Vermont lawmakers are advancing a sweeping bill that would fundamentally change how the state supports people experiencing homelessness. But unlike other high-profile reforms, H.91 is notable for what it lacks: broad support, budget certainty, and clear answers.
The bill — which passed the House and is now under scrutiny in the Senate — would phase out Vermont’s existing General Assistance (GA) emergency housing program and consolidate it with the Housing Opportunity Grant Program (HOP), creating a new decentralized model known as VHEARTH (Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsive Transition to Housing). Local community action agencies (CAAs) would take the reins, administering shelter resources and support services regionally instead of through the centralized Department for Children and Families.
In theory, it’s about moving decision-making closer to the ground. In practice, it’s raising serious questions — from whether local agencies are ready, to whether the state is gambling with programs that are already working.
Providers Raise the Alarm
The most forceful opposition to the bill so far has come not from political opponents, but from the very organizations currently housing Vermont’s homeless.
In a widely circulated op-ed submitted to the Rutland Herald, 15 nonprofit shelter and housing service providers — including the Homeless Prevention Center in Rutland, COTS in Burlington, and Groundworks Collaborative in Brattleboro — warned that H.91 could destabilize the already strained shelter system.
“We ask that a proven and high-performing HOP program be held harmless from the next experiment with re-envisioning General Assistance,” the group wrote. “H.91 as written is not bold, it is reckless.”
These providers emphasized that while they support reevaluating the GA motel voucher program, the HOP-funded shelters and services they run are not broken — and merging them into a new structure could disrupt support for vulnerable Vermonters who are already slipping through the cracks.
Senate: Concern, Caution, and No Clear Champion
Their concerns have resonated with the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, where lawmakers openly expressed discomfort during recent hearings.
“This is not easy — none of this is easy,” one senator said, noting the fiscal tightrope Vermont is walking. “We’re afraid that nobody is going to want to make the really hard choices that have to be made.”
Jean Montross, executive director of Helping Overcome Poverty’s Effects (HOPE), testified that the Office of Economic Opportunity has successfully administered HOP for years — and warned that shifting administration to regional nonprofits could require expensive ramp-up, introduce inefficiencies, and compound instability just as federal housing support faces cuts.
“There is so much uncertainty right now,” Montross said. “Moving a very successful program out of the Office of Economic Opportunity in a quick manner is going to cause more problems than it will solve.”
Her recommendation? Pause the transition, study the issue more thoroughly, and consider a slower rollout — or even a pilot project before full implementation.
The committee took her words seriously. Several senators floated the idea of a study committee or multi-year delay in rolling HOP into the VHEARTH model. Others questioned whether the bill’s regional advisory boards and planning requirements would introduce bureaucracy without improving outcomes.
Fiscal Black Hole?
What’s striking about the H.91 debate is how little focus there has been on taxpayers, affordability, or whether Vermont can sustain this new system long-term.
The House version of the bill appropriates $10 million in transition funds for FY2025, including $6.5 million for administrative setup and $3 million for shelter capacity development. After that, the funding is expected to come from existing GA and HOP streams.
But as critics point out, the bill includes no hard cost caps, no residency prioritization, and no clear performance metrics. It shifts spending around, but doesn’t explain how it will control costs, reduce repeat homelessness, or prevent further dependence on emergency shelter.
And most notably, it assumes Vermont will have the money to maintain or grow these services — at a time when property taxes are rising, the Medicaid cliff looms, and federal housing subsidies are shrinking.
In the Senate hearing, Montross said plainly, “I don’t know how the state is going to be able to backfill [federal cuts] while trying to make up for all of the other cuts that are coming down the road.”
The Missing Voice
For all the talk of integration, regionalization, and wraparound care, one group has been notably absent from the conversation: the Vermont taxpayer.
There has been no formal analysis of whether H.91 will lower costs, improve efficiency, or ensure resources are prioritized for longtime Vermonters versus recent arrivals. In fact, there is no language in the bill addressing residency at all.
This absence matters. If programs are expanded or restructured in ways that draw more people into Vermont’s system — especially those with no existing ties to the state — the burden ultimately falls on local taxpayers and property owners already strained by education and healthcare costs.
It’s not clear if H.91 will pass the Senate in its current form. But what is clear is this: a major restructuring of Vermont’s housing safety net is moving forward without a clear champion, without a defined financial path, and without the confidence of many of the people currently doing the work on the ground.
That’s not bold. That’s uncertain.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #vtpoli #homelessness #vermontlegislature
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply