Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Next. Verify. Alright. Good morning. It's Center Health and Welfare. Wednesday, April 15. And this morning we're looking at H938. They really did a very big bill of her lung, which was not. And we're starting out with Diana, her job. Thanks for being here. Thank Appreciate

[Deanna Hertog (Poverty Law Fellow, Vermont Legal Aid)]: your flexibility. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Lyons and members of the committee. My name is Deanna Hertog, and I'm the Poverty Law Fellow at Vermont Legal Aid. I really thank you for the opportunity to testify on H. 38 today. I want to start out by saying Vermont Legal Aid really appreciates all the significant work that's gone into this bill and the legislature's commitment to building a more coordinated and thoughtful response to homelessness. This bill, while imperfect, represents a meaningful improvement over the status quo. We appreciate the legislature's willingness to engage seriously with these complex and difficult issues, and we support continued work on this legislation. We shared some of the concerns that other advocates will testify about today, and those include concerns about the tiered shelter structure, the risk of segregation of people with disabilities, conditioning shelter on treatment, conditioning shelter on participation in treatment, the breadth of the termination provisions, the mischaracterization of permanent supportive housing, and the removal of the category for households experiencing catastrophic loss. We would welcome continued conversations with the committee on all of those issues. But today, I want to focus most of my time on Section 2,215, the appeals section, because we believe it is essential to the integrity of this bill. As the committee heard last week, the agency had proposed striking this entire section, and we are very concerned about that proposal. We acknowledge that even if the appeal section were removed, that some decisions might still technically be appealable under existing law. But removing Section 2,215 would eliminate due process protections that ensure that the system works predictably, transparently, and therapy for everyone, for households, for providers, and for the state. So first, one of the most immediate consequences of removing the appeals section from this bill is that households would lose their ability to remain housed pending appeal. Under the current existing framework, households can ask to be housed while the appeal is pending. A hearing officer then makes a determination based on case specific factors on if the agency is required to keep the household housed during the appeal. This protection is really, really critical. Appeals take time, and if there's a clear error, the household shouldn't be on house for the entirety of the appeal. If section twenty two fifteen is struck, then we'll return to a deeply harmful and cruel reality. If a household is terminated improperly, they end up back on the street before the appeal is resolved. Due process after someone has already lost shelter does not mean equal due process. If this bill is intended to reduce homelessness, which it is, it must not inadvertently increase unsheltered homelessness by eliminating the ability to remain housed during an appeal. Second, the bill has to clearly define how appeals function, especially when community provider play such a central role in the homelessness agency. Community providers are essential partners in the system. They bring expertise, trust, and deep commitment to supporting people experiencing homelessness. For that reason, it's so important that the bill clearly establish where the legal responsibility sits and how disputes are resolved. A potentially workable and collaborative approach would be to provide that when a household seeks to challenge a decision made by a community provider, that grievance is then reviewed by the agency. Then the agency would then either uphold or reverse the action, and the agency's decision, not the provider's, would be appealable to the Human Services Board. This type of structure that I just mentioned preserves the collaborative role of community providers while ensuring that the final determinations rest with the state where legal responsibility proffer legal laws. It also provides a clear, navigable appeals path for households and avoids confusion about roles, process, or order. Third, without a clear and accessible administrative appeals process in statute, the only remaining way to challenge disputed decisions made by community providers is through affirmative civil litigation. And that outcome serves no one well. Litigation is slow, expensive, and highly burdensome, not just for people experiencing homelessness, but also for community providers and potentially for the state. It diverts limited resources away from service delivery. It places strain on already overextended nonprofit organizations, and it introduces delay into situations where time is really critical. An administrative appeals process offers an accessible, efficient alternative. It allows disputes to be resolved quickly and consistently without forcing parties to expend scarce resources off court proceedings. Fourth, fair notice requirements are really essential to due process. Courts have recognized that emergency housing is a protected property interest, and recipients of this benefit must be awarded constitutionally sufficient notice before that house is terminated. Recent litigation, including the Groundworks case that Vermont Legal Aid is a party to, reinforces the need to write these protections directly into statute so that they are consistently applied and understood by everyone in the system. We notice that appeals requirements are left to policy or practice rather than law. They become contested, inconsistently applied, or not provided at all, often already after a reckless bombard has occurred. And finally, I want to express our strong appreciation for the provision requiring the agency to adopt human service board interpretation after after 20 substantially identical decisions. This language addresses a system failure that we saw happen last year when hundreds of households were forced to appeal the same legal issue. Evidently alone, I was helping more than 60 clients with their appeals at one time. We eventually had to decide to only give pro se advice because our organization didn't have the resources to help with hundreds of individual appeals. This provision promotes consistency, fairness, and efficient use of resources, and we strongly urge the committee to do that. So in closing, the appeal section of H nine thirty eight is essential. It assures that this continuum operates fairly, predictably, and constitutionally, and that households are protected from harm once disputes are resolved. We strongly urge the committee to preserve Section 2,215 in full. Thank you again for your time and for your consideration, and we appreciate your work on this legislation, and would welcome the opportunity to continue working with you

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: to approve that. Thank you. So, twenty two-fifteen is But that you look including the timeline.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Sorry. I'm not Including the timeline. The the appeal section which lists out yeah. Do Okay. You have a PowerPoint? Is there a way to send in time to shoot, or do you have it

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: up on your Yeah. You'll just put

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: you join the Zoom. Okay. Sure.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: And did you send this to us also? I see

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: it on. It's Monday evening.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: If if you wanna start by introducing yourself, should we? That's. Morning, madam chair and committee members. My name is Kathleen Burke. I'm the executive director of program state authority.

[Kathleen Berk (Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: Joining me today is Doctor. Ann Cummings, our managing director of housing program administration. Essentially, she oversees all of the rental assistance programs in the

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: most recent time for Wednesday, and fiscal twenty twenty.

[Kathleen Berk (Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: Thank you for the opportunity to come in today and talk to you about H-nine 38. Our comments and testimony are going to be specific to section 11 of the bill, which speaks to the statewide bridge rental assistance program, which we are calling BRAB. Just as soon as Liz can get a connection, presentation gets we will share this video. So so Okay. Okay.

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: For the record, my name is Elizabeth Bateman. I'm the Managing Director of Housing Program Administration at the Vermont State Housing Authority. Thank you again for having us today. As many of you know, the housing crisis in Vermont has really outpaced the federal rental assistance that we've been provided. Only one in four eligible households actually receive the rental assistance that they're so what they need, And the waiting lists have gotten extremely long. So this lack of available federal subsidies is causing bottlenecks in some of the programs that the state already fund, such as the Vermont Rental Subsidy, BIP, even affordable housing development, which really relies on these federal subsidies to make the units affordable for the

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: most vulnerable and low income patients in Vermont.

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: And as you know, the emergency responses are very costly and don't create long term stability, oftentimes re traumatizing families who are already in a precarious situation. We believe this solution is a state funded rental assistance program to bridge the gap for folks who are waiting for a federal rental assistance subsidy, but the time is just not right for them. We historically have been able to offer a move up preference for folks who are receiving time limited rental assistance like VRS, and with our funding situation, we haven't been able to issue new vouchers in almost a year, and we don't anticipate that's gonna change anytime soon. So this program would allow for rental subsidy for folks to stabilize coming out of homelessness while they wait to come up on their regular Section eight. And we know that rental assistance is one of the most effective strategies to prevent homelessness and to keep folks stably housed. It improves stability and also just other outcomes in their lives, health outcomes, and it makes things more efficient. When folks are housed, they can go to work, they can go to school, they can take care of their families a little bit better. Many of the states around us are operating programs like this. They have been for many, many years, just to really supplement their federal funds. And the SHA has been working with the Department of Mental Health on the subsidy plus care program for almost twenty years, and we've developed a great system that relies on the mechanisms that we already have set up across the state for the Section eight voucher program, and it really becomes pretty seamless for

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: the participants and the owners to participate.

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: So again, subsidies not only help the families that we would provide services to, but also affordable housing developers. Oftentimes funding is tied to affordability or serving specific populations, and if developers aren't able to do that, it jeopardizes their funding. Again, like I said, without subsidy, some of these other programs that are time limited become bottlenecks. Folks can't transition from a temporary subsidy or they hit that cliff and adapt back into homelessness, and that's not what any of us want to see. VHIP, which is a great program, it helps owners update their units and make them up to par for subsidy standards. But oftentimes, families aren't able to afford market rates if they're targeted to folks experiencing homelessness and without a subsidy. It's not a realistic match. And again, this would reduce pressures on emergency systems, healthcare systems, all of that. So just looking at a cost analysis, rental assistance is definitely the most cost effective, and I think it's also the most compassionate. It's a way to serve folks and allow them to have their own space. So, these numbers are based on the cost of the subsequence care program that we have with CMH, and so this is assuming that most households have some in general, generally SSI or SSDI. Depending on the population that this program were to serve, those costs are gonna vary. So essentially what we envision is a partnership with the agency Human Services, where they would determine, or the state would determine the target population. We would work together to screen those participants and get them set up with rental assistance and housed anywhere throughout the state. We envision no time limits for this program because the funding at the federal level is so uncertain. We want folks to have enough time, those who need a permanent subsidy, to be able to be served through this program while they wait for a federal voucher to become available. Similar to the Section eight program, folks would pay between 3040% of their income, and then this program would cover the remaining amount up to a payment standard, just like we use with the federal voucher program. And again, this would rely on systems that we already have set up across the state. We have staff that do inspections, that work with local owners and service providers, and so that's already set up, and we'll just be building upon that. And then, of course, we would report back on the success of the program. We really believe we would need a little bit of time to plan and to determine priorities with the set up processes with the state and performance measures so that we're all on the same page of what success looks like. We do think multi year funding would really make this more successful, especially for owner or landlord participation. If they have concerns about the subsidy ending in one or two years, it might make it harder for families to find housing. So we feel really strongly that the time limit would be a barrier to this program being successful. And then down the road, I think this would take time to set up, but there's potential for cost sharing from other agencies or departments. So we recognize that this bill is really about responding to homelessness, and it's sort of housed in DCF and OU's budget. But down the road, we see potential for Department of Mental Health or Dale to of pony up their own fund and broaden this to be an AHS rental assistance program that serves different populations. So again, because of the work that this bill is doing, we envision individuals and families exiting homelessness to be one of the priorities, but also families that are engaged with the child welfare system to support folks exiting hospitals, corrections, or residential care people with disabilities, including developmental and intellectual disabilities households that are already on the voucher waiting list or folks who are receiving time final assistance already. So, the home vouchers, for example. Ultimately, the state would decide to be right. So we believe with a $3,000,000 investment, we can provide twelve months of rental assistance for up to 200 households. Again, depending on the population that's determined to be the priority, the cost will vary. So for families, we would anticipate spending closer to $1,400 per household, where a single, non elderly or disabled person, it's under $1,000 The bottom line is this is a cost effective investment. It stabilizes Vermonters. It reduces reliance on already restrained emergency systems, and it lowers the long term costs, both financially and to the families themselves who are experiencing homelessness. Right. And, yeah, we have limited time, so

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: if you have any questions, yes?

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm Thank you, Benson.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: So mainly section 11, you said?

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: Yes. Yes.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: So there's a under B, program shall be available for the household for not more than twenty four months. Then you want the program to go, what, to 2030? Is that right? It's page 35. It is the independent general assembly that funds are appropriated for the revolver of rental assistance program through fiscal twenty third. Got it. And you're in Okay, so you're not asking for any changes?

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: We would We don't support the twenty four month cut.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: We don't think that that would be

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: successful. For folks who are exiting homelessness, it's generally not enough time to go from not having your own place to being able to afford market rate rents.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Yeah, so the rate is twenty four o'clock to do. Yes,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: that's our recommendation.

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: And there are some families who, that might be plenty of time, but I think, especially if we're targeting the most vulnerable folks, they they may need more time or they need it they need a subsidy permanently if they're from the.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: And you're saying that there's just a constraint on trying to get them read out once the twenty four month is done through the agency of human affairs. Why not do that before?

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: Well, because it wouldn't be enough time generally for them to come up on the regular section eight voucher waiting list. So if you're someone on SSI Yeah. You can't afford rent without some sort of subsidy. So it might be that it's three or four years until your name comes up for a federal voucher that will be permanent. And so we'd like to avoid having someone come from homelessness, be stably housed for two years, and then go back into homelessness while they wait for that

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: federal subsidy. Is there

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: any incentive for them to get off of this program?

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: I guess not, other than I think the part of the plan with this is case management services and support for folks. But I think the reality is some families don't need a subsidy forever.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I understand that, just not there was any incentive.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: And that's where, if I may, think the value of what we refer to as our confed preference is really valuable. So, with the agency of community services, the SHAs administering virtual assistance programs, we can really manage those transitions

[Elizabeth Bateman (Managing Director of Housing Program Administration, Vermont State Housing Authority)]: Thank you very much. You.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: It's on our web page, Grant. Okay. Great.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Thank you. Next up, you have some shots in it.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: To do it dance. I

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: think Alex is now Alex. You're right. Sorry. So that you guys that's okay. It. I'm totally fine. Thanks, Chad.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Alright. I've got some handouts here. Thank you, senator. Thank you, darling. Sorry.

[Alex (Policy Advocate, ACLU of Vermont)]: I'll excuse you. I need to

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: do further. It's okay. Okay.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Thank you so much. Yes. One more?

[Alex (Policy Advocate, ACLU of Vermont)]: Great. We've got another one here. Thank you all so much for the record. My name is Alex. I'm a policy advocate with the ACLU of Vermont. We are an organization that works to protect civil rights and liberties for people across our state, and we serve as the state affiliate to the national ACLU. We focus on homelessness not only because it is such a massive issue based in our state, but because experiencing unsheltered homelessness places the lives and the rights of impacted people at imminent risk. Homelessness has increased over 300% since the pandemic, but now over 4,000 people experiencing homelessness in our state, including over a thousand children. And community based shelter capacity hoppers as to 690 available spaces. We also know that we have the fourth highest rate of homelessness in the country, and for context, we have the second lowest rate in 2017. For these reasons, we are supportive of plans to create a better homelessness response system in Vermont. We know we can do better. What happens in this room will affect the lives of thousands of Vermonters. We believe that the individual rights and liberties of people with disabilities to live in integrated settings and make their own decision about services and treatment are fundamental. You can think of this as the tagline of our concerns. Over fifty percent of people experiencing homelessness in Vermont have a disability of some kind, and sixty two percent of folks in the motels last year have a disability. This is a disability rights issue. Our feedback primarily is based on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Rehabilitation Act, which I will refer to out of the ADA, which connected the anti discrimination policies of the civil rights movement to people with disabilities, enshrining rights to liberty, to bodily autonomy, and the right to live in the community when you are perfectly able to do so, and it is your choice. Our most significant concern with h nine thirty eight is that the tiered shelter system will create segregated settings for people with disabilities, where they will be required to comply with mandatory treatment protocols and services, or face being unsheltered. A system in which people with disabilities have no choice but to enter those kinds of segregated programs is not lawful pursuant to the ADA. We do not believe that this was the intent of the bill. We believe that it may have been an oversight. And I I just wanna paint a little bit more picture here. I just zoom out for a moment. Our comment really applies when you take the bill components as a whole. It's not that we think specialized shelters are bad. Of course, we know that there are really incredible outcomes for family based shelters, for recovery shelters, and that having individual services tailored to an individual's needs is important. It's about choice and placement. Because if a person is placed into a restrictive setting where in order to stay they may have to comply with treatment, it's not so much of a choice to engage with that treatment. The research shows that this is not a good idea. I wanna emphasize this. The language as written appears to force or coerce individuals into treatment if we don't think it was the intent of the bill. We think that the language needs to be refined to promote voluntary engagement with services. For further context, research on the topic of forced treatment for substance use disorder has widely shown that the practice is ineffective and harmful, heavily increasing the risk of overdose upon the end of interventions. Again, a choice between being unsheltered or forced into treatment is no choice at all. Services should be evidence based, readily available, and importantly, voluntary. In sum, our overarching primary comments on the bill ask that it be clarified that services are voluntary, including services for a substance use disorder, mental and physical health conditions, that the bill clarified that continuum eligibility is not conditioned on participation in services, and that participation in services is not required to remain in the full continuum. Then clarifying that people with disabilities have a right to receive services specialized integrated settings if they choose. We have more concerns in the handout that I have offered to you all. I won't have time to cover everything here, but please do reach out if you have any other questions. I just wanted to shift gears and highlight one opportunity for your consideration because it relates to the activities of the bill. In 2025, CMS gave Vermont permission to use federal money to help pay for housing supports for medically vulnerable individuals through a Medicaid waiver amendment. The purpose of this funding is to stabilize people experiencing extreme medical vulnerabilities while unhoused and reduce the strain on our state hospital systems that many people experiencing homelessness rely on for survival. This funding can be used to pay for six months of rental assistance, services, security deposits and other move in expenses, and up to six months of medical respite care in non congregate settings where people are exiting institutional levels of care who still need clinical service beds. Vermont sought this funding, recognizing that rental assistance and respite shelter have been shown to improve health in people experiencing homelessness, and it lowers our health care costs. Our state accepted the waiver authority but never implemented it, and it expires in 2027. But Vermont can still act now. The waiver will allow AHS to bill the previously mentioned services to Medicaid and be reimbursed at 58%. I wanted to highlight this here, just given that some of the proposed activities in the bill may relate to this opportunity. We also know that there are unspent funds from program savings from prior years, and we would recommend that those funds go towards the purpose. So thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Thank you. Questions for me?

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Alex, could you sort of give us a rundown of what exactly are? This is a pretty dense document.

[Alex (Policy Advocate, ACLU of Vermont)]: Let's see if I can hear. Sure. The first section here on disability rights covers everything that I spoke about. The new things that I did reference would be, if you go to page three, due process. We do have concerns around the fraud and misconduct sections of the bill. We believe that the definitions of criminal activity and misconduct are both too broad and vague. Does this pertain to alleged criminal activity? What is the evidentiary standard? Is smoking considered misconduct that endangers the health and safety of others? We think this language needs to be refined a bit. I will also say time limits and capacity. We're in the middle of an escalating homelessness crisis, and we're already leaving thousands of people outside of the equation. You know, we recognize that this bill will shrink the immediate capacity of our shelter system. It's always a concern for ours. We understand that this bill is a negotiation, but it would be remiss for us to not point that out to you all. And prioritization. We recommend that prioritization only apply to hotel and motel usage, and we highly encourage the committee to use prioritization instead of eligibility. We know that many providers in the community will likely not and not be able to serve specific populations over others, and so that's where that recommendation is coming from. One note that I wanna make is that we do have we do like things about the bill too. And in particular, the section related to expressed time limits for life saving circumstances, that is critical. I was at the motels last summer when folks were being unsheltered following the end of the governor's executive order for people with extreme medical vulnerabilities, and what I saw was unimaginable. We were exiting people in wheelchairs, people on oxygen cans, people in active cancer treatment, chronic health conditions, that are fatal. And they were exited without even so much as transportation to where they could go next.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: And so we look at

[Alex (Policy Advocate, ACLU of Vermont)]: that provision and we see the lives of people being saved through that, and so we think it's essential. We do support rental assistance funding, and overall, we support the effort to improve our homelessness response. Thank you. We appreciate the time. Thank you. It's everyone.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Chad Simmons is up next. Thank you, Chad.

[Chad Simmons (Executive Director, Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: Thank you, new committee. For the record, my name is Chad Simmons. I'm the Executive Director of the Housing and Homelessness Alliance, We're a statewide advocacy organization and also the Balance of State Continuous care organization. I am going to support a lot of what's been said already, and agree, our organization agrees with a lot of the comments by advocates made to this point already, what we'll share later. We represent more than 60 health organizations, individuals, and providers from across the state, and we provide both advocacy and state federal advocacy for housing and homelessness, as well as the collaborative applicant for the balance of state for homelessness response funding. Today, what I'd like to do is to share some general oversights, and then we'll provide a much more detailed document with specific section recommendations. But I just want to highlight some of the sections that we support and encourage to continue including in the build, as well as a number of areas where we see opportunities for improvement. A couple of just general observations is that we we really like that and appreciate the work that's done in the house to codify in state statute a state homelessness response. We feel that it's critical that the state move in that direction, and we really appreciate the work you've done already. That said, Senator Morley, I know you had mentioned the previous week around the complexity of what has been laid out at the legislative council ran through it. We would agree with that. Our providers who have been pouring over this legislation over the last several months ultimately feel like the bill as constructed creates too much complexity to be able to operate the services and supports that people experience in homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Finally, we have a couple of recommendations on where and where we can make improvements for this bill. I've included for the committee a full slide deck, which goes through a number of the ways in which we've got to this point. I think as Alex just mentioned, and a number of providers have shared, that we got here not because of personal behavior or bad actions, but that the system has scaled us. And that's the most important thing to think about. We do not have enough housing. We do not have enough housing at the level people can afford, and we do not have accessible housing. That is the most important thing I hope you can take away from this testimony. Ultimately, our mission, our goal is to build a Vermont with a fundamental right of housing, disjointed our own. So I'm gonna skip to the recommendations and observations to fill, but I encourage the committee to look at the other sections of this testimony to be able to look at some of the data and how we've gotten to this point. A lot better, obviously. So what the bill does well, and what we've really appreciated all, after our members took a number of weeks to look over it, again, we really appreciate that this creates a systematic way of addressing homelessness, and it creates intent and purpose, and we feel that's really important to codify that state statutes. And it identifies a number of key priority areas, such as prevention and diversion, case management and housing navigation, a diversity of shelter types, and we feel it's really important to articulate the diversity of shelter types that are needed based on individual and family needs. The Bridge Rental Assistance Program, if you heard earlier, this is critical to ensuring people can afford to be in apartments in that bridge to long term permanent supportive housing. In specific categories of funding expenditures articulated in the bill, we feel that it's really important to actually articulate line item budget and appropriations. And finally, the Fair Housing Appeal, or the Fair Appeals process that was just not mentioned. So, I have just a handful of recommendations to improve the bill. Last night, I had the opportunity to watch the documentary Fault Lines, which looks at the challenges across the country of building affordable housing. And it focuses on a family of one who's experiencing homelessness in San Francisco and the corresponding NINBY, not my backyard, activities that minimize and decrease the amount of affordable housing being built. We are experiencing that in in Vermont, and it's extremely important to understand the correlation between the lack of houses and homelessness. We think it's important to add that into the bill. There needs to be an explicit section calling attention to the aim for the creation of a safe, reliable, accessible, affordable house. Second, we would ask that there are a couple of areas in the intent and purpose section, as well as the definitions, including adding federally, already available federal definitions, including the continuum of care, and build upon and improve those systems rather than creating a parallel state system. As Ben mentioned before, we believe that homelessness is not a linear experience. And therefore we believe that the bill should remove any mention of levels in meeting certain criteria for one level to the next. We ask that to clarify the prevention and diversion section, so that not to see this as a gatekeeping to other types of emergency shelter. Next up, permanent supportive housing, this has been mentioned already, is a federally defined program. And to clarify that this is not an emergency response system or approach, but rather it comes with case management and should be not at time of the day. We asked to dramatically simplify the eligibility and priority requirements as it's stated in the bill currently, and to clarify that they do not be related to certain shelter types. We do this because we feel like it will be more effective and efficient if you just remove the eligibility altogether, or simplify those processes. Next up, we ask to remove or significantly increase the caps. The caps need to be related to people's actual experience, and right now, the caps are not in alignment with what people are actually experiencing in state and the actual need for homelessness response. Next, we wanna clarify the merger of the Continuing to Care, Burlington, and the Ballinas State is encouraged and to be studied. We welcome that conversation, but just to clarify the language in the bill. The final three recommendations are removal making timeline. It needs to be much longer, and the process needs to be much more public and responsive to public comment. The payment rate structure should be studied only and include specific naming specific shelter providers as one of the partner groups to be involved in that study. And finally, the proposed expenditures. We understand this is a negotiation, and we understand there needs to be some limits. However, the proposed expenditures, particularly in the bill, do not adequately meet the need of current homelessness response need, and that budget remains if the budget remains the same, we ask that language in each relevant section to be added to plan for or address the lack of funding and the steps the State will take to be able to address those needs. So, with that, I'll encourage folks to take a look at the longer piece of testimony, which looks at some of the background research and welcome any questions.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: So if you've raised a number of issues in law and and revert a little or 40 about some of the problems in the. And I guess my first question is is did you testify in front of the house? And what was their reaction to some of the questions that you raised here?

[Chad Simmons (Executive Director, Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: We did. We did testify, and we brought all of these issues to to the city. Some of them were met positively and were incorporated into the bill, but we also understand that this is a negotiation with multiple parties, so not all of the things were incorporated. We also understand that the committee ran out of time and not able to fully incorporate all of the testimony feedback. All of those memos and pieces of testimony are both on the committee page as well as on our own website at hhag.org. H h n g.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: The second or third customer talked about the levels. Nobody seems to like the levels. You just want it based on the needs of them. So each person's independent, you look at that individual, and then try to place them that way versus levels. Is that what you're saying, Chittenden?

[Chad Simmons (Executive Director, Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: So there's a couple of things in there. One is we actually like the fact that we're articulating and defining what the shelter types mean. We think that's a good thing to actually name in statute. However, there's there's two there's two issues. One, homelessness does not work alone, meaning, like, people don't enter into homelessness or experience homelessness at step A and then go step B, step C. That's just not how it functions. Second, not every community has all of these So, levels what does that mean? Are we sending people to different parts of the state based on what level might be accessible in one part or the other? We feel it's really complex, and rather than forcing people to go from one step to the other or meet certain eligibility requirements that meet a particular level, just articulate, define the level or the types of shelter. And then based on funding and based on meaning, then encourage people and support people, giving them that charge of time to bring them the you.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: What else?

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I just ask that someone can sit down with me at some point outside of this meeting room, because there's a lot going on in this middle, which is great, but I don't feel like I'm educated Thank you.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Chad Simmons (Executive Director, Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: Thank you, Ginny. Thanks.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Next up, we have Brenda Siegel and then Jenna O'Mearle.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I'm gonna attempt oh, that's.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, Mental Health Services for Vermonters)]: Think if I get to my slides, I'm gonna ask, have asked, I don't know if you wrote that. I've asked for help because I can't manage them with my eyesight. So, good morning for the record. I'm Brenda Siegel, the executive director of Mental Health Services for Vontes. Also will be including a description of our work and a more full set of comments about the bill, but I wanted to just focus on some highlighted things. Just to start, though, we are a lived experience led organization that works for the goal of ending poverty and disability discrimination in Vermont. I am homeless. We provide a data driven safety net to the safety net that is trauma informed and rooted in compassion, empathy, and housing first principles. We have two offices, the Office of Housing and Advocate and the Office of Research and Advocacy. You should have some slides from our most recent phase of our study. We work primarily with people living with disabilities who are experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity. So we work with people who are permanently housed as well. For reference, where I'm coming from in my comments, in 2025, we answered more than 3,000 hotline calls. We responded to hundreds of referrals from providers. We were in front of the Human Services Board more than two fifty times, actually more than 300 times we've since realized, not with separate hearings, but with, that's how many times we were there, and over 100 separate hearings.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: We

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, Mental Health Services for Vermonters)]: supported more than 300 people in assisted living emergency housing, or getting housed, and 500 in going in other capacities, 600 in other capacities, that does make this, and we worked with providers across the state on all of that. We were able to house at point five five to 80 people in complex zoonies. I think that's important. We remain supporting them in permanent supportive housing, scattered site permanent supportive housing, after they are housed. So they're with us from a point of emergency until they don't need us anymore, which often they would contribute to. There are a few areas that I think would be helpful for me to go into more detail for today, and again, including this other chart. As you know, we work primarily with people living with disabilities. We strongly support each and every disability protection named in this bill. Unfortunately, the protections of the American Disabilities Act are often overlooked within our systems by this administration, and just within our systems, and previous administrations. And it is that that leads to many more appeals. It would be a mistake to remove this explicit language. It makes clear these protections in multiple sections throughout the bill. The definition of disability should not change in the bill. I understand that that may be desired by the administration, but it really captures the intent of the ADA, and in our experience, that would be the language necessary to capture the reality of who has impacted experiencing homelessness. Six point one percent of our clients died from September 2024 to September 2025, either outside or within two weeks of a hotel exit, many of those who lost their lives and lived with disabilities wouldn't actually fit in what the administration's proposed definition for disability is. So I think that that's critically important. One's ability to work does not define the risk of their survival or whether or not they will have a catastrophic outcome outside. Medical providers are able right now through a two zero one gsDR, a special form, to verify a disability. It's okay if we're moving on to a different form of verification, but I think it's important. And we strongly support the adequate length of time that the current version of the bill allows to make this verification. Remember that people have to make an appointment with their medical provider. They have to get to the appointment with their medical provider and submit the form, and then the provider has to fill it out. That sometimes takes some time and some conversation for other providers. The disability section is very well thought out, and to remove it or change it would be a failure of our current, would be returned to failure of our current system. I want to say very clearly that it is every place where it says, To the extent of the household's ability, or that that is not related to a disability, or victimization related to abuse, or sexual assault, or stalking, or equitable access. All of those statements are intentional and clear and important. If we are not concerned about having to follow the ADA, then we don't have concerns about this language. One thing that I have learned in this work is that access and disability rights need to be written into every bill, and with the federal landscape as it is, having these protections written in the statute is script one. In light of this, I think it's important to note that in Section 2,211 under Prioritization 2C, that compliance, we've had to the ADA, compliance with the ADA, compliance with Vermont's disability protections and law. Under the current federal administration, spelling out rights in statute language is more important, and I don't think that where historically marginalized people are concerned, the rights and protections are currently fixed. This is also why it's critically important, and we need to be in the disability language protection definition, protection, definitions, and rights throughout the country. Highly vulnerable people will be put at serious treatment towards otherwise. People living with disabilities have endured, at best, not being contemplated thoroughly in this system, and at worst, being overtly discriminated against. This is part of our work. This is part of our work in Vermont, and as we're workers to address this critical issue and create accessible systems. I have to be honest, not that I ever have not, after all the harm that our organization has seen in the last several years, and considering the endless hearings, which I'll get into in one moment, it's disappointing that we would want to remove any of that.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Brenda, I'm just gonna pause for

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: a second. We're supposed to be down with this portion of the meeting. It's okay. So, you keep going, but just Yeah, to give you

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, Mental Health Services for Vermonters)]: I will. And I think the research is hard for me to explain in a short brief time. You can take a look at it. I can explain it separately, or if you want that to do that. I think it would be helpful to your understanding of this issue. Let me go on to the appeals section, because I think that's a really important part of the bill. We have been, as I said, front of the Human Services Board many times, So, I want to just crush the idea that the appeals are somehow frivolous in nature, and also give some context. We have one where they have resolved in our favor every single hearing that we've done in the last year. Every single one, except in cases where people withdrew because they were housed for some other reason. But I would say that's in our favor too. The appeals have been reasonable accommodation appeals, and the department, to its credit, has come up with a system that has worked, and we haven't had to do one of those in quite some time. Act 27 interpretation, which is when the rules were not promulgated, the department was interpreting the law differently than the Human Services Board said to, we had to do There were 300 appeals total done, not all by us, about that issue, and everyone was in the favor of

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: the petitioner.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, Mental Health Services for Vermonters)]: The governor's executive order appealed, we did over 40 of those last spring, and they resolved in our client's favor. I want to just be really clear about that, because in order, we agree that definitions should be clear, but we also agree that there has to be, or we also would argue that there has to be some ability to work together to resolve these issues prior to hearing, and as one person, one very intelligent woman said to me, There's something right about our system, that we are able to go to an appeal and support people through a process so that their needs are met, even if we have to do it that many times. There'll be more in my written testimony about that. The other places where you'll see in my written testimony that are critically important are the fraud section, the misconduct section, and the rulemaking authority. And I think that all three of those are really concerning to me. There's already We need to be clear about the definition of misconduct. There is already a process for fraud to make it more aggressive, and I'd love to talk to any of you offline about that, would be harmed. And the rule making authority is too broad in this, and that's where we've seen some

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: of the harm caused in the future, the past, in the future, as we move forward.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, Mental Health Services for Vermonters)]: In closing, I would say that there are organizations across the state doing this work who are working extremely hard, and this bill has the opportunity to create a more collaborative, more supportive system where the providers are working together with the department, and that's something that we need to see. We need to see an actual shift and change. It can't be that we're going back to the same, and we're concerned that some of the comments that are coming in, not from these, the folks that we've heard today have been great, agree with all of them, but some of the comments coming from the administration are holding onto a system that we don't think is successful. And so we're hoping that we move forward from that. Thank you, and I'm happy to talk about this online.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Have lots of questions you. Are there any questions for right now? Yeah. Okay. We have. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Thank you for your little. Sounds like we could listen to you for about an hour. I'm educated on a lot of things.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: I try to come in a little differently today with education and not so much information about the bill because there were two issues which people don't understand. So,

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: thank you. Yeah, no, go ahead. I haven't seen anything yet, so go ahead.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay. Thanks.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: General Farrell, executive director of Northeast Kingdom Community Action, and I'm here today as a cast of Vermont Community Action Partnership, which consists of SEP, and CBOEOs. Together, we state of Vermont as community action agencies, and we all provide housing services, making some capacity for the others. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Each time at 38 homeless once your class continue on bail. The action agency's been following still closely as it progressed to the house, and we appreciated all the opportunities to offer feedback along the way. We continue our engagement as we work to finish the bill for this committee. I'd like to share some overall positive things we see as well as some strong concerns. I've submitted a longer document that has more specific suggestions for different sections

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: of the bill.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: On the positive side, this bill clarifies what Vermont identifies as housing services and creates a vision for formal statewide continuum that utilizes prevention support, sheltering, and housing, rather than fragmented programs. We support the bill's efforts to create housing pathways that recognize no single approach can meet the diverse needs of individuals and families. The inclusion of shelters, permanent supportive housing, rapid housing, shared housing, other models are essential to a response system. I have a question. Is it a continuum or a program? We've got a series of programs that are linked to data. Regarding terminology, OPALO refers to both the continuum and the program, at times using those terms interchangeably. We believe these are distinct concepts. Continuum suggests a coordinated services of, a coordinated system of services and supports, while program implies more discreet defined interventions. As written, the inconsistency creates confusion. We respectfully request clarification in the bill. Should this be understood as a continuum of services or programs? In that same vein, the bill describes homeless services as a linear continuum, which you've already heard about from CHAF. In that practice, the system does not function in a strictly linear way. It is most effective when it offers multiple pathways and entry points allowing individuals and family to move towards stable housing that reflect their unique circumstances. Emergency shelters play a critical role as a safety net. They provide immediate stabilization in catching people at times of crisis. Well functioning system requires a range of these safety nets along with coordinated supports that help move people move forward. We strongly agree that the most effective approach includes robust investments in prevention and diversion strategies, helping people avoid and bring homelessness whenever possible. At the same time, ensuring a full range of options for being available is essential to achieving the best outcomes for all individuals and families. Our primary concern is that, as written, the bill is likely to increase unsheltered homelessness in the near term. We don't have enough other alternatives. The most acute pressure is unsheltered homelessness. This represents the most resource intensive point along the continuum, and requires significant expansion of the state's sheltering capacity to effectively respond. Communities such as Burlington are already at or beyond capacity. Motels currently serve as critical safety valve and in many cases are a more cost effective option than a shelter. When used strategically, it can save lives and reduce overall system response. This is particularly true for single adults with high medical vulnerability, which you just heard from Brenda, who often have limited access to other pathways. The combination of hotel tabs and a limit on shelter code or a hotel stay will result in more individuals being forced outside at a time that unsheltered homelessness is already too high in the moment. Our community action shelters and community resource centers are experiencing this strain per stand. While the bill emphasizes cost containment and a reduction in hotel use, it risks shifting costs to more expensive emergency response models, such as increased emergency room rehabilitation and greater involvement for law enforcement during crisis situations. Absent a fully funded resource housing continuum, these impacts will not be absorbed by the system. It will be borne at the community level where providers, municipalities, and first responders are already at capacity. Further, don't see anything in the bill that would guarantee geographic equity services and funding, and also the issues the bill is trying to address are passing issues. Nothing in the bill increases the passing across the state. Second concern, community providers and adequate funding. If the intent of the bill is to allow the state to contract with community providers in a flexible manner to enable organizations at the community level to determine the most effective ways to meet both the requirements of the bill and the need for the people we serve, the NAB approach has the potential to be very powerful. We believe that is the intent, and we would appreciate clarifying language to make that explicit. We also appreciate the bill's recognition of the need for dedicated investment in case management as navigational. It is critical that this focus remains. However, we're concerned that the current appropriation is not sufficient to meet the requirement that all individuals seeking services could even be assigned a case manager. We strongly support Rental Assistance and Bridge program, which provides a direct pathway to homelessness department's presence, ensuring that individuals who are ready to transition have access to this funding is essential to system flow and long term stability. We also are supportive of increased accountability and data reporting for community providers, particularly tracking long term outcomes, such as return to homelessness and overall system accountability. At the same time, we wanna acknowledge that these requirements will increase administrative and operational costs for us as community providers, which are not currently in common form filled. There's also important implementation questions that remain. For example, what happens when an individual or household completes a needs assessment, but there isn't any services or housing available? Will they still receive case management? Do we keep waiting lists? What are the expectations for individuals who are unsheltered but have engaged in an assessment process? Ultimately, the bill will define the role of community partners within system. We appreciate the strong emphasis on prevention and diversion. As community action agencies, we know that upstream investments significantly reduce crisis and lower long term costs, let's say, a month. Finally, we support the requirement for a minimum of two year contracts for community providers. This will promote staff stability, strength, and long term planning, and ultimately provide the quality and consistency of services for the individuals and the families we serve in our communities. In closing, I wanna draw your attention for a longer document that has been submitted with specific suggestions for certain sections of the bill. Jenny, you spoke really fast. I tried. That was great. Okay. Sorry.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: No, it's okay. We've heard multiple times, so we, yeah, it's good, and we can have your testimony, so thank you. Any questions?

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I'd like to

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: talk to you.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: I'd like to talk to you. Yeah. Great. Awesome.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. And I

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: guess that's a wrap on age nine thirty eight of us.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Think that's part of your comments. Yes. So we're still live. Maybe we

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: could close with the I'm

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: leaving.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So my.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: I have the.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just trying to.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Want us to have a discussion on the committee on the or how would you like us to be able to list on? No. I just right now,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I'll just want you to read it, and then we can I'll take your blessing to give it to Oh, they're not extra copy. There is an extra copy. Yes. Okay. So just so it could be a blank. ADM, and all of us here to answer your questions as well. That's such are the priorities that we talk about. First primary care and it's more specific because it says how we are going to support primary care through member the month management payments. It's a continuation of the payments that are currently available and it's for one year to get over what we called the half year. Then right. Second part of that part, be just all they plug in their paychecks providers. Priority two was to take away the recommended increases of Medicaid copays, which are the recommended co pays, much higher than what we see in states or non illsense. And then priority three was the misuse prevention of the special fund Canadian and Ginny Lyons. If that Special Fund prescription goes in the budget, it's session one. So it doesn't go into Katie wants have some language and some form that we could probably add it into 1866.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: You could put permanent statute into the budget if you wanted to, but you can also do it through June. We

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: could do it. Alright, so that is the memo. Thank you, Chair Lyons. Are we good with the dental rental? It's primary care. Yep. And Medicaid. Okay.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: K. We're good.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That's what she have. Show of hands. I mean,

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: it's it's it's hard because there's so much need. You know? But sure. I think primary care can hopefully

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: help people to meet, yeah. An upstream intervention. And some of people will it. We're gonna see more and more specialist director co seers practices where people are left out and we're going to see multiple practices drop in with the. Yeah. You

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: wanna show? Yes. I think it's

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: because And we had a discussion about that. They don't recall how significant were to.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Right now, they have $1 or $3, both pays, and up to $4. And remember that Medicaid patients are frequently with income or very limited. So the choice would be paying for their medications or Yeah.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Senator Morley, you sent a

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: memo for budget on your desk. Oh. And we're doing a strong. Let's see if you supported those three priorities.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Do we?

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: I do. I don't know about you. I can't speak for you.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: So, those the three priorities that

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: we have. Primary care, continuing their payment per member per month for one year, and also to fully fund that loan repayment program.

[Chad Simmons (Executive Director, Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: And

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: then the second one was the Medicaid co pays restricting people's access. And then the last one, what I said before you come in, we'll have language that will either put in the budget or in age six sixty that would totally place this form in a description of the form that was used in statutes so that people aren't waiting for everything that they do.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Do you remember the numbers associated with these? For which? Remember, for months. That was a study for the most part. Oops, as I recall, I'm just going to remember it here.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It is. I'll be talking like appropriations about how to find the money and how

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: to Yeah.

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. Yeah. For the record, whole angle of this plot. So what the administration had proposed, eliminating the per member per month that's being paid through the ACO. Forget off top flat debt. Maybe it's $5,000,000 Get

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: off from

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: top flat debt. Well, it's up there. Sorry. And that's gross as well as next up. AHAT was next door. Some of

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: the Ahat money, right, includes?

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Ahat is two pieces, there's 500, three pieces of music, 500 for admin, 50 for pipeline, and then 67 ks for lower payment. That's all the purpose. But that's

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: what the governor proposed eliminating. And approximately the Medicaid one wasn't a med, I think it's like 500,000, sorry, about 400 something. It's

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: million. About a million gross. So it's like 4 something. It's over 61 on general

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: General fund. Fund. You're Yep.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: I don't have a problem with

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay. Good. Well, the discussion will be where our I I haven't asked I'm not going to ask for additional funds. For An appointment. More revenue. I am looking at how we can juggle what's currently in the budget. They're in laws that K. I've already made some suggestions that I would take the operations committee and see where we're going. Great. Wonderful. Thank you. Now I'm going to serve you.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: You're good. I hope you feel better, Jane.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I hope you have a. Okay.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Then I I do need to pop upstairs briefly at 11:30, so just giving you guys a heads up on that. 11:30. Okay.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: But it's actually. Okay.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: We'll take a break. Yeah.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: We could just break or depending on what's happening on that diet. The class you go. Just need. But

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I think she'll be able to do it right now. I'll let you get it.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Okay, let's see what we can do. So, we're on age six sixty. Okay, so

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: let me pull up the draft. So we have

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: a new version of six sixty changes highlighted in yellow. To refresh your memory, this is the opioid favored special fund appropriations, though. So in section one, we have the list of fiscal year twenty seven appropriations from the special fund. A change here that was requested by the Department of Health in the as passed House version. This subdivision six was divided into subparts A and B, and they recommended compressing that all into one subdivision. So, the money that was separate in A and B has all been combined, that's 1,200,000.0 for recovery residents' beds. The next change is $800,000 for the Department of Health for distribution to recovery centers.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It's here also the same. Yep. There sure is. Thank you.

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So I'll make sure I get it.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: And then Subdivision 15. Research changes.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Subdivision 15 was requested by the Department of Health, which is 287,000 to DPS to provide funding for expanding the Public Safety Enhancing Teens Farm Reduction and Strategic Community Intervention efforts. And that's it for fiscal year twenty seven appropriations. We have this subsection two that is amending wording on an appropriation from a previous act. No changes there. In section three, this is the language about the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee, and there haven't been any changes there since we last looked at the bill. Section four. There have been changes here. In the house version, there is a paragraph a, a subsection a, and a subsection b. This draft deletes subsection a, and instead, this subsection b becomes the only section in the bill. Let me tell you what subsection a said. Subsection a required that by December 1, the Department of Health was to review all previous appropriations from the special funds and make recommendations to the advisory committee and the policy committees regarding which appropriations could be funded in future years by the Substance Use Prevention Special Fund. So the proposal from the health department is to remove that paragraph. And then you have this what happened be here with some changes recommended by the department. This would read that the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee shall not accept funding proposals from the special fund for fiscal year twenty eight, unless a proposal previously received funding from the special fund. And instead shall review the outcomes of programs and initiatives previously funded through the special fund assess effectiveness, long term sustainability, the appropriateness of the Special Fund as providing a funding source where applicable. New language from the Health Department. If funds are available after making fiscal year twenty eight appropriations recommendations for previously funded programs and initiatives, the advisory committee shall identify specific areas of focus that shall make funding recommendations within those areas based on needs assessments and statewide data rather than requesting new proposals.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: So combined four and five and made some changes?

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Combined four and five.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. When I looked at so section four and five here, but this was procreation review, and then it was reversion. And now we've got, oh, see, six is reversions. So,

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: in that as past house version, you're looking at section four, and what is eliminated is subsection Okay. Which required the department to permit any previous appropriations from the Special Fund Kamado Substance Use Use Prevention instead. So that requirement is gone.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: And then,

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: there's language that the chair just referenced, and that's in regard to the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund. And so the change, so the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund is in statute, and this elaborates a bit about how the fund can be used. So the prevention special fund is established and managed by the Department of Health for the purpose of funding substance misuse prevention programming, including school based prevention programming, And then striking through this language because it's duplicative. So, in statute right now, says 30% of revenues raised by cannabis excise tax, not to exceed 10,000,000 for fiscal year, shall be deposited into this fund for substance misuse prevention costs. So you can see how that is duplicative to what would be added in subsection A. Section six has been renumbered, that's the reversion since Section seven, renumbered effective date.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So then the changes. One

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: of the issues I hear often is that invoices take time to be paid, and there's often a lag between when an invoice is sent in to the agency for the bill and what actually happens. Is there any basis, though, to come to help the agency?

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Questions for the federal? I think the

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: last person to answer this or no one's the best person to answer this, but just going back to the chart, I can give you those. Think Herbert revised language. There were six programs that were being funded. We got seven new programs that aren't up again. So going forward, we could be having 12 programs that would be.

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Mostly correct. So this is, I think, the third or fourth year. There have been a lot of programs that have been funded. It's only recommended that six programs get continued funding. There's lots of programs that are not getting recommendations for funding, they're adding those new ones. That there was only six, now we're adding six forward. Was really proposing six forward. One of those that was previously funded for the health department proposed putting into place, which the House concurred with, that the idea is that if these programs are successful, you move them out of the special fund and become an ongoing program. So it's a combination of that and then programs that, to Senator Gulick's point, still have money that haven't been fully expended, so they didn't propose money again because there's still money that hasn't been spent because of the contracts that are just getting out the door. Then there's some programs that don't need the money, they're done. And there's some programs that they just decided weren't working, right? So it's a combination of whole bunch of stuff. Over the years, there's been multiple and multiple, multiple programs that have to come down. That's helps.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: It helps. It's just trying to interpret what it says. We're not gonna be adding new programs necessarily here at all. So what are we pumping into the future and what's included, what's not included? Right. It's kind of difficult to get your head around.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Well, then whatever is funded into the future, it is going to end because this fund is actually going to end. Someday. Someday. But there

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: is more fighting that's gonna be coming in. Some of it's been built in the base.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: So, The appropriation diary over there. Thanks, Katie. Any other questions? Next up, we have H657. And actually various programming and requirements within the tribe of children and families.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: So, here it is, page six fifty seven. This is in the bus. It started by taking a number of DCF related bills off the wall in human services. And so, you'll see that there are a number of different topics covered, all related to DCFs, the jurisdiction in the individuals that are in their care. What else should I tell you about this? We have, oh, I'm just gonna

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: have a

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: dead battery.

[Alex (Policy Advocate, ACLU of Vermont)]: You need your cord. Here's the cord.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Oh, wait. I don't think this is on my phone. It could be.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That's fine. Yep. There you go.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Okay. It's.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: I think it might be. Sorry.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Well, I feel better now. Thank you.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I always like to help me when we start into a village. What's the problem we're trying to solve so we understand why did we have this in front of us?

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Well, it's a bill with lots of different topics, so I would say that there are probably lots of problems that the committee was trying So, to

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: it's a miscellaneous

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: I can, so there's a Reach Up aspect of the bill. Reach Up is the TANF program for the state, and it reduces asset limits. So the problem that you're trying to solve, or the human services was trying to solve, was, I would say, out a way for low income people to build up savings for something like a deposit or car. There is a social security program for youth in DCF custody. I did not draft that section, And I think it's much better if you hear from the attorney who did draft it. So I'm not gonna cover sections two and three today. There is a section about certifying runaway or unaccompanied And it allows unaccompanied youth, I shouldn't say runaway, unaccompanied youth. And it specifies who these are that we're talking about, but it also allows, if they are certified, allows them to obtain certain benefits that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to receive or services that they couldn't ordinarily receive without parental permission, like obtaining a driver to learner's permit is an example. So, we'll look at that section. After that section, there are a number of conforming changes and other sections to that unaccompanied youth section. So, I'll walk you through those. A lot of them have to do with the learner's permit and the driver's license and the motorcycle license. So, we'll go through that. Then we have a series of sections about the transport of children in DCF custody and appropriate use of restraint on those children, whether when chat rules could be used. There is a section on seclusion and restraint of children within DCF custody. Some conforming reporting requirements, problem trying to be solved there, and the state having some authority, or the legislature having some authority and say over what the appropriate type of restraint is on children in certain circumstances. There is a work group at the very end in response to the pregnancy surveillance calendar that DCF had been, or maybe still is, keeping and looking for alternative solutions. So problem there was that there was some discomfort by members of the legislature with that practice and looking for a new solution. So there's no one problem that's trying to be solved. Common

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: thread is children.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Families and children, DCF. Yeah. Okay. So let's look at the language. So, we have section one. This is the Reach Up section of the build. As I said, Reach Up is Vermont's TANF program, and currently there is an asset limit that families really can't build up their savings past in excess of $9,000 So this removes that limit for the purpose of determining eligibility and allows a build up of assets for families receiving Santa. It's just a straight through. And we have this sentence. The department shall not impose an asset limit for the purpose of initial and continuing eligibility for the Reach Up program. So this was done,

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: if I walk behind those, I had to call back when I was here. We looked at trying to get people to save somebody. I didn't even talk about a cell phone. I mean, literally. Well, you stayed off, correct me if I'm wrong, you stayed off the benefits. You were able to save money, then up to a certain limit, and then they cut you off as far as the savings portion.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Yeah, if you exceeded that that amount of assets, then you'd no longer be eligible for

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: the This is same, I think. You're still eligible for TANF. You can continue to save and save and save and save and and save.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: You would be able to fill up your assets. Yeah, without.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: That's another great thing. Great. Everything

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I know and the benefits are great. How do you save, I guess, in this you can figure out how to save money on Tandem benefits with more power to you. And, yeah, the 9,000 big down payment was hard, but it's not gonna get you anywhere.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I was thinking maybe raising it a little bit.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Instead of making it a limited.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: I mean, maybe you put in a parent of maybe

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: $20,000 or $100,000 and put it in your savings. I think savings is fine. It it would be something like an inheritance when you get the water.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Yeah. Thank you, senator. We're going to keep going.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Okay. Sections two and three are the social security benefits for youth and foster care. So I'll happily let you hear from my colleague to walk you through that section, two sections. Section four, this is the unaccompanied youth to obtain services without parental consent. This legislative intent section was added in the House as it started moving from the committees to clarify in what instances this practice would be used and who exactly do you mean when we say unaccompanied youth. So in instances in which severe family dysfunction such as abuse, neglect, child abandonment, or lack of financial support has left a youth who is 16 or 17 years of age homeless and other support such as foster care are deemed inappropriate, it is the intent of the General Assembly to provide an unaccompanied youth with the resources necessary to obtain services and benefits that the unaccompanied youth's peers can obtain with the consent of a parent or guardian. Then we have some definitions. Whoops. Homeless child or youth means an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including a child or youth sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, a similar reason, a child or youth living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to lack of alternative adequate accommodations, child or youth living in emergency or transitional shelters, abandoned in hospitals, child or youth living in primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used for regular sleeping accommodation for teenagers. Living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings, or migratory child who qualifies as homeless because the child is living in circumstances described in subdivision

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Probably that so I I just encourage you to read that language. That doesn't say the child isn't with their parents. Just says they're living in day of the campground or they're living in and then take the parental control away from the parents because the child is living in a campground with their parents. That's what we're intending.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. Keep interrupting. So you have to

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: read two definitions together. So homeless child or youth is the definition that we just looked at. And then the subdivision three, unaccompanied youth, means a homeless child or youth.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: You have to pull the two together.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Who's 16 or 17 years of age who's not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Got it.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Thank you. I know. That's a little tricky. So

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: if you've left something out, that's good. You won't qualify. I mean, the trouble with giving long lists is it implies that if we miss something, if somebody wants to say no, they can't, wonders if there isn't like, to be not living in something designated for occupation, be occupied by human beings kind of sense that oh, and it's not starting to be. Right? Yeah. Some people do live in Cape Frights. It's true. Right?

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: All of a sudden. Yeah. Go to Florida, and then start full time home, right?

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: K. So you could add

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: a catch all, although e is very broad, so maybe that is our control. So c is the certification process. So an unaccompanied youth may become certified if the youth is found by a school district homeless liaison or other appropriate staff person to be an unaccompanied youth, or believed to qualify as an unaccompanied youth by the director of an emergency shelter program funded by the state, the director of a runaway or homeless youth program funded by US Department of Health and Human Services, or TUD, or designee, a Continuum of Care Lead Agency, or designee, a Chief Juvenile Defender, or designee, the Vermont Network Against Domestic or Sexual Violence, or designee. So those are the people who could certify that the individuals and unaccompanied youth. We have proof of certification. It says Elevate Youth Services Vermont Coalition of Runaway Homeless Services is to develop a standardized form that shall be used by the entity specified in subsection C of this section to certify qualifying unaccompanied use. The front of the forum shall include the circumstances that qualify the use, the date he was certified, the name, title, and signature of the certifying individual, and confirmation that the certifying individual from the certifying individual that the individual has completed a human trafficking training in the past two years. This section shall be reproduced in its entirety on the back of the board. That means is that the youth has this certified form and not everyone who the youth presents the form to is going to know what it means. So the statute itself has to be printed on the back of the form so that the person receiving it has the information about what the form does. The department is to post the certification form and information about this section on its website, including who is eligible for certification and which individuals and entities speak to the certification form pursuant to the extension. And then we have a list of what the form can be used for. So without the consent of a parent or guardian, certified unaccompanied youth may use the completed form two.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Peggy, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. This is a very sad this is all very sad, actually. I'm talking about this, but I well, is this form correct? I'm hoping it's gonna be online The teenagers I know are much more likely to have their twelves on a piece of paper. I really Oh,

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: that the completed form could be electronic? Yeah.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I would say. You better walk around with a piece of paper.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: It's

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: then you'll have to carry it on.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It probably should be a photo of the kidnapping. Otherwise, could trade it off, see your potties.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Thank you. Okay. So this is a list of what you can use the form for. To apply at no charge for a non driver identification card, a learner's permit or an operator's license or operator's privilege card, to obtain a vital event certificate at no charge, to consent to care by a healthcare professional licensed or certified in Vermont, including medical care, dental care, mental health services, including psychological counseling and treatment, psychiatric treatment and substance use prevention and treatment services, and surgical diagnosis and treatment, including medical diagnosis and treatment, such as preventative care and care provided in a healthcare facility. Or the youth themself or the youth's child, if the certified accompanied youth is unmarried, is the parent of the child and has actual custody of the child. In subdivision d, enter into a contract for housing or obtain admission to a shelter or transitional housing. Use the form to obtain employment pursuant to title 21, to purchase an automobile and obtain automobile liability policy, to apply for a student loan, to obtain admission to high school or post secondary school, and participate in school activities, including extracurricular activities and field trips, to open an account at a state or federally chartered bank or credit union, to receive services for victims of domestic or sexual violence as appropriate. So that's what the form should be used for. Then subsection E, a healthcare professional shall accept the completed form as proof of the youth's status as a certified unaccompanied youth. Entities that provide housing, services, and benefits authorized under this section may keep a copy of the form or card in the youth's medical file. Then we have this language, an F about consent to a parent or guardian. So a certification issued pursuant to the language we just looked at is to authorize the unaccompanied youth to obtain benefits for services listed in D. A person, provider, or healthcare professional shall not require consent of a parent or guardian as a condition of providing a benefit in D. And then for the purposes of implementing the subdivision D21 or I, which is the opening of bank account, the commissioner of financial regulations shall ensure at minimum use certification requirements are met for the purpose of making it legally permissible for a bank, credit union, or insurance company to contract with the unaccompanied youth without a parent or guardian, and with understanding that the unaccompanied youth may not have a permanent physical address. In subsection g, immunity for liability, any entity, provider, or healthcare professional? Sorry. I have a big thing across my screen.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Oh. Velocity there for the

[Chad Simmons (Executive Director, Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: Did you

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: print the one I no. That's okay.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: That's what I was told.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That because the booklet's all under that.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: That's it. Yeah. Okay. So there is an error in that version because of the order that the amendments occurred on the floor. So I have produced this version draft 1.1 that fixes the timing error. That is the only prob that's the only problem with So once we get through the next section or two, we should be This captures what the intent of the order of the amendments was.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: So we have unity for liability. Any entity provider or healthcare professional who relies in good faith on a certification form presented by a person who claims to be certified the company views pursuant to this section shall be immune from liability for such reliance unless the entity provider or healthcare professional acts with gross negligence. So this is pretty much saying if you're relying on this form in good faith, then you're immune from liability. And then language that nothing in this section shall be construed as altering an existing compact, or the interstate compact for juveniles that Vermont is part of. So that's it for that section. And then page 11, section 4A. There is language and statute that the judiciary team made me aware of as Human Services was working on this, that said the person commits a crime of unlawfully sheltering or eating a runaway child, if the person knowingly shelters the child, intentionally helps, aids, helps, or assists the child to become a runaway, etcetera. So there is some thought that because one of the authorized activities was to provide shelter, allow a child to consent to shelter or obtain housing, that there would be a conflict. So there's a little bit of a carve out in C1 that says exempt from the prohibitions of this section, you jump down to three, a person providing assistance pursuant to the section we just looked at. And then there is a catch by the judiciary committee as they were reviewing this, that we don't want to exempt anyone who is knowingly taking, enticing, or harboring a runaway child with the intent of committing a criminal act. So, these parameters were put in that the exemptions only apply to B1 and B2.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I was on tributionary when with this heat up dream, there were walk houses. There were places that were deliberately sheltering brought me by chance.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Yeah. So this kind of oversight had been on the books for a long time, so this will hopefully tighten that piece up. And then as I said, there's a series of sections now that are conforming conforming sections with the unaccompanied youth allowances with the certificate. So first, there's a section on vital event certificates, And this says, the state registrar shall waive the fee for certified copies of a vital event certificate issued to an unaccompanied who has the certificate. That birth certificate, I think would

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: be That's it.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Well, it could be a death certificate, it could be a marriage license.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Okay.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Yep, I guess it would be a birth certificate to get a driver's license or something. Section six is the non driver identification card, and scroll down Subdivision 3. The commissioner shall require a fee of $29 at the time of application for this card, except an initial non driver charge shall be issued at no charge to added to that list, and unaccompanied youth with the certificate. Same thing for the licensed and privileged cards. Subdivision e one, an unaccompanied youth who has obtained a certificate shall be provided with an operator's license or operator privilege card at no charge. No additional fees from motorcycle endorsement. Yeah. Oh, we're on the I'm sorry. 14. Nope. Section

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: e. Sorry.

[Alex (Policy Advocate, ACLU of Vermont)]: I'm moving fast.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: The middle of the quarantine is the

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: new Yep. Learner's permit? Yep.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Okay. So again, kind of conforming concept here. The commissioner shall require payment of a fee of $24 at the time the application is made, except that no fee shall be charged for an unaccompanied youth who has obtained that certificate. Same thing here. The fee of $11 except for an unaccompanied youth who has that certificate. That's for the motorcycle. Three, motorcycles learner permit. Same language, doesn't the fee, $24 fee doesn't apply to the unaccompanied youth. D 1, $24 fee doesn't apply for the learners format. I'm on section nine. So you can follow along with your other page numbers. Got it? Okay. So we're changing topics now. So that wraps up everything on the unaccompanied youth. And now we're changing gears to look at language about transportation of a child. So, the next few sections are pretty dense. So, we have a series of definitions. These definitions, you have a lot of cross references, so we will see those definitions in a later section. But we have a definition of least restrictive, mechanical restraint, physical restraint. Secure transport means transport in a vehicle with disabled internal controls for rear door handles and window switches requiring the driver to open them from the outside or with a safety partition installed to separate the driver from the passenger compartment. Secure transport includes any vehicle being driven by a law enforcement officer. We'll look at the definition of self restraints elsewhere. Weigh shackles means a mechanical restraint device, typically a chain used around the waist to which the child's wrist may be chained or tugged. K. So this we're making amendments to existing law. So in subsection b, this is amending existing law. The commissioner for children and families shall ensure that all reasonable and appropriate measures consistent with public safety are made to transport or escort a child subject to this chapter in a manner that current law is reasonably avoids that says prevents physical and psychological trauma, respects the privacy of the child, and represents the least restrictive means necessary for the safety of the child. Subsection c, the commissioner for children and families shall have the authority to designate the professional or law enforcement officers transporting children and shall authorize the method of transport. A contract for transportation services shall include the requirement, shall include the requirements of this section. Transportation services with non contracted law enforcement officers shall only be authorized in emergency situations or by court order. That brings us to D. The commissioner is to provide educational materials complying with this section that outline the legal requirements for the secure transportation of children to individuals designated pursuant to C, and shall obtain verification that all designated individuals have reviewed the educational materials. In subsection E, secure transport shall only be used when the department determines and documents why it is necessary to prevent the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others based upon an individualized risk assessment. And F, it is the policy of the state that mechanical restraints are not routinely used on children subject to this chapter unless dictate that such methods are necessary, existing law. New language. Soft restraints shall be the first option for a restraint, and other mechanical restraints shall not be utilized as a substitute for soft restraints if the soft restraints are deemed adequate for safety. Subsection G, an entity contracted pursuant to C shall provide documentation to DCF for the use of restraints when. The entity believes that the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others requires the use of soft restraints before or during the transport, including a description as to why less restrictive interventions could not reasonably be attempted, or why the attempted use of less restrictive interventions was unsuccessful. When the entity believes the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others was such that soft restraints were not adequate for safety, we shall include a description as to which restraint was used and why soft restraints were deemed inadequate for preventing risk of harm, serious physical harm to the child or others, or the use of way shackles was determined to be the sole means of preventing serious physical harm to the child or others, and shall include a description as to why way shackles were the sole means of preventing the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Did it say did it the, I think it was soft restraints?

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: They were all cross referenced in another section that we haven't got to yet. No. So No. That's okay. I know. It's important for understanding this section and the other section, so we'll spend some time looking at those. And subsection h, documentation for the use of restraints, excuse me, shall be completed prior to transport unless circumstances that require their use occur during the course of the transport, in which case the documentation can occur after the fact. In subsection I, the use of waste shackles shall be prohibited on children 12 years of age or younger. The use of waste shackles on children 13 years of age or older shall be assessed and determined to be the sole means of preventing serious physical harm to the child or others, and documented accordingly. Only designated law enforcement agencies shall use waste shackles on a child transported pursuant to the section. The commissioner is to ensure supervisory review by the department of all documentation required by this section. Then we have an annual reporting requirement in subsection K. Annually by January 15, DCF is to submit a written report to the policy committees, the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate, addressing the number of secure transports of children during the previous year, including for those transported with restraints, the age, gender, and racial background of the children transported, the number of children transported using mechanical restraints, whether the transport was conducted by law enforcement or a private agency, when applicable, the type of mechanical restraint, the type of custody children were in when transport occurred, and the purpose of the transport. And in Subdivision 2, once the department has upgraded its technological capacity in a manner that enables it to collect responsive data, information specific to subdivisions B, C, E, and F above that I just went over shall be collected and included in the annual report with regard to all secure transports. So right now, that data isn't necessarily available. Subsection L, annually by January 15, the Department of State's Attorney and Sheriffs shall submit a written report to the Policy Committee's Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate addressing the number of court ordered transports of minors conducted by the state transport deputies, including date of birth of the transported minors, whether restraint was used during transport, if restraint was used, the type of restraint, and whether the minor's case was a delinquency, useful offender, criminal proceeding, and the purpose of transport. And the two different reporting criteria, my understanding is that the way that the different agencies collect the data is different. So it's meant to reflect their current practice of how they collect data and what categories of data they collect. Okay. Section 10.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: These charts, since we're having to end at 11:30 today, wonder if we could do the breastfeed. We go pretty high level so that we could hear from the film.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Definitely. John is here to do sections two and three, but we've already kind of moved past that. Is it Do you think that it's better for him to come back another day since we still have I

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: think so. Is that okay? Is that okay? I love that. Thank you. Goodbye. I'm sorry

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: to ask one question. Yes. The Department of Corrections, the state, Any chance to find the experience with that?

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: I'm not always in the room. Well, you have a message. Oh, yeah, you're still here. Sorry, I missed that question.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Well, just wondered whether I

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: they had make it on some of this or

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: don't believe so. My understanding is this this part where on the transportation You're on the Yeah. This is Wasn't that because it's not like a DCF estimate? Yeah. But it's not so much like judiciary. More we had like the state's attorneys I'm trying to remember. We've had full, like, related bills. Yeah. Me We're gonna look at our I bet. So let's just go ahead and pull up bills. She's already doing now. Yeah. Okay. I was gonna pull that up too. Yeah. Okay. Section 10, this is a report on the restraint of children during transport. So this is a one time report coming in December from DCF. Two policy committees, topics include contracting with law enforcement, departmental oversight and supervisory review of secure transport, mechanisms used by the department to collect and review data on the application of mechanical restraints, materials and requirements for designated contractors, written policies to effectuate the law, other information the department deems relevant. So that's a one time reporting. Section 11 is a use of force policy. This is tasking the criminal justice council in consultation with various other entities to conduct a review to determine whether it is the use of force policy, whether its use of force policy should include an appendix to adequately address the transportation by law enforcement of children 18 years of age that is in alignment with the public policy considerations for transport of children in the statute that we just looked after. Okay. So that was all transport. Changing topics again. Section 12 is non transport related restraint and seclusion. Here's your definitions. Most of the definitions in the last section were cross referenced to this section. So, when you're asking about mechanical restraint, soft restraint, those are listed here. You want me to move faster, Okay. So I will spend time And subsection B, this specifies that the department is not to use or authorize prone restraints, mechanical restraints, chemical restraints, or searches on a child. In subsection c, seclusion and physical restraint shall not be used for punishment, disciplinary purposes, the protection of property, or any other reason other than as a safety measure of last resort, prevent serious and immediate risks of harm to child, child or others. In subsection D, a staff member shall use other restrictive interventions unless less restrictive interventions have failed or would be ineffective at stopping imminent danger. Subsection E, after attempting to use less restrictive interventions, a staff member trained in accordance with the rule may physically restrain a child or place the child in seclusion after the member first takes these three steps: determining if the behavior poses a serious and immediate risk or harm, conducts physical restraint or seclusion in a manner that respects privacy and limits physical and psychological trauma. After the initial intervention, the individual explains to the child the reasons for the restraint and informs them of the circumstances that allow release. In subsection F, if the child is placed in restraint or seclusion, the child is to be released immediately when there's no longer that risk of harm. Subsection G, restraint or seclusion lasting more than ten minutes requires supervisory approval and oversight. If it lasts more than thirty minutes, it requires clinical and administrative consultation, approval, and oversight. The child shall not be held for more than one hour in restraint or seclusion without an in person assessment by the clinician and authorization by the administrator on duty. The child in seclusion shall be provided constant uninterrupted supervision by staff. Subsection H, nothing in this section shall be construed to include a locked bedroom during regular sleeping hours at a secure residence as seclusion, conflict with any law providing greater additional protections to the minor. Subsection I, notice of the use of one of these techniques while the child is in the department's custody, goes to the department, the child's parent or guardian, guardian ad litem, child's attorney if applicable within twenty four hours. Subsection J, program or staff member who's using one of these text techniques is to document and provide a copy of each reported use of seclusion or restraint, including a copy of audio or visual recording to the commissioner. Upon request, audio or video shall be provided by a secure means of transmission blurring other children to protect their identity if they're not in the custody of the department. And the department is to include a description of the child specific behaviors that justify that intervention. The department is to complete documentation, forward the documentation to the child youth and family advocate. Subsection K, department is to collect the following data on the use of seclusion and physical restraint by placement type, program name, age, gender, racial background of the child, and it will include specific types of seclusion and restraint used, length of time that the child was secluded or restrained. Subsection L, prior to contracting with any program for the care of a child in the Department of Custody, the Department has to conduct a review of any records from the prior five years regarding the safety of children in that program's care, including any violations of licensing status, etcetera. In Subdivision L2, the department shall remove any child from risk of harm and initiate a search for alternative providers if an out of state residential provider is determined to be in violation of the standards of the contract with regard to licensing and exclusion. Sorry, restraint and seclusion. Subsection A child detained in secure residential program may be restrained with mechanical restraints for a momentary initial hold to enable the relocation of the child to a less restrictive method of intervention if necessitated to prevent serious immediate risk of harm. Procedures and standards established in another section include notice and reporting. And also notwithstanding B, B was sort of the blanket statement. We can't use these restraints. A child detained in a secure residential program may be subject to a strip search if a path search has led to probable cause to believe that the child has possession of contraband that poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the child or others, and the child has voluntarily returned to, has refused to voluntarily turn over the contraband. The child is given an opportunity first to relinquish the contraband, suspected contraband, whereupon the search is discontinued. Notice and reporting shall be the same for seclusion and restraint. Body cavity searches shall not be permitted under any circumstances. Subsection O, the department is to post on the family division's scorecard online or other prominent location the rates of restraint and seclusion used by children and its programs. In subsection P, this is a rule making provision. The department is to develop and adopt rules in consultation with stakeholders, including requirements for staff training, supervisory oversight, record keeping reporting, oversight responsibilities, any other necessary standards. Section 13 amends a section we just looked at in the previous section at a later date. So this is amending subsection L of the section we just looked at, but a few years later. So it's adding this subdivision two that says when contracting with an out of state program, the department shall include a requirement for the program adhere to the provisions of this section. Okay, section 14 has a report about children in correctional facilities. So by January 1 this coming year, DCF and Corrections will participate in written report for the policy committees regarding use of restraint and seclusion on minors in DOC facilities and potential means of reducing physical and psychological trauma and restraint. In preparing the required report, the department shall consult with the work group composed of lots of stakeholders. I will read them all to you in the interest of time. Members of the work group are not participating in their professional capacity, get

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: a per diem in compensation. That

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: brings us to section 15, proposal to extend supports for children over 17 years of age. By November, DCF is to submit a written report in consultation with the judicial branch policy, with the judicial branch to the policy committees, with recommendations for a court oversight process that meets federal requirements to allow access to federal funds for programs that may support youth up to 21 years of age, and that ensures sustainable use of judicial resources. The report shall include any recommendations for legislative action. Last substantive section, I think, section 16. This is the prenatal engagement and family support working group. This creates a working group with a purpose of examining DCF's current practice of using pregnancy calendar to monitor and track certain pregnant individuals in Vermont and provide recommendations on alternatives to a pregnancy calendar and ways to support pregnant individuals in need of services. B lists the membership of this group. C has the powers and duties of this group, which is essentially the purpose of the group. Assistance for DCF report November to policy committees, specifications about meetings and selecting a chair, what constitutes a quorum, compensation and reimbursement for members who are not otherwise operating in their professional capacity. And then we have effective dates that are tiered. We have a number of provisions taking effect on passage, Section nine and section 12, which are the secure transport and seclusion and restraint, are 01/01/2027. Sections two and three, which are the sections you didn't hear today, 07/01/2027. Section 13, which is that one piece that takes effect to a later date, that later date is 07/01/2028. All remaining sections take effect July 1. Yeah. I think we're gonna hold our questions maybe for next time, just because we're running out of time and we have to finish

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: early today. Apologies, everyone. We have no one left. Do you wanna hear from Yeah.

[Katie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Deputy Commissioner? And

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: we can hear from you next time. Exactly. Yeah, so that would be great if we could hear from the Deputy Commissioner and the Director of Communications and Staff.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Sure. You

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: have no chairs there. I can say thank you. That's okay. Thank you so much. Sure.

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: Hi, everyone. I'm Ann Cummings. I'm the director of communications and legislative affairs for DCFNV Services. I know you just had your offer, but you have a lot there to take in. So I'm not sure if have any specific questions for me at all. Lot of little questions, so I think that, I don't know, gave the day, but one of the things I had asked, I had written down in my most part here was just thinking about the transport of children and then the restraints and so on and so forth, and this is such a delicate matter, right? Talking about a strict search of a child, which I know is not done unless there are certain conditions, but is it in statute or is it standard practice for you to be an advocate along with that child in rhythm when this happens, just as an example. Generally, there would be a worker in or they wouldn't be involved with just law and stuff. I'm not certain for the pediatrician. I will say that's very rare. The valid third is only the most serious of times and settings if there's immediate harm to that child or youth or to another child or youth. So I will say it's very clear and my understanding, I defer to Tyler Allen's expertise, who manages our part of our work and it's really just quite the expert on those topics. I went for to him and recommend the committee that he comes in as well, and if there's more of a need for the nitty gritty information on that. But it is never just one individual in room along with the child, and that's great. Thank you.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: How many cases are we talking about in here this morning? That.

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: Okay. Oh, it's a transport I'll have to get back you.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: No, not

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: a lot of them. Definitely not for secure transport at all. The vast majority of our transports are, you know, casings or workers taking kids back and forth to schools or doctor's appointments, where there's no type of Right. Secure transport.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: And then there is some training in ERA for that, and it really doesn't say if you have to do it annually or what, but it's after you you know, so the consultation of stakeholders are going into the section, including the partners of staff training, standards for supervisory oversight, charter keeping, as well as record keeping, reporting by residential programs oversight and responsiveness the department. There'll be more work and more training. If you're not doing it that often, don't know how often are you going to train?

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: I still think, even though it's true it's not going to be done often, I think given the serious nature of any time you need to have a child restrained, you should have regular training so that it's done with you.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Thanks. So just in your observation, what's written here and what you see in actual practice. Is this really codifying what's actually done currently, or are you seeing things

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: It's actually here. It's very much aligned with what's in here, and the entire effort a lot with the committee to get on what the actual practice is. Only area where we can diverge is where the part of the building where they want these types of restrictions to be placed on out of state residential facilities, that is probably the problem because we already have difficulty finding out of state facilities for our kids. We don't have no mechanism to actually have force

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: in response.

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: The state. Then that might cause such a little extra that we're able to actually have our kids when we need to go out and save, have the appropriate facilities. So that was something we did. We did not. It's a big client.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It's I a big

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: mean, child that would generally, if this child is having a situation with autism, I'm thinking that's not the way he would feel to address. This is usually for kids that's maybe do not just as related. I can't say he's not. But we really do take an approach that takes a look at the child holistically, Other ways to handle the situation. That's what we're asking. Some of the most part, right, testimony I've heard from these parents.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Primarily adolescent males, because of their autism can't be compressed and they have reached a physical size where they're dangerous. And having these kids taken out, either strapped to a stretcher or in handcuffs, and I think it was the out of state placement because we don't have an in state place.

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: And it's and it's pretty much. And I think it does turn on safety to the youth and safety to others too. So if there is a situation where that is at play, Law enforcement officers are running for an invasion. But it's really, that's the the least that's the farthest down. Why don't the other question was around the certificate? I was it's not specified here if it has to be, like, hard copy, paper copy, they can be on a

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: phone or I think it be a photograph of a cert a certificate. This is another.

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I can chime in on that. I don't know if that would be something that's established in the making or that different process. We, as family services, are not made as a certifying entity. That was a purposeful choice. We recognize that when there is overlap with our department, that potentially takes away what I assume as the committee's intent behind allowing those young folks to have some independence and be able to navigate their circumstances in a way without system involvement. Yeah. I do know that the Department of Health was interested in speaking to some of the vital document or the vital records areas. It's been a chicken and egg effect that they've brought to our attention, so they may be interested in coming in

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: and speaking to that topic as well. Great. Just to clarify, we're talking about on the transport and the housing is only when the child is in the Department of Children and Families trust Yeah. Right about outside that that puts words in your mouth, which I don't really wanna do. But the real concern you have, if I heard you correctly, it's not that we're in your way here in Vermont, but when we have the sent the child out of state that we wanna make sure it's in statutes to protect that community. It's been well, what

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: we wanna make sure is that the statute that would be governing the children of Vermont isn't extended out to having us be necessary so we can only contract the people that follow this law because we don't have necessary legal teeth to make sure they're actually.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That's what they're There's very few Okay. There's still time to reset. Nobody wants. They didn't fall in their neighbor, but

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: words still need to be wrestling with. Yeah. Absolutely. It's such a big problem. So I'm just trying to make sure I understand what we're

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: trying to rocking a hard place.

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: In exact Yes. It is. I'm sure the other pressing I

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: don't see the hair.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: K. You're you're okay with the bill

[Ann Cummings (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services Division)]: in general? In general, yes. But that part definitely can be And then there's some issues about Social Security that we did want to talk about and to talk about it now. I haven't even gone through that section. We're gonna get job fledged counsel to go through that. So maybe another day to I'd be able look at it. Yeah. Okay. You wanna give us a brief flag? I guess. That's what they're showing. I'll share it. The issue for us with Social Security is we've been looking and trying to not have survivors benefits, and SSI benefits. We use those directly to care for the child as residents. We don't pool them with other children's benefits. What comes in from a transfer is directly for their child's care. At this point, we are not using the Social Security benefits. It's an $812,000,000 budget deficit we need be fined to build. So we are interested in not using these benefits, but we want to do it in a way that's deliberate and sort of takes into account that we can't be with all in one fell swoop and actually manage our flesh at the same time. We've been looking at perhaps doing the age related, where we start with 17 year olds, because those are the kids that can rate it takes about a year. It might be nice for them to have a next stage, or even a percentage for over a span of five years, where you would take them with not having any Social Security benefits, but we're dealing with gradually. And then there's the issue of their Social Security, their survivors' benefits, their SSI. And in this bill, they combine the two. But they're really two separate different programs that are administered differently. And to have us try to not untangle the two of them makes the most additional administrative burden on this. And when you're thinking about the Feds, you've suggested that states stop doing this practice, the Feds are only looking at SSI. This is sort of combined with chief, which would be even more a request to be the greater the health of Feds, like a lot of them suggest. Absolutely. If you'd be able to put all of your wonderful ideas and thoughts into your documents and it to the co host of police and have that would be great. We can actually mark it up to sort of talk about how Robert's suggesting. We absolutely agree that the funds should be passed on to the kids. We just want to do it in a way that's responsive and effective. Yeah. Okay. So did also submit a memo with a lot of this just a high level overview of all of the topics that we would like to discuss with

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: you all in charge of talking about.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: I believe that was submitted earlier this week, late last week. I'm not quite sure when it actually got to you all, but that does give a high level overview of our thoughts on the specific topics as well. It went out on the thirteenth. Thirteenth. Thank you, Grace. Alright. We'll make sure you're posted. And I know that Deputy Commissioner Gray is, I think, on the line with us. We are out of time, unfortunately. We had to shuffle some things due to illness and could be happy back at another time.

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: Absolutely, yes, happy to come back when it works for you.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Wonderful. Well, thanks everybody for being here today. Thank you for your time. If you do end up having questions after you submit for me right after the meeting, I'm more than happy to come back. I think we will. We will, so

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: thank you. Much appreciated.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Think we can adjourn unless anyone

[Peggy O’Neill (Legislative Counsel, Vermont General Assembly)]: has

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: swag