to take away that base funding that they rely on would be really challenging. And I think it would have an adverse impact on our recovery residences.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Any questions from committee members? Go ahead, Representative Maguire.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Good seeing you folks. Just this is kinda relevant to it. You aware of any grants within your agencies or any of the turning points before that have not been executed yet?

[Susie Walker]: I believe they've all for the recovery centers been executed as of a couple of weeks ago.

[Jeff Moreau]: I believe so for the recovery residences as well. And VTAR grant has been executed and we are reimbursed quarterly on our operations grant and that has just recently been processed.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: All right, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Any other questions? Thank you both. Nice to see you, and thanks for the Thank the work that you're doing. Appreciate it. Thank so much. Bye. Yeah. Okay. Next, we are moving on to Alison Alderera for recap. Welcome, Alison. Thank you. And I'm just reminding folks that we have fifteen minutes, and then I'll allow another two to three minutes after that for committee questions.

[Alison Calderara]: Will get started and not waste a minute. I am Alison Calderrera. I'm the executive director of Capstone Community Action. We serve Central Vermont, and I am representative of the VCAP, the Vermont VCAP partnership. And I wanna thank you for having me here today. Very much appreciated. Thank you for considering these requests. They will go a long way to addressing and prevent homelessness. These requests are from our VCAP full 2027 request, and they are the requests that are directly related, believed, to all the good conversations that you are having within this committee. At its heart, homelessness is a condition of poverty. The Vermonters we serve struggle to cover basic needs like housing, food, and health care. As highly skilled antipoverty strategists, The foundational expertise of community action agencies to help clients exit poverty and to address the barriers to long term stability and prosperity. This additional funding, we thought about carefully, will allow us to expand our services statewide and bring consistency around the state around homelessness prevention and the intervention services that we provide. Just to give you a reminder of the power of the cap agencies, 43,000 Vermonters will enter one of our doors for service in the future. Summary of what we were asking for. Case management and housing retention, 500,000. Permanent housing navigators, 1,000,000. Concrete supports, point $25,000,000. Home voucher program, 1,500,000.0. Community resource center, 650,000. And the HOP financial assistance we are asking will be funded at the BAA level. Thank you very much. And I know that those conversations have been half year, so I will not touch on that too deeply today. Like to start with case management, 500,000. This would support one FTE at each community action agency to increase our capacity across the state for case management services. We have greatly appreciated the ongoing discussion in your committee about the need for the services, and we agree. We need more. Case management is client centered. It's holistic. It coordinates services to help people secure stable housing and achieve stability. They reassess needs, create personalized plans, provide advocacy, and connect clients to services and support. It is often the heart of the trusting relationship that our folks need to move themselves out of poverty, out of homelessness, and into security and stability. We know we're not meeting the need for case management. This request will not fulfill all the needs, but will be an important expansion to our work that we are currently doing. Permanent housing navigators, 1,000,000. This would support two FTEs at each community action agency. Permanent housing navigators support clients in reaching their long term housing goals. They help to assess clients' barriers and then work with the clients to overcome the barriers and transition into permanent sustainable housing. Housing navigators help with filling out the applications. We work with them for subs connect to subsidies and supports, federal and state benefit programs, other resources, services, and supports. Very critical. Housing navigators can also help if something happens to jeopardize the client's housing situation. Solving homelessness, an important part that this recognizes is that we must prevent homelessness. We must prevent and have the services and the skills available at our sites in order to prevent these people falling back into homelessness. I think this is a really critical part of the housing navigators and the services that they provide. Which is also a good segue to concrete supports. We are requesting 1,250,000.00 for concrete supports. Imagine food. Imagine fuel. Imagine propane for your camper. Imagine all kinds of different supports and barriers that someone may find that will that why why they will fall in homelessness. First of all, some basics about this funding. It'll be shared among the five community action agencies to provide direct support in times of acute need for individuals and households. While we all receive CSBG funding, which is the most flexible funding that we have, most of us fundraise for this critical flexible funding. I can tell you at Capstone, it's a big part of the fundraising we do is to make sure that we have these flexible supports for people. The need is great. Concrete supports can prevent homelessness by addressing an acute economic barrier before a household reaches a crisis situation. And let me just step back for a minute. And, you know, sometimes it's been really it's always continually surprising to me how $200, $400 can be what people need. That small amount of money can remove a barrier. It's so important with the stringent box around federal and state programs that people don't always fit in that box. And we don't want someone to fall into homelessness because we cannot come up with that 400. I'm going to give you a good example. We had a disabled veteran come to us. This is someone who his wife worked. They lived paycheck to paycheck, but they were doing okay. He was unable to work. Unfortunately, three months prior to when he came to us, his wife had had to take three months off of work through a medical condition. Over that time, they ran up their credit card, you know, their credit card debt, and they were really struggling. And then the worst happens. They got an eviction notice. No fault of their own. They had been living there for a very long time. The landlord just wanted to do something different. What were they going to do? They found an apartment. It was almost a miraculous situation. How could they come up with first month's rent and how could they even physically move? These are older people, disabled. Well, the only thing that we were able to do were to use flexible support. They were not eligible to hop because they're working just a little bit over. Well, we pay for moving expenses and we pay for first month's rent, and they are sustainable. I don't think that we will be talking to that couple again. They are fine. But it's those kinds of situations where you really wanna have that flexible funding. We just had a young woman in Randolph come to us as well. She only had needed $400. She had gone to all the churches. She had gone to all her friends. First and last month's rent, she had a job. She didn't earn much money. And that $400 was the only thing standing between her and sustainability in apartment. I cannot emphasize enough what how important that $400 investment cost.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's perfect idea. That's under prevention and diversion. Something for things just like they're just talking about, Allison. Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you.

[Alison Calderara]: So concrete supports, we can also provide homeless folks with supplies, clothing, hygiene kits, all those other good things. And the other important thing about flexible concrete supports is we can help people get their identity documents, renew their driver's licenses, find their birth certificates. That takes time and money. These are all things that can be renewing a driver's license costs, what, $80? That can be a barrier to someone getting a job. We wanna be sure that we have that money to be able to do that. So that is the basis of our request for concrete supports. The next part of our request is the home voucher program.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanna I just wanna let you know you're coming up on five minutes.

[Alison Calderara]: Okay. Okay. 1,500,000.0 for 212 family households. We serve 373 kids. This program will end in June. It is not funded. So the requested 1,500,000.0 would support the 90 families currently in the program and allow us to offer vouchers up to 45 more families for twenty four months. Again, this this program will end in June. Lastly, the community resource center. This is run by CVOEO. The Community Resource Center is the only low barrier daytime shelter in Burlington. This is an incredibly important hub. It serves over 2,000 people a year. 36,000 meals were provided by CVOEO through separate funding at this hub. It serves an average of 131 people a day, 50% of those guests being strictly unsheltered. It is a vital component of Burlington's healthcare and public safety infrastructure, diverts folks from the emergency room. They have prevented overdoses there. It's an important critical hub for our largest city, and I have visited it. And I can tell you firsthand the importance of this resource to Chittenden County and to the city. And I know that you have two letters of testimony, one of them from the mayor, which you can look at for that as well. They housed a 168 people last year through this community resource center. That is important impact. And last but not least, I will only touch upon the HOP financial assistance. We thank you for supporting our request through the BAA, and I know that there's been many conversations that have been had about this. And we appreciate your consideration of that important service and supports for the folks that we serve. Thank you, Alison. You're welcome.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the community, and I realize this is the CDOEO's program, Community Resource Center, has that been typically funded

[Alison Calderara]: by the Department of Mental Health? I can't answer where that funding comes from, but I do know- It's Department of Mental health. I think it is because they're reporting. It goes to the Department yes. Of The reporting goes to to that because I was looking at some of the stats they have.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I think it's been in one time funding, and they were requesting a DMH for it to be in base, if I'm calling correctly, it was not included.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I have a phone a friend in to the committee next door to see what they're doing about that, if anything. Okay. Questions from other committee members. Go ahead, representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: The home voucher program

[Alison Calderara]: Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Which is can you tell me more about this end date? Is that anticipated? Was there a change in priorities by the states?

[Alison Calderara]: Well, I'm sorry. All I can tell you about that is that I was told by Paul that the program will end June 30.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's time limited funding. Yes. Was a, think of federal funding grant, time limited and grant ends.

[Alison Calderara]: I can have Paul get back to you with the exact details of it. All I know right now is that there's 90 families currently receiving financial assistance. For up to two years, I think. Yes, it goes for up to two years. But because if the funding is not extended, they will lose their funding starting at the June. It's my understanding.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Some of those families have not been in

[Alison Calderara]: for the full time. That's correct. Yeah, that's correct. So this is three seventy three kids that have been served in total through that program, two twelve households.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, we're faced with I I don't see us recommending a bunch of smaller rental assistance programs, which is really what we have on the table right now from the various entities. If we're gonna do rental assistance, a state one rental assistance program, which I think that there's at least some support on this committee for, it it would be combining them all and trying to figure out you know, seems as though priority for people who are currently receiving services up to that maximum of two years. So we do have a proposal from the state housing authority that would look at managing, and they run one for the Department of Mental Health already, looking at an AHS wide

[Alison Calderara]: Vermont based rental assistance program until more HUD vouchers are available. I appreciate that. The only thing that I'm just concerned about making sure that these families are able to stay housed with some sedation.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: Yeah, they don't exit. Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah. Other questions from other committee members. I continue to always be perplexed because I think about case management as a very broad term. And I look at that and then I see permanent housing navigators. Okay, well, that's really case management work from my perspective. That's how I look at it. And so what I really look at and I see a request for three FTEs per agency for case

[Alison Calderara]: is broad based and the other is more narrowly focused. But yes, I

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: would totally agree with you that they are both case management.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then how does concrete supports differ from the flexible funding through the financial assistance through HOP? So through the HOP.

[Alison Calderara]: So what I would say is that there is HOP has strict rules and guidelines. And we often see this in crisis fuel as well. We see this in someone can be just a few dollars over or not come in at the right time. Or there can be other They may not fit in the box, but it's still important for us to be able to serve them. And I look at things like the propane tanks. Is a similar situation that they don't fit in prices fuel guidelines, but we still will provide propane tanks for campers because someone's going to freeze. So people don't always fit in the box that the state gives us. And those client assistance funds are really important. But people are complicated. And it doesn't mean that it's not a good investment by the state and for us as community action agencies to be able to invest that $400, that $1,000. I mean, think of a car repair. Right? So, you know, someone blows their tire and they can't get to work. We're not serving anyone if there's no state program that's going to pay for that if we don't help them with their tire, their work boots. Those kinds of things are really important. So for your concrete supports, you're saying that you don't really have, you just kind of take a look at the need. Well, I can speak for Capstone, and I can tell you that when we use flexible supports, we look at it always, always, always through the lens of sustainability. If we remove this barrier, let's say a $200 barrier, will they move on to sustainability? That for us is a lens in which we look through it. We don't give money if it's just going to be a never ending, if it's not going to help someone move on. That's what we do as community action agencies. We remove barriers. So what I would say to you is it is always through the lens of sustainability. If we remove this, can they move on successfully and lift themselves out of poverty? I think that's a very important point to be made here. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alrighty. Thank you very much, Alison.

[Gail Zatz]: Thank you so

[Alison Calderara]: much. I really appreciate the opportunity to come here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: See Amy come in. Yep. Okay. Morning. Morning. Morning, Connie. I'm just reminding people that you have fifteen minutes, and then we'll allow two to three minutes after that for any questions that committee members may have. So the floor is yours. Go, Paige. Thank you. I submitted two documents

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: that

[Amy Shollenberger]: be referring to. Amy Schollenberger with Action Circles, and I'm not going to list all of the organisations I'm representing right now. Many of my clients are involved in this proposal. Some of them are in the room. So I'd like to first say thank you for the opportunity to testify, and especially thank you to the budget buddies for getting us passed up to this level. Really appreciate it. And I'm here to ask you to support a proposal that's been presented to you for $4,950,000 to support benefit assisters at community providers throughout the state. It's detailed in the handout. I'm going to just give you an overview. The goal here is to ensure the best outcomes for the people of Vermont. And as we know, in Vermont, many of our public services are delivered through community providers. You talk about them endlessly in this community. These service providers are trusted places where our neighbours get the services and supports they need. Whether it's once a year tax assistance at community action agency or AARP, or everyday childcare, or once a week adult daycare, or ongoing help to care for a family member with a disability. In the context of the federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid, we know our state is at risk. This risk is really real. It's hitting us hard. And we are looking at thousands of Vermonters who can lose their benefits that they actually are still eligible for, even with the federal changes. Simply because of confusing requirements, ongoing paperwork, confusing letters in the mail, just the sheer stress of staying on the programmes, not knowing whether they are still eligible, not knowing how to comply with the new regulations. This is the risk. And what we're really concerned about is these folks haven't done anything wrong. The federal government is saying they're still eligible, and yet they may lose their benefits if they don't get this assistance. This proposal that's outlined in the handout I'm sorry. So we have this proposal that's outlined in the handout, and with the funding, the organisations that have come together to build this proposal are committing to training staff and assisting the people that they serve with both Medicaid and SNAP eligibility, enrolment and ongoing requirements. We know that DIVA and Hunger Free Vermont provide the trainings and they both provide ongoing support for the assisters. So DIVA has a program for Medicaid. Hunger Vermont runs the program for the SNAP assisters. So the proposal also includes funding, for instance, for Hunger Free to ensure this training is continued with the capacity that will be needed. It also includes some funding for two eleven to be sure they are connected appropriately and can refer to the organisations who will have the assisters. It includes some funding for the Vermont Language Justice Project so we can ensure that all eligible people understand how to stay connected to their benefits. It also includes the additional match needed for our current SNAP outreach partners so we can continue to draw down those federal funds. So this is moving from to a 50% match requirement for the current federally connected SNAP outreach partners, that funding is included in this request. It's just over 477,000 The funding requested will support at least 74 FTEs, as well as the things needed to support the work, like laptops. I've also submitted a document, it looks like this, that shows the organisations involved, who they serve, and a little bit about what they are thinking about. This effort will not duplicate the 12 positions that is requesting, as I understand it. I know this is a question that has been asked. As I understand it from listening to the testimony and from talking to Diva, those 12 positions have been explained as being needed to deal with the additional paperwork requirements, not to help people with those requirements. So once the people manage to get their paperwork in, those people will be processing that paperwork. It's real, but it's not the same. So what we're really wanting to do is an all in effort in our state to ensure the best possible outcomes for the people and also for our state. Frankly, we can't afford to lose this federal funding that comes through SNAP, that comes through Medicaid. It's a key driver of our economy for our grocers, for our service providers to get reimbursed for the services they provide, and also for the people to be healthy and to live dignified lives. So I really thank you for your consideration. I hope you will support the request for the 4,950,000.00. I'm going to hand it to Connie and then we can answer some questions. Thank you.

[Connie Beal]: Thanks. Thank you, Amy. And thank you, Chair Wood and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Connie Beale. I live in St. Albans, and I lead the Working Bridges program, which is a partnership between United Way of Northwest Vermont and Green Mountain United Way. We work with employers and employees across Northern Vermont to support employee retention advancement and financial stability. Our work, we continue to see the pressure of rising costs on our workforce around food and health care. I think this committee likely knows that food insecurity rates and food prices are high. And what we see with working bridges and serving employees at work is that when employees' budgets tighten, the first thing that employees cut are are groceries and food. It's the easiest thing for for workers to to sort of move around. They skip meals, stretch what little they have, and that and therefore experience the impact of that, which trickles into attendance, productivity, and their ability to to stay at work and be at work. Three squares and Medicaid are essential workforce supports. We see it every day. It helps Vermont families stay fed and healthy. It helps employees employers keep their employees that they rely on. In 2024, 66,500 Vermonters received SNAP, bringing $147,000,000 in federal money into the state. An estimated 84,000 Medicaid enrolled adults in Vermont are working many full time. And we know, as Amy said, programs, these programs strengthen our the foundation of our economy and the workers behind it. Too many eligible Vermonters lose the benefits that they are eligible for, not because they're over income, because they struggle to navigate the process, confusing notices, missing paperwork, limited access to technology, or the tools to do the job. It creates real instability. We also with Working Bridges, we work with employees at work to minimize what we call agency time, which is the requirement to to go into an organization to do the follow-up or to get that help. A lot of our our partners in this proposal are are doing just that. They're minimizing that added work, the the added time they that someone has to take off work or the added time of participating in a program or a benefit to get basic needs. It's where benefit assisters play a really key role. Their trusted bridge, you know, not to overstate the word bridge, working bridges and bridges. But they're the bridge that Vermonters and this and our state systems, really need to help have a smooth application and renewal process. Community organizations like ours really meet people where they're at. We're very we're person centered. We're at work. We're in community, and we see our neighbors and our community members in moments of crisis. We're we walk side by side, help people gather documents, help people understand or interpret notices. We help people to submit complete applications the first time to reduce that kind of churn with paperwork. A great example, I think of of working bridges and how benefit assistance could work and works. A full time manufacturing employee I supported earned a steady wage, had great employer benefits, but because of a difficult separation, they were struggling to afford the basics, Food to bring home to their children. And as a single parent without computer access at their job even and and only having a smartphone. They didn't know that they were even eligible for three squares or Medicaid in that moment. When changes happen, people don't always know who to turn to. So being there and having the training and certification around from hunger free and from the Department for Vermont Health Access, we were able to complete both applications for Medicaid and three squares together during a break at work, minimizing their need for time off and or lost wages. And we were able to connect them with a food pantry by dropping off a food box at their car in the parking lot so that they didn't have to leave work and they had the food they needed that night to bring home. And within just a few weeks, they had the monthly benefits to support them during that transition. We helped them avoid debt. We help them stay healthy. They were able to continue going to work. And we're on-site, and we're trusted so we can keep connecting when things happen and really create an added level of network and support and stability. This, I think, is really at the root of the proposal and the power of benefit assisters who are embedded in community, are trusted, they are local, hyper local, so they can help people navigate the reality of living where they are. They can strengthen our state's capacity because we work deeply in partnership with our state and our team already connects when there are employees who either are slipping through the cracks or need that clarity around a benefit or information. We have trusted relationships with our field service directors. We have connectivity there where there's trust. And I think now more than ever that feels really important for our communities. And I believe change and action even like readiness to change in our lives really sits at the root of building trust and the speed of trust. And Vermonters find trust in their communities with the people who show up side by side even in this room. So on behalf of workers and employers who depend on them, I urge you to support this proposal. I want to answer any of the questions you might have and be as helpful as possible to see how this can complement the systems we have. And in this moment, respond to what we know is is a critical need to strengthen Vermont's economy ultimately. So thank you for your time and and your service to Vermonters.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Connie. I appreciate it. And Amy as well. Okay. So we'll open it up for questions. This is probably the biggest request that we're gonna see. So I think it's important for people to understand that. Go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Always good for a question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, it was good, sometimes too.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: In looking at the chart that you provided with the testimony, it seems like Hunger Free Vermont has had great success in training benefit assisters. And then in the final column next to the numbers, the organizations or the organizations they work with in the regions that they cover. Would I be correctly interpreting that the 800 people trained work within the organizations? I'm interested in that list.

[Amy Shollenberger]: Colm? But I can say that I can, unless Anor knows the answer off the top of her head, I can ask maybe that question. But I think this training that Humble Free provides is open to anyone. I think this list are the current SNAP outreach partners. So other people probably were included in the 800 number, but these are the organizations that have the federal SNAP outreach designation. So these are the groups that would get the additional match money. Yes, people in these organizations were trained, and I think also more people were also trained.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Go ahead, Rep. Simcoe.

[Amy Shollenberger]: Thank you. Thinking about the budget as presented and if we were to do nothing, I guess, or if we were just to pass the budget as is, I think we saw In terms of how many people perhaps would be not I mean, it's hard to predict the future, obviously, but how many people would sort of fall through the cracks as a result of the capacity that's outlined within the governor's proposed budget, so without this piece. I think our preference would be that the administration would be presenting a plan to keep people on their benefits. We don't see that happening, and so we're presenting a plan.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. It's actually a pretty impressive array of different organizations, actually probably more diverse than we normally see coming together coalescing around one proposal. I guess I'm gonna say a shout out to all the community organizations that have worked together to bring this forward. And it crosses from health care on through everything, essentially most everything. So I guess my question is, this additional 74, if we've trained 800 plus people already in how to be a benefit assist or existing people, is this additional 74 staff positions gonna make or break the difference, I guess, in whether people maintain their benefits? I I'll just be honest. I'm not sure we're gonna come up with $5,000,000 to to do this. And I'm just trying to figure out, you know, are there additional ways to train up additional existing people who are out there. I noticed that other than over there under Hunger Free Vermont, the AAAs aren't listed as a separate entity. I don't know if I guess they would get some of these 21 positions that Hunger

[Amy Shollenberger]: Free I think not the AAAs are one of the examples of a SNAP outreach partner that did not also want to commit to Medicaid because of the population that they serve. And so they weren't included in the bigger ask. They're only included in the SNAP outreach match request. Okay. And would that be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the same with designated agencies? I noticed they're kind of a The DAs did not want to be included in this request. So

[Amy Shollenberger]: can I give a little context? Yeah, that would be great. First, I want to say I've worked with a lot of coalitions and over the years, some that have come together very quickly like this. This group of people has been a dream to work with. They have come together with the intention of we need to help people stay connected to their benefits. That's been the sole focus. They've helped each other. The organizations, as you can see, are a wide range of very large, very savvy organizations to very small, I've never asked for money before kind of organizations. They've been supporting each other. I want to shout out Connie, who really provided a lot of support in the coalition to help people figure out how to even build a request like this. So I just want to include that knowledge for you. As far as the training, so these 800 folks that Hunger Free trained were, that's only the Three Squares Vermont SNAP assistance. So it doesn't include any training on the Diva side for the Medicaid. The organisations have a variety of how they're coming into this request. So some of these organisations are already providing some level of this assistance as part of the work that they do, But not necessarily organization wide, not necessarily as like, this is what we're doing, do you need help? More of a one on one, they're encountering someone in a home visit who says, I don't understand the SNAP letter, can you help me understand it? And each organisation would allocate whatever amount of FTE they ask for differently. So it may support several staff people, for instance, who are home visitors, as opposed to one dedicated FTE person. And that depends on how the provider provides services, who they already have on staff. They may train more than one person, but one person might be dedicated to actually helping to process the paperwork. Think Claire Kendall was in here yesterday and mentioned she's already sending staff to training because the parent child centres are all in on this request. And so, yeah, can we scrape by if you're not able to find the money? I think everyone's going to do their best for the people that they serve. And I think, based on the conversations that I heard, this is a real request about what's going to be needed to not even keep every single person connected to their benefits, but to do the best we can possibly do in our state to help stave off the crisis that we're looking at.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Questions from other committee members? Go ahead, representative.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: This may be a little unfair that it's this is a DIVA related question, but you did reference back that the budget includes 12 DIVA positions, which you understand from conversations you've had are not intended to help people process paperwork, but sort of once things are processed, make sure they're through the something seems illogical to me. Do you know why they're adding 12 positions when the concern is that we're gonna have fewer people receiving benefits? So is it changes in how it needs to be processed that they need 12 additional people?

[Amy Shollenberger]: I think it's more frequent. It's more paperless twice a year now frequently. And there's work requirements that are So I can't speak for diva, obviously, but we have shared this with them. I have met with Brendan and walked through the proposal. I did meet with a program person at Veeva prior to building the proposal. And actually, feedback affected how we presented it. So I can only say what I heard in testimony, which they were asked directly next door, Are these outreach positions? And the answer was, These are processing positions. I have heard once or twice they said two might be outreach related.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Have you made this presentation next door to the health care committee? We have. Thank you. And also across the hall. Okay.

[Amy Shollenberger]: All your friends are involved.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Line is spreading the word. Okay, any other questions? Thank you both for being here and for all the work that you and all the rest of the partners have done. We try to assist people in putting forth a plan to, keep people connected to their benefits. You very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

[Amy Shollenberger]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And now we have Alison.

[Alison Calderara]: Welcome. Yeah. Good morning. Good morning.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: Visual, I just connect the line, and I'll share that behind me before I get started here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. And I'm just reminding people that they have fifteen minutes, and we allow another two to three minutes after that for any questions from the committee. Thank you.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: Good morning, Chair Wood and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning about Vermont two eleven's fiscal year 'twenty seven funding. I'm Allison Lavanya, I'm the Executive Director of the United Ways of Vermont and Vermont two eleven.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And the

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: Governor's proposed fiscal year twenty seven budget reduces Vermont two eleven's funding by $332,000 We are requesting sustainable level funding of $1,600,000 consistent with fiscal year twenty sixteen. Last year, thank you to many of you on this committee and other legislators, the legislature invested an additional 3 and $32,000 in Vermont two eleven's base funding to support our full operations. Prior to that investment, Vermont two eleven's base budget amount covered only about 84 percent of the true cost of running our program. The additional $332,000 that was added last year did not represent the cost of our overnight services. It represented the cost of our full operational services. And it brought Vermont two eleven up to its actual full cost for core services. That sustainable funding level allowed us to fill critical call center staffing gaps, maintain backup coverage overnight and on weekends and holidays, implement on call staffing, and maintain our 20 fourseven online database and call center operations, and it allowed us to remain responsive during emergencies. It aligned our funding with the real cost of operating a healthy, responsive two eleven system. Since then, we have continued to analyze our call data and operations closely and look for ways to find efficiencies. We've worked closely with staff and board members and community partners to identify where is the best use of our resources and where do we have the most impact during the highest times of need. Earlier this fall, I reached out to our partners at Economic Services to discuss our contract for the coming year. And during that preliminary conversation, I was informed that the standard business practice from their department would be to level fund contracts and that they also didn't believe there is a need for two eleven services overnight, given that hotels and motels often cannot most of the time cannot take new flights in after 11PM. Given that early conversation and then the conversations we've been having around when is our highest need and when is the best use of our resources, we have identified that demand peaks consistently between 4PM and 10PM, three or 4PM to 10PM every single day. And it drops significantly after 10PM. In recognition of the data and these conversations and knowing that this is a really challenging funding cycle with many critical leading priorities, Vermont's twelve month position this fiscal year was for level funding, not an increase. And our goal is to work within that level amount to adequately staff our busiest times of day during 4PM and 10PM, where we still have occasional struggles with staffing and wait times and callbacks and things like that. So to adequately staff those times of day to reduce those factors and get people help quickly and to be responsive. Additionally, we're working to provide improved ways for people to access accurate information during the overnight hours, such as strengthening our database and phone systems. And in fiscal '27, services will remain available seven days per week, three sixty five days per year, including weekends and holidays, with our searchable database available 20 fourseven. We have capabilities and are working to strengthen our systems so that we can have communication for callers to be connected to 911 or 988 to ensure urgent needs are met during times when our staff are not available. We also see that demand is not static throughout the year, and that's what this graph is showing. It spikes immediately during crises. When the SNAP benefits were threatened in November, our call volumes surged. During extreme cold housing rule changes or natural disasters, our calls increased rapidly. And we anticipate even greater volatility as federal policies and eligibility changes impact Vermonters, as Amy was just referencing in her presentation. And when families and communities and state agencies are under strain, the state often relies on two eleven to absorb that demand and adapt quickly and to divert non emergency calls away from emergency services. This reinforces 211 as the front door to Vermont's Health and Human Services system. And so that's why we are involved in that initiative as well with the benefits of sisters in supporting that ask. I want to also note that we know there the emergency housing programs in flux and there are changes afoot determining to be seen how that will look. There's a proposal to return to daily adverse weather eligibility determinations, I believe in the administration's proposal. And I wanted to just note that that would definitely impact Vermont two eleven. It's very challenging administratively and logistically to manage that when there are daily changes. As you can see, even when there's a change at the March and at the beginning of the winter rules as they're set now, we see an elevated call volume.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Let's

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: see. Whichever scenario ends up falling into place for the emergency housing program, Vermont 201 is certainly a part of that and those changes will impact us. The level of funding that we're requesting is the bare minimum to help us maintain responsiveness to those changes and to the need that we're seeing from the community. At the same time, our technology systems are critically outdated. We're operating on database software that's more than twenty years old and it's losing functionality and limiting our ability to keep pace with national standards. By fully funding our base services, we are able to stabilize operations, which allows us to focus on things like that as well. And also allows us to strengthen data reporting, improve information, and position us to leverage other funding opportunities when they arise. A 332,000 reduction to our base operational level would directly jeopardize our ability to support the emergency housing program to be able to be nimble enough to activate during disasters, to have adequate staffing levels to meet the times when we see the most demand from the community, to respond to policy changes we see coming down the Pike. We're not asking for an increase. We're asking to maintain the level of 1,600,000.0 in fiscal year twenty seven so we can continue connecting Vermonters to help when it matters most.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Rachel, appreciate that. Questions from committee members? I think we might have a slightly, at least I would speak for myself, a slightly different perspective on the increase from last year.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think our advocacy for that increase last year had to do with 20 fourseven coverage. So for me to say it didn't isn't really accurate from the perspective of where our recommendation came from.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: The cost, the amount of money does not equate to what it costs specifically to pay our backup call center for those hours. However, without that funding, overnight hours were in jeopardy. Because when we look at the services we provide and we are trying to look at what do we cut if we don't have adequate funding, that's one of the things that we look at because we don't have the data to suggest that the call volumes are highest during that time. I think that the communication last year was without this level of funding, we may have to lose overnight services. But that doesn't mean that that's what it costs us to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: maintain. I'm not saying there was a one for one correlation between the cost of your contract to the contractor in New Hampshire. I'm just saying that the advocacy from this group was based upon a 20 fourseven, not just funding base operations. I just wanted to be clear about that.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: And the proposal this year is that looking at the data and talking with community partners and seeing where the need is, paying what we do pay for overnight services to an outside call center is not the best use of public resources. Instead, we would rather be adequately staffed during our busiest times so that we can reduce wait time so people aren't so you're not hearing we called 211 when we couldn't get through. We called 211 when we had to be on hold for a long time. We want to be able to be responsive. And we've struggled to maintain adequate staffing levels with the funding that we have. So our proposal is reallocate and better use state funding dollars to make sure that we are responsive and we are meeting the needs that we see during the busiest times.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I see. Yeah, go ahead, Representative.

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: I know that not all the 1.6, I believe, is state funds. There's some federal or is it used as federal match? There is a federal match with the global Medicaid dollars. The other piece is the ability to be we have to have a certain base staffing level in order to be able to be responsive when crises occur. So if there's a natural disaster, if there's another crisis as we anticipate with benefits like SNAP or Medicaid, our call volume spikes and we need to be nimble enough to handle that. And so that's the other way that we envision responsibly using state dollars to make sure that these are where we see the need occurring. We want to be responsive when

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we see need. Thank you. Other questions from committee members? Just, I guess, one other quick follow-up is, I understand there was some, issues with accuracy of information for extreme cold weather shelters that DCF was reporting to us as did those things get worked out? Whatever the communication issues were, are they worked out? We're working with OEO and CF on that issue. The

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: information that we put comes from the emergency cold weather shelter team. And our database reflects what they give us. So we have double and triple checked information that has been sent, there's often a lot of confusion with callers. We don't know sometimes. Callers don't know sometimes. Are they calling 201? Are they calling ESD? And so I don't know. Some of the issues that have been brought to our attention. For example, there was a concern that someone was to someone was calling from Bennington with questions and concerns about emergency cold weather. We had no record of any calls from Bennington the entire weekend. So we don't know where were they calling. Were they actually calling to one-one? Were they trying to reach another number? Were they trying to call the shelter directly? So there are some pieces that we haven't put our finger on as to what actually occurred. But there are a handful of calls or concerns that have come up that we've been working to resolve with them.

[Alison Calderara]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate

[Allison Lavanya (Executive Director, United Ways of Vermont and Vermont 2-1-1)]: the opportunity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Absolutely. Okay, so we're running a little bit behind, but we are going to take a brief break until twenty of