Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Good afternoon, welcome back to House Human Services. Today is Tuesday, March 10, and we are going to pick up H. Six fifty seven, our DCF omnibus bill. And we're going to hear this afternoon from Voice for Vermont's Children Elevate Youth Services and Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union. Oh, and several other witnesses, so I'm not going go through all of them. So I think Michelle, you're up first. Welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you. For the record,

[Michelle Fay]: I'm Michelle Fay, Executive Director of those since Jubilee Mans Children. I know you're familiar with our agency, but I don't think I've met some of you, so it's nice to meet you. And I'm joined remotely by my colleague Kate Bailey, who's our senior policy advocate. She's under the weather today, so she's sparing you from her dress. So I'm going to be speaking on the beach up asset limit, and then Kate will talk about some of the other aspects of the bill. But I want to start by just expressing my appreciation because Voices was involved in reducing the asset limit from actually, yeah, increasing it from 2,000 to 9,000 several years ago. And at that time, we really did advocate for it just to be eliminated. So we're glad to be revisiting that now. Since that are primarily that would reduce barriers, that we're asking folks to be work part of economic self sufficiency and, at the same time, saying you can't save enough money to buy a car with cash, which is something a lot of folks with bad credit have to do. Also, save up enough money for a security deposit, first and last rent, so we exceed that amount. And also just not letting people have an emergency fund. That's good budgeting behavior, so we've to be supporting that. We also heard from partners at PCCs. We've been doing a listening story collection project with families who are receiving reach up. And several of them, A, spoke very highly about their economic services caseworkers, about the support they offered, and said it can be hard to reach them because they are overworked. They are doing an amazing amount of work. And so it feels like streamlining the bureaucratic process and having these caseworkers be able to focus on the support that they're offering Reach Up Families would make a lot of sense. The other thing I wanted to point out is that other programs already have exempted assets from eligibility determination. So it feels like this is a way to align our eligibility rules across programs. Back in 2017, when we looked at this before, JFO ran the numbers and said that there would be no additional cost. The difference between going to 9,000 or 10,000 and just removing the asset limit altogether was negligible. So that's that. The other thing that was not in our original testimony that or in our original request for the legislation was the impact of lump sum payments. When I started thinking about how to really make sure that removing the asset limit actually allowed folks to get in assets, build savings, the lump sum payment policy right now can be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a barrier to that.

[Michelle Fay]: So right now, if you receive a lump sum payment, it's treated as income. And it is basically divided by your benefit. And that's the number of months that you lose eligibility. And so you have to spend it down. There are a lot of exceptions. Want to say there's a lot of carve outs. Again, that just leads to a lot of complexity in the rules. And it creates a situation where reach up, caseworkers are essentially forensic accountants, having to go through line by line and decide which thing can count and which thing doesn't. Across the country, states handle these things differently. And several states across the country now already count lump sums as assets rather than income. And we would recommend a similar change here in Vermont in combination with the elimination of the asset test. Just to summarize the reasons for this, it would reduce disruptions in children's economic security. We know that there's a lot of churn in the reach of caseload when people aren't able to get their materials back in time or they lose eligibility because of earnings or because of lump sum. And so we want kids to have stable household income. It's good for kids, and it's important. It also would allow both families and caseworkers to focus on the real purpose of the project, is economic mobility and asset building. And finally, would incentivize mutual aid and resourcefulness in the face of diminishing state income support. So we have a situation where this committee and House Appropriations would acknowledge the inadequacy of the Reach Up Grant. It hasn't had an increase since 2021. It needs 40% of bare bones survival budget. So we're simultaneously holding its benefits at a really insufficient level and then penalizing families for being resourceful and trying to fill that gap. And that feels very problematic. I just had a couple of quotes to share from the families that we've been talking to through our partnership with the Parent Child Center. These are just a couple that relate to these policy issues, which is the frustration they feel that when they try to save, they lose their benefits. We're barely scraping by. We can't save anything because we'll have our benefits decrease or lose them altogether. One person said it took them five months to save some money to find a vehicle that would fit their whole family. I share this map just to give you some sense of the context that TANF policies vary wildly across the country. But when you look at this, the the green and the light blue states are the green states are states that have no asset limit. The light blue states have an asset limit that's higher than Vermont's right now, and the dark blue are that, at Vermont's level or lower. And then the crosshatching are the states that don't count lump sums as income. So you can see there's sort of a mishmash there. Michelle, there's a question.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Would you rather get through your presentation?

[Michelle Fay]: Oh, no. Jump in. In fact, all I have left is the slide showing our members. Didn't hear you.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: No, that's fine. Just while you're discussing the lump sum, nothing is readily coming to mind. Can you help me envision what types of lump sums might a family or an individual be receiving?

[Michelle Fay]: Yeah, it could be an inheritance. It could be a What's the word? A court pay settlement. Think that's the word. There are a bunch of other lump sums that are exempted depending on when they came in and how they're spent. And if there's someone from GCF, can correct me. But if you sell a car, if you owned a car before you were on Reach Up, those don't count, maybe. Or if you spend it on a new car, this is what I'm saying. It's very Okay. Yeah.

[Favre Ellis]: So what is the lump sum? I don't know what that is.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So

[Michelle Fay]: when their eligibility is being determined for Reach Up, they're looking at income. So they're looking at a job, if you're receiving other kinds of, certain benefits count as income and some don't. And then if you get a nonrecurring payment, so something that you get once or twice a year, your tax refund from the last year, for example, or like I said, a payout, an inheritance or a court settlement, something that just comes once if it's not recurring.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you so much for being here today. I remember when we originally were talking about this, we took testimony from a young person who had $4.00 1 ks, and it was over the amount. They were told to liquidate it down, take the penalty. And then they were asked to start, when they went to the counselor, they said, You should start saving. And I was just wondering how often do you know if that happens or?

[Michelle Fay]: So what I'll say is this, we, in a listening tour that Amy Rose, who worked at Voices before, did this summer, she heard from folks that they were losing eligibility when their self employment income was getting over the 9,000 limit. They they were experiencing a lot of things that actually aren't consistent with what the rules say. So I'm not really sure if this is an issue of the rules not being interpreted consistently across districts, there's some technicality in the way that that four zero one ks, because my understanding is that

[Favre Ellis]: should not count. I don't know.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But maybe that's something changed or something. I just don't remember, because I remember that testimony that they had a savings and they ended up needing supports, were told to draw them down so they could be under the income or under the asset cap. And then they went into the counseling, and they were like, you should save

[Michelle Fay]: Exactly. Your It's just Yeah. So I think that the TANF rules are 92 pages long, and so I do not have them memorized. But I

[Favre Ellis]: will say, I think there are a bunch

[Michelle Fay]: of different carve outs. And a lot of it may depend on how liquid, how hard it is, and what the penalties are for liquidating some things. But if you get rid of the 9,000, then that's

[Kate Bailey]: the average.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions?

[Kate Bailey]: Michelle, if I could just add one quick point to that. I think it's not Can you hear me okay?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes.

[Favre Ellis]: Yes. Great.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Can you just state your name for the record, Kate?

[Kate Bailey]: Yes, I'm Kate Bailey, Senior Policy Advocate at Voices for Vermont's Children. And thank you so much for letting me join virtually today and keeping my germs to myself. So it's not just about when you receive this lump sum being able to spend it down, but the rules as they currently are stated is that there's a right way and a wrong way that you can spend it down. And there's a lot of time and resources gone into figuring out which types of spending down that money will count towards receiving your benefit again, or which will still add to this formula that extends the time that you are no longer eligible for benefits. So for example, there was a client who wanted to pay down credit card debt, and they expressed that this, they worked with the Reach Up beneficiary to go line by line through credit card, their credit card debt statement, and some of the medical debt that was recently incurred would count as part of the spend down to help them get their benefits back, but other credit card debt wouldn't apply. And so they couldn't just, you know, as they wished, bend down their credit card or pay off their credit card debt, but rather had to go through this really specific calculation that took a lot of time and energy, and really took away their own agency to decide how best to use their money and save for their future.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Kate.

[Michelle Fay]: You can proceed. Yeah, think I'm gonna handle Kate for the rest.

[Kate Bailey]: Great. Thanks. Yeah, these are our coalition members in the Reach Up group. And I'm gonna switch over to section three, which talks about the social security benefits for foster youth. So Voices for Vermont's Children is in support of this section, and we really appreciate this overdue correction to this current Vermont practice for Social Security beneficiaries in the foster system. There are currently 28 states and jurisdictions, including Washington DC and the city Of New York, and that list is growing, that have currently outlawed this practice or put in at least some partial reforms in place. Vermont is one of 19 states that are currently considering pending action. So disabled, foster youth and those who have lost a parent have compounded barriers to safety, security, and well-being across the lifespan. They are overrepresented in the foster care system, and they are less likely to experience permanency through unification, through adoption or permanent custody. It's an estimate that about ten to twelve percent of children and youth in the foster care system are eligible to receive some type of social security benefit. The federal law requires that these benefits be used in the child's best interest for unmet needs. It's important to note that not only are these beneficiaries facing compounding barriers, but when they age out of the foster care system, it's estimated about forty percent nationally of disabled young adults in particular, face homelessness within two years of exiting care. So it was also mentioned last week during your first round of testimony that human trafficking is a concern and really promoting financial security for independent youth who have aged out of the system is one of the best ways that we can decrease the risk of human trafficking. So this is a graphic from the Children's Advocacy Institute out of the University of San Diego School of Law that shows how these social security benefits could be applied for these foster youth aging out of care. And research shows that most foster youth would use these funds available to them in the capacity listed here. So that includes housing, food, education, and childcare if they are early parents. Fewer than three percent of this population obtain bachelor's degrees, forty three percent are unemployed by age 21, and seventy one percent of young women in this demographic end up pregnant by age 21. Again, these are national statistics, but there's no reason to think that this wouldn't bear out similarly in Vermont. Okay. So as far as suggestions for some improved language in this section of the current bill. In agreement with the comments that were made previously by the Defender General and the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, we request that section three B be struck as it's currently written, because it still asks these youth with Social Security benefits to pay for their care when other foster youth do not need to pay for their care. Or at least consider more narrowly defining what the funds can be used for by the state, because the current language allows for still quite a bit of wiggle room. If section three B is kept in, we agree with the request to stipulate that there should be explicit shared decision making that is of course, developmentally appropriate, and that notification happen at the earliest possible opportunity. Notification for the child, for legal representatives and family as appropriate. And ideally this notification would come early and often, and at the initial point of eligibility, as well as on an ongoing basis. And not as the current language states, after decisions have already been made on their behalf. Given the historic lack of transparency around this practice, Voices is pleased to see that H657 includes annual accounting language with oversight from multiple entities, including the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocates. Increasing the foster youth awareness of these benefits, and ensuring that there is a transition from care with all of the support and the financial resources that they are entitled to, is just, it's equitable, and it's likely to improve outcomes for this population. It's also important that the screenings be timely, that the referrals to appropriate attorneys and agencies be made, and that the notice come early and often. Is just a copy of the letter that was sent from the top federal child welfare official out to Governor Scott on 12/08/2025, as well as many other states in the country, requesting that the governor issue an immediate executive order to quote, stop the interception of children's survivor benefits and conserve them for the child's unmet needs. This is just reiterating that this is the opposite of equitable for the state to be singling out disabled youth or those who have lost a parent and charge them for their cost of their custodial care, simply because they can without consent or notification. There's a young person who grew up in foster care who summed it up well in a 2021 NPR investigative story that said, it's quote, It's really messed up to steal money from kids who grew up in foster care. We get out and we don't have anything or anybody. This is exactly what survivors benefits are for. So in conclusion, these are the two sections of the bill that we're focused our testimony on today. We're generally supportive of the intent in the remaining sections of the bill, are looking forward to the testimony from our partners and colleagues after us today. And I've included some more information here and in our memo we submitted earlier today, if you would like to know more. Michelle, I'll turn it back over to you if you have any final thoughts. Thank

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: you, Kate. Any questions for Kate?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Great. Thank you both so much

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: for being here. Do you want to take that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I actually do have a question for Kate as I was thinking about it. Hi. It's Theresa Wood speaking. It's sometimes hard to see on the screen who's talking. Thank you. In section three, when you were talking about the elimination of b, that you're suggesting the removal of paragraph b. So I I could be reading this wrong. So I'll ask Legg Council about that when we go to markup. But when it's talking about for the benefits of this child, unmet needs beyond the amount the state is obligated, required or agrees to pay. So that to me, and maybe I am misunderstanding the language, says beyond what the state is already obligated to pay. So not to use it for the things that they're using it for now, essentially, which is to offset their care. So still to the benefit of the child, but not for the state's obligation. So like paying foster care, paying for transportation, or whatever it might be. So I don't see that language maybe in the same way that you do. So could you elaborate a little bit more about your thinking, your feedback about that?

[Kate Bailey]: Sure. Yeah. I appreciate the question. My interpretation and in consultation with the Office of the Child Use and Family Advocate is that the problematic language from my perspective in B as it's currently written, is that the agency and the decision making power is still with the department and not and not with the child as it is developmentally appropriate. So it says here that the- that unmet need is being defined by the state and is not- and is only notifying the child after the decision has already been made. And that seems to be both that there's funds that are still allowing the state to be used out of this benefit, and that the decision making power is not necessarily with the child or in consultation with the family, but still remains with the state only.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So Okay. Thank you. I think that there's a sentence structure issue in the because it says agrees to pay after notifying the child, child's parents. So it actually requires prior notification. It's the way the sentence is structured. So they don't notify after they do it. They only make payment after they've notified the parents, etcetera. So it's not an after the fact kind of thing, but I think that that language is confusing the way it's worded right now. So we'll take that up when we get to a markup. But thank you very much for Yeah. Elaborating on

[Kate Bailey]: Thanks. That's fair.

[Favre Ellis]: Sorry. Thought you

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: were going to take off. Any other questions? Alright, thank you both so much. Next we have the Executive Director for Elevate Youth, Faber Ellis, join next please.

[Favre Ellis]: I'm looking up at the screen.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm behind you this whole time.

[Favre Ellis]: I am home looking. Welcome. You. My name is Favre Ellis. I'm the Executive Director of Elevate Youth Services. And a little background on Elevate is that our main office is in Berlin, and we are the only nonprofit in Washington County who is exclusively devoted to serving teenagers and young adults. We generally serve between the ages of 12 and 24. We have all sorts of support services that I'll get into a little bit. Generally, Elevate supports this bill, the tone of this bill and many of the specifics. One thing that I want to note right off is that when young people under the age of 18 become homeless or run away, They're thrust into an adult world, need to behave like adults are assumed to have the tools that adults have. But people who are 18 can't get IDs or driver's licenses or access healthcare on their own terms. So we're expecting them to behave as adults and get employment and support themselves, but we don't give them the tools to be able to do that. So I'm in full support of 16, 17 year olds having access to things like identification and support services without parental consent. Elevate and other agencies through the state have something called the Basic Center Program, where we're able to house young people under the age of 18 for up to twenty one days. Right now, we need parental consent to be able to do that. The housing of these young people is in community members' homes who have trained to provide this kind of care. We need parental or guardian support to be able to provide that housing. And while that housing is being provided, we're also providing individual and family counseling with the goal of the young people being reunited with their families and not becoming homeless. Again, that requires parental or guardian consent. I would like to say that we have no systems in place for those young people who stay in the shelter homes for up to twenty one days and then aren't able to go back home. There are no shelters in the state that provide safe care for young people. So in the document I shared with you all, I want to stress that we need to, if we're going to put this in place, even if we don't put this in place, we need to provide services and support for folks who are on the streets, who aren't receiving family care to have access to all the care that is available in the state. Any questions about that part?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, and maybe Oops, sorry. I want to make sure committee members saw that Favre's testimony is on our webpage. So if you have questions about what she's referring to, thank you.

[Favre Ellis]: Right, no surprises in my testimony. I just want to mention really quickly on sections thirteen and fourteen.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I do have a question before you move on. So is this kind of language included in any other states' statutes that enable youth to have access to driver's licenses and essentially things that you would, if you're 18,

[Favre Ellis]: would require a parental signature on or guardian. I don't know about every state, but in my former life, I worked in Portland, Oregon, and I know that Oregon and Multnomah County will allow people 18 to have access to getting IDs and making health decisions for themselves. They also provide lots of different kinds of shelter for people who are 18.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Favre Ellis]: My response to sections thirteen and fourteen are easily summed up by just saying, let's not put more barriers in front of young people. Let's create a system of ease and care while we're providing them shelter and services.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm trying to understand this twenty one day period thing. Is that something that is a federal? Is that like a HUD requirement? Or is that some federal rule that we don't that I don't know about? I I just trying

[Favre Ellis]: to figure out because it's very specific time frame. So It's part of the federal contract. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And so are you able to extend that at all, or is that just the maximum that you can do? Is that

[Favre Ellis]: the minimum, the maximum? Is that I'm just trying to That's the maximum that we can provide right now. And also, the families who are providing services are not necessarily licensed as foster parents and haven't signed up to be long term care providers. So it's more like respite sort of. You're not allowed to call it respite.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, would make sense because they don't have a place that they're getting respite from. And

[Favre Ellis]: I want to stress that the primary component of our sheltered parent program is to provide counseling to the family. And so if the family isn't willing to receive counseling or participate, the program is not successful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You're trying to reunite

[Favre Ellis]: the youth with their family. Yes. And set both the youth and the families up with services in the community.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And you make a recommendation about a shelter, age specific shelter. So this question we should probably know, but I don't know off the top of my head. Know that some of our shelters take youth in that sort of transition age, but more adults defined. So are you talking about for youth that are younger than that?

[Favre Ellis]: I am. Elevate has shelters for young people ages 18 to 24. And we also have a program that serves folks who are 18 who are in DCF custody, but there's nothing available for people who are 18 not in DCF custody. And they don't end up in DCF custody for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what reasons? I know that DCF is sometimes at that age, seems it to be, I don't know, more reluctant to enter into that sort of legal relationship. And I don't really know all the reasons for it, but I have encountered that in my professional life in the past. But it's a gap, especially for these unaccompanied youth who don't have the support of families.

[Favre Ellis]: That is often the case. Kids who are approaching 18, it's harder to find appropriate placements for them. Another barrier is that young people maybe have been involved in systems before and are resisting that now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And do you know if any of the family shelters that we have take youth? No. At that age, no.

[Favre Ellis]: In a hotel, still. Right? No. No.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Should

[Favre Ellis]: chime in.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, Joy, I keep getting I was just asking the question, I wasn't sure. So I'll let you follow-up on this and then

[Bob (unidentified staff/witness)]: Yeah, can I just kind of testimony from the side a little bit, just clarify about that twenty one days? That is that is federal statute around a specific grant program. It's not like a federal law that you can only be in shelter for twenty one days. It's the basic center grant that comes through the administration for children and families. That funding currently only allows for twenty one days. Some talk about it, extending it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you for that clarification, Bob.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: On the same topic, so the funding that may be available goes away after twenty one days, and then it seems like gets into a time period that there could be a licensing issue for being a foster parent. But can a youth stay with a community member who has raised their hand after the twenty one days for some period after that? And is there a limit on that before there's okay. I

[Favre Ellis]: want to clarify also that after the twenty one days, the young person is enrolled in all of our services except housing. So they can receive mental health counseling, substance use counseling, support from our statewide agencies for basic needs, but we don't have housing for Go ahead. Rapid study. What is your longest person that has stayed in your facility? What is the longest stay? How many days or months? In this program? In any program. Stage 12 to 24. 12 to 20 That were part of this grant.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Aren't the twenty one days.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That grant you have to get exited on your eighteenth birthday.

[Favre Ellis]: But there's other programs. Yeah. So other programs, what's the longest stay? Right now in our return house program, which is youth in DCF custody, we have someone in there for a year and a half. In our emergency shelter program, the limit is six months, but we've been able to extend for a couple people to nine months. And do they work to help pay their expenses? With the emergency shelter program, a requirement is that they're in school or have a job and they don't need to pay us, but they need to save money so that they can leave to independence. And that's part of their case management plan. Okay. Oh,

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: thought you had your hand up after the call.

[Favre Ellis]: No, no. Was probably

[Michelle Fay]: hair was jiggling my hair,

[Favre Ellis]: so I was trying to get it. Yeah. Well, remember when on and off here, because I tend to do that too. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Especially

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: since you're, how new to the job are you?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I've been in the job for a year

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and a half. Really? Okay. That's all right. Was thinking it was time All for a

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: right. Your

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: first time testifying in our committee. So thank

[Michelle Fay]: you for being here. We need

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: to head out for love. Okay, next we have Tricia Wright.

[Favre Ellis]: Nicole

[Michelle Fay]: is Nicole

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Eversano. Am I saying that right?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You are. Yeah. Great. Well,

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: welcome. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Floor is yours.

[Tricia Wright]: Do we just kind of jump in?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm going state your name for the record and provide your testimony. Do we have your comments on our website? I haven't looked yet. Yes.

[Favre Ellis]: Yes, the floor floor is is yours. Go ahead.

[Tricia Wright]: All right. I'm Tricia Wright. I'm Nicole Aversana. Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity for us to speak. We serve as family engagement specialists at the Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union. I'm currently acting as homeless liaison for our district as well right now. One of our primary roles is to help case manage students and families who qualify under McKinney Vento, and that means they're homeless or have housing instability. Our current numbers right now are over 27 actively enrolled unaccompanied youth within our district. 20 of those students are served at the high school level. And unfortunately, we do have students as young as elementary level that are unaccompanied.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, I don't mean to interrupt, but that's like a shocking statement. So, the elementary school age kids, they don't have DCF involvement at all? At this time. And they're unaccompanied?

[Tricia Wright]: Correct. Not living with their guardian. You know, in that standing pattern of I'm here sometimes, I'm there sometimes because my aunt can take me today, but my uncle might take me tomorrow. Just bouncing and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Between family members and friends. Yeah. Okay.

[Tricia Wright]: Okay. McKinney Vento defines our unaccompanied youth as a child or youth experiencing homelessness who is not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian. For our unaccompanied youth, barriers show up in places most of us never think about. Majorly medical care, accessing medical care, dental care, mental health services, medical insurance, opening a bank account, accessing housing or shelter, obtaining identification cards such as non driver's license or driver's ID or learner's permits or driver's licenses. In Bennington, since we've started, we've developed a collaborative task force to help educate and advocate in hopes to enact some change in our community for this vulnerable population. So then, like our high school kids, securing employment can also become cumbersome when students don't have access to those personal documentation, such as birth certificates or Social Security cards. These documents are required to gain employment in most cases, and students often need them to support themselves. Most of our students are paying for food, transportation, clothing, and even a place to stay. And without the access to these documents, the simple act of trying to work has become more state oh, and become more stable is another barrier placed on them.

[Nicole Aversana]: So I'm gonna read kind of like an impact statement of a student I work with. I work right, like my office is at the high school. So I'm stationed in the high school and I support majority of our unaccompanied youth. With student permission, I'd like to share the story of an unaccompanied youth I support and the systematic barriers that they have faced. If I had to describe the unaccompanied youth that I work with in a single word, it would be resilient. And this student is truly the embodiment of that trait. We first met during the twenty four, twenty five school year after they were referred to me due to their living situation. Having lost their mother, who was their primary caregiver at a young age, the students spent years moving between relatives before landing in a volatile living situation with their father. By age 15, they were frequently kicked out of the house during conflicts, left to figure out on their own where to sleep and how to get to school. Despite these hardships, they continued to show up. They learned to advocate for themselves and built a network of trusted adults who helped them navigate systems that were often inaccessible without a legal guardian. An example of one of these barriers occurred when the student worked incredibly hard to pass their driver's license road test. Before even reaching that moment, they had already navigated the complicated process of enrolling in driver's ed, which is really difficult in Bennington actually, worked with school staff to figure out how to pay for that required course. Which is also a hard task. And secured access to a vehicle to take their road test. After passing, they were issued a temporary paper copy of their license. However, they were never able to receive their actual driver's license because they no longer had access to the required documentation and could not obtain guardian signature. What should have been a proud milestone became a moment of loss for this teenager as their guardian refused to sign the paperwork and provide a copy of their birth certificate. Unfortunately, the student's temporary junior driver's license eventually expired leaving them unable to drive for several months, stripping away independence that they worked so hard to achieve. I'm happy to share however, that the student will soon turn 18 and plans to retake the road test as an adult. Imagine the message this sends to a young person. You can do the work, you can pass the test and you can follow every rule and protocol, but because of a signature from an adult who's not even present in your life, your progress is void. Students like this exist in communities across Vermont. They are capable, they are determined and they are working incredibly hard to build stable futures, but our systems often make that path harder than it needs to be. H657 is about removing unnecessary barriers and ensuring access to basic life necessities for a vulnerable population. Young people experiencing homelessness are already navigating responsibilities far beyond what any child should experience, especially unaccompanied youth navigating a life without the support of a guardian. At the very least, laws should not create additional obstacles for them to move forward and build a stable future. When we pass policies like H657, we are providing access to basic human rights. We are simply making sure that protections are put in place and resiliency is not the only thing unaccompanied youth have to rely on. Thank you guys for your time and consideration.

[Michelle Fay]: Thank you. Questions?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was surprised by the data that you shared early on in your testimony and just your one school district in terms of 27 youth in one school district seems like a lot. And so appreciate the work that you do to really provide some intensive case management supports for those youth. And thank you for the example of the youths. Shows So us in real time some of the decisions that happen that prevent youth from as resilient as they can be. But those kinds of things just knock kids down. And it takes them a long time to recover from it. So I'm just trying to figure out what other systemic barriers that you experience. So we heard the previous witness talking about lack of shelter space for the younger, well, I guess I would call them the tweens, middle school and young high school students in terms of lack of available kind of shelter if they're unaccompanied. What are the other kinds of things that you experience in your work with the youth that you work with?

[Nicole Aversana]: Yeah, it's the same lack of shelter and housing. Don't have any

[Favre Ellis]: of that.

[Nicole Aversana]: We don't have that. You have to be 18 and considered an adult to be able to do any of that. Another huge, huge component is the medical piece and dental care and mental health services. That is huge. That is such a systematic barrier for our students. Like, they can't even call and make an appointment without their guardian making that appointment for them. So that's where we lack major systematic help. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if a youth is, let's just say in one of the temporary spaces that they find themselves in and not with their parent or guardian, if they come down with the flu or something and need to be seen by a doctor, they can't call and make an appointment to go to the doctor essentially.

[Tricia Wright]: No, and I've worked with some who we've gone to urgent care and they can't help them until we get consent from some form of a guardian. And We don't have access to that because a lot of these kids do not have any contact with their guardian.

[Favre Ellis]: Thank you.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: This is slightly off topic, but I'm just interested in the fact that there are family engagement specialists on staff in the supervisory union. That's a very positive thing, but I'm wondering, do you know what the history is of that type of staff position in your school district? How long has that been available to students?

[Tricia Wright]: So this was a grant funded position that came out of COVID. We started in 2020, I think. And it was kind of a, hey,

[Nicole Aversana]: we need help with Getting kids re engaged. Yeah. Families re engaged. And our homeless liaison had a difficult time managing

[Tricia Wright]: the population and helping the needs. So we take that on as well. So that was kind of like one of our first roles is to help navigate the complexities and helping them connect to different service providers.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thanks. I just thought of a question. So since you all have been doing this since 2020, can you talk a little bit about the numbers? And we obviously know that our unhoused population has grown significantly since 2020. I'm wondering just what that increase has looked like since you've had the position.

[Nicole Aversana]: Yeah, so I'm fairly new in my position. I'm a formal special educator. Last year was my first year in the position. I've been in the district for a very long time. And so I know even from last year, our numbers have grown. Trisha's looking them up right now.

[Tricia Wright]: So I don't have access to all data, but starting in 2023, we really started focusing on our homeless and our unaccompanied numbers so that we could apply for more grants. In 2023, we had roughly 130 families that qualified for McKinney Vento, like students that qualified. Of that, the unaccompanied, I will It's only ever increased. Yeah.

[Nicole Aversana]: Probably averaging about 20, I would say.

[Tricia Wright]: Yeah, I think it starts around like 14 and then has I think this year has been our yeah. Between this year and last year, we've been up towards like the middle of the twenties.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Do you have a, you know, like the special coordinators have a statewide organization where people share information. Do you have any such organization where you gather with other people around the state doing your work?

[Nicole Aversana]: We do have an unaccompanied youth task force that meets four times a year. It brings in our community partners. So we have all representation, mental health agencies, yeah, sitting around

[Tricia Wright]: That's the just for Bennington County. Our homeless numbers, we kinda Don't quote me because I'm very new at the homeless liaison. I was kinda just given to it this year, but we sent out our data at the end of the year and I believe it goes somewhere.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm curious about whether that data is included in our, what we call our point in time survey Oh. Homeless Yeah. Of homelessness in the state.

[Tricia Wright]: I know that we work closely with the Coalition for Homelessness.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That HHAB Housing and Homelessness, the upper okay. Yep. So Okay. Well, that's good. I'm glad I mean, I'm glad to hear I'm not glad to know it, but I'm glad to hear that that data from you folks at least is being captured. I don't know if that's happening around the state, but

[Tricia Wright]: We're definitely making sure that we capture it with Roxanne who collects a lot of ours.

[Favre Ellis]: Thank you.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I have one more question, sorry. Do you know if your position exists in all school districts or is it just whoever was able to kind of fund it and continue it?

[Tricia Wright]: I think whoever was able to continue it. We used to be part of like a networking series with the Vermont Agency of Education and that has recently changed as well. So I'm not sure if like a lot of the positions were not adapted into the budgets or I'm not sure.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. That was really helpful and informative. We

[Tricia Wright]: appreciate it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So folks, I think what we're going to Oh, oh, we do, Raffaella. Oh, sorry. Okay. Was ahead of my head.

[Michelle Fay]: I saw Raffaella's name up there

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and I just tore his face for a minute. Raffaella, are you available to let us see you?

[Favre Ellis]: Hello.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hello. Welcome to And the House Human Services you are on the Vermont State Youth Council, as I understand it. That is correct. So thank you for being here.

[Favre Ellis]: Of course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thanks for having me. Are you familiar with the bill that we're talking about?

[Rafael Abadi]: Yes. I am familiar.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So and I see you have testimony that's on our website. So the floor is yours.

[Rafael Abadi]: Okay. Thank you. Well, my name is Rafael Abadi. I am a 17 year old high school junior from Orwell, and I serve on the youth voice committee of the Vermont State Youth Council. I am also a member of the Middlebury Teen Center Incorporated's board of directors, where I work directly with young people navigating instability, family conflict, and housing insecurity. I have seen firsthand the results of unaccompanied youth being denied basic autonomy and what they need to stay safe. And because of that, I am in support of h six five seven, a bill that has been endorsed by the Vermont State Youth Council. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today. So within Vermont, I see many young people are relying on adults who are not present, not supportive, or unsafe. And when youth do not have a stable, reliable caregiver, every barrier becomes life altering. Issues such as accessing medical care, mental health support, or signing a housing document are impossible without a parent or guardian's consent. Young Vermonters will delay care, stay in unsafe situations, or couch surf with adults simply because they lack a legal ability to make decisions for themselves. As you know, Vermont has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country. In 2023, 2000 I mean, sorry, 3,295 Vermonters were experiencing homelessness, and that number has tripled since 2019 and increased nineteen percent in just one year. While the lack of housing affects all ages, youth, especially queer and trans youth, are a significant and often hidden part of that population. H six five seven directly addresses this gap by allowing unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain essential services without parental consent, and I believe that this bill addresses the reality that many Vermont teens are facing. When they are already on their own and facing issues that no teen should have to face alone, our laws should not force young people and young Vermonters to depend on adults who are absent, unsafe, or unwilling to support them. They deserve the dignity of making their own decisions in order to build a life on their own terms. They deserve systems that recognize their reality, not ones that deny them care because an adult from their lives is absent. They deserve the chance to make decisions that protect their well-being rather than being dependent on people who cannot or will not show up for them. From my work within my community, I can tell you that the difference between stability and crisis often comes down to whether a young person can access help at the moment that they need it. Age six five seven gives them that chance. It gives service providers clarity, and it helps youth gain the autonomy that many are already exercising without the legal recognition that keeps them safe. And I will add that allowing unaccompanied youth to obtain a certification without parental or adult consent is an essential amendment to the bill. These young people are already living independently, and therefore, requiring consent from adults who is absent or unwilling to support them is exactly the kind of legal legal trap that this bill is hoping to eliminate. So an amendment granting teens to self certify is practical and necessary. I believe Vermont prides itself on being a state that list ens to and protects its young people, and passing h six five seven is a necessary step towards living up to that value. I urge you to support this bill to ensure that unaccompanied homeless youth are not left navigating adulthood without the rights that they need to survive it. Thank you for your time and continuous work for the betterment of Vermont.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, thank you, Rafaela. I couldn't have said it better. Thank you. And thank you for your engagement in your community and the leadership that you show within your community for your peers and for all of the community members there. And thank you for your testimony here today. Thank you. Are there questions for Raffaella? And it's nice to see, of course, the state youth council was something that was championed by former representative Diane Lamoille, something that she sponsored. And so it's nice to see the connection of something that's come to fruition and to see very engaged youth participating on that council. So thank you so much for being here today. I appreciate it.

[Rafael Abadi]: Well, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Yes, the Vermont State Youth Council is an incredible opportunity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I am gonna ask one question about that because you said that the council endorses six fifty seven. And Yes. So did you folks take a formal vote on that? Did you just have discussion? Was it consensus? How how was that arrived at?

[Rafael Abadi]: Yes. So in our last meeting, it was something that, I'm on the Youth Voice Committee. The Youth Voice Committee, knew about this bill and, proposed, and and we support it as our, council I mean, as our as our committee. And so we the chair of my committee brought it to the full full council, and we did take a vote after having a discussion about the bill. And so we did have a vote, and I believe it was full full consensus, yeas, and so all 27 members are are in support, I believe. And so, yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so we did have a vote. Mhmm. That's great. And that's actually, it's really helpful feedback, you know, for us and for us to be able to comment on when the bill is presented on the floor. I think it's important to hear the voices of young Vermonters, because these things impact you directly. So thank you. Questions for this witness? Nothing from you, Representative Bishop?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Well, there is one thing that

[Favre Ellis]: comes along. I

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: do have one question. You noted that question for an amendment granting teens the ability to self certify as being a practical and necessary step. Was there a discussion at that point in particular among the council members? And if so, was there any discussion about any age cap or limit or age that you had set for that self certification?

[Rafael Abadi]: I don't believe that there was that was brought up in discussion with the full council, but I believe personally, I think that it it kind of goes against what the bill is is trying to do with with removing parental consent. I did notice that it mentioned having an another adult from from the young person's life maybe endorse them, to certify. And I think that that is a great idea having a community member or a teacher, but I know that sometimes youth don't have access to that or don't have a great relationship with, many of the adults in their lives. And so I just I think that to a certain point, I think that that young people are able to self certify. I think probably around the age of 15 or 16 that most that most youth can be granted the right to to self certify.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Favre Ellis]: Yes, of course. Have a question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Raffaella, what would you say to someone who might, let's just say somebody had a question and say, how do youth at that age have the judgment? How do they have the, It's not intellectual. I'm trying to think of the word. Yeah, it's capacity issue. Or really understanding sort of like what the ramifications of making such a certification might be. So in terms of access to other things. My question is, it might seem like a thing that seems desirable at this poem this moment, at this time right now, but do you do you think that youth at that age have the capacity to understand the ramifications of that decision?

[Rafael Abadi]: I would say that young people definitely know that the the situations that they are experiencing. I think that especially for young people who are unaccompanied and homeless youth, I would say that they grow up very quickly in the in the situations that they that they are experiencing, and they have oftentimes had to live quite independently from a very young age. A lot of young people within Middlebury specifically, I know have not had very present adults throughout their life. And so when I the people that I had in mind when I wrote this, I know that they have been experiencing this for most of their lives and are very much to the maturity level of most adults that I know and could and are able to, you know, understand their experiences. I think that within Vermont, and I'm not you know, I I understand that this is sort of a hypothetical question, but I think that a I oftentimes, I see a lot of adults who will kind of, you know, talk down to youth and, or be dismissive of the situations. And I think that this goes for anybody, but people really know their lives and their and their situations and their lived experiences. And I think that that truly speaks to what what h six five seven is is discussing. I think that young people know their lived experiences and know their reality. And so I think that they can once they're granted legally the permissions to speak for themselves within, you know, accessing health care and housing, I think that that is just, you know, respecting the fact that they know their circumstances in life and the hand that they've been dealt.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Any any other questions for this witness? You very much for being here today, and thank you for all the work you're doing in your community.

[Rafael Abadi]: Thank you so much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, folks, so we're a little ahead of schedule. Who knew? So let us take a brief break for about fifteen minutes, so about twenty after or so. And then we're going to come back and we're going to start markup of page six

[Favre Ellis]: fifty seven.