Vermont’s $8.6 billion state budget for fiscal year 2025 is law. Known as the “Big Bill,” H.883 lays out funding for everything from education to health care, housing, and environmental programs. But a closer look reveals something missing: clarity about who, exactly, is getting paid.

Scattered throughout the 200+ page budget are hundreds of references to funds being directed to “community-based organizations,” “designated agencies,” “regional partners,” or “culturally specific providers.” Nowhere in the law are the actual recipient organizations named.

This lack of transparency raises questions at a time when the state faces growing pressure to demonstrate fiscal accountability and streamline overlapping services.

Millions Approved for Unnamed Nonprofits

The Big Bill authorizes state agencies to distribute millions of dollars to external groups for a range of services—everything from emergency shelter construction to translation services to youth homelessness prevention. While those goals may seem worthwhile, the budget language provides no detail on which organizations will carry them out or how their success will be measured.

For example:

• $8 million is appropriated to fund and expand emergency shelter infrastructure statewide, including capital projects for populations “not currently eligible for emergency shelter through General Assistance.”
• $2.9 million is earmarked for “community-based organizations” to support “youth at risk of homelessness.” The bill doesn’t say who these organizations are or how “at risk” is defined.
• $1.25 million is set aside for statewide “language access work,” including translation and interpretation services for public-facing agencies. Again, no specific contractors are named.
• $400,000 goes toward education equity and anti-racism work, with a preference for organizations led by “BIPOC individuals or historically marginalized persons.”

Even major recurring nonprofit grantees like the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) and Vermont Student Assistance Corporation (VSAC) appear in multiple sections under different program areas, often without context for how funds will be coordinated across departments.

The Vocabulary of Vagueness

Across dozens of pages, phrases like “community-based partners,” “designated agencies,” “trusted messengers,” and “regional service providers” appear in place of hard details. While some of these may refer to established entities under contract with the state, the law itself does not identify them. In many cases, agencies are given broad discretion to select partners after the budget is passed.

This stands in contrast to how budgets are handled in other states. Some jurisdictions publish appendices listing grant recipients or require reporting within the bill text itself. Vermont does not.

The result is that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are committed—without the public being told where the money is going, what it’s meant to accomplish, or how success will be evaluated.

☕️ Cheaper than a maple latte. More satisfying than cable news. Support real Vermont journalism for $5/month. ☕️

Duplicative Spending?

The opacity also makes it difficult to determine whether funds are being duplicated across programs.

For example, housing-related services appear in the budgets of the Department for Children and Families (DCF), the Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, and the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA)—sometimes with overlapping missions and similar target populations. Mental health, substance use, and eldercare services are similarly scattered across multiple departments and their sub-grantees.

Because the bill uses vague descriptors rather than identifying specific entities, it’s impossible to assess whether multiple agencies are contracting with the same nonprofits for similar services—or whether these funds are even reaching new or under-resourced communities.

No Audit Trail in the Law

The Big Bill does not require public disclosure of subgrants or third-party contracts. Nor does it tie appropriations to performance benchmarks, delivery deadlines, or independent evaluation. While some agencies may include these requirements in contracts they sign after the fact, those details are not part of the legislative record.

That means lawmakers voted to spend millions on unnamed third-party organizations with no assurance to taxpayers that the money will produce measurable results.

Calls for Reform

Good-government advocates have long called for more transparency in Vermont’s nonprofit funding pipeline. Proposals have included publishing a centralized list of grant recipients, requiring agencies to report performance outcomes, and mandating conflict-of-interest disclosures for state officials with ties to grantee organizations.

So far, those ideas have not advanced in the legislature.

With the FY25 budget now law, transparency will depend on watchdogs, media, and citizens requesting public records and tracking outcomes themselves.

Bottom Line:
Vermont’s FY25 budget funnels millions into a web of unnamed nonprofit organizations. The lack of detail in the law makes it difficult to know who’s getting paid, what services are being delivered, or whether public funds are being spent wisely. At a time when the state faces budget pressures and growing scrutiny of government programs, transparency remains elusive.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #FollowTheMoney #VermontBudget #NonprofitTransparency

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!