Theo Wells-Spackman is a Report for America corps member who reports for VTDigger.
A citizen panel’s decision, which challenged the state’s view of the motel program’s 80-day limit and caused a rush of appeals, will stand for now after a Vermont Supreme Court order last week.
The order is part of an ongoing case examining how the limit is enforced, and will likely allow many vulnerable households to remain sheltered, or regain access to housing for the time being, advocates said.
The state’s motel voucher program, which has constricted throughout the last two years despite increases in unsheltered homelessness, provides temporary housing for people without other financial resources who are in particularly vulnerable situations.
The Human Services Board concluded last month that the state’s Department for Children and Families had incorrectly enforced the motel program’s 80-day limit for a petitioner referred to as “H.D.” The central point of contention was whether the department could consider a participant’s use of the program in the previous fiscal year — before July 1, 2025 — when reviewing their application.
The department, which believes that a “rolling,” or retrospective, calendar is the correct approach by law, appealed the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court in a case that is still pending.
Since the August decision, more than 215 households have appealed their emergency housing cases to the Human Services Board, in addition to “numerous” cases which were already pending, according to the board’s chief hearing officer Joe Reinert. While the Department for Children and Families claimed the board’s decision would result in an unlawful use of taxpayer money, advocates said the state budget supports the board’s interpretation, which would provide important respite to people in need.
In last week’s order, the Supreme Court declined to suspend the Human Services Board’s decision as these hearings move forward. Both sides of the argument are “rooted in conceivable analyses,” read the court’s decision, and therefore the state “has not met its burden” for its motion to be granted.
This allows the board to continue using its previous decision as an informal precedent, according to Vermont Legal Aid staff attorney Maryellen Griffin. So far, her organization’s clients under similar circumstances to “H.D.” have had positive initial rulings. Many have been granted “benefits pending appeal,” allowing medically vulnerable people and children back indoors while their case is decided, Griffin said.
“We are definitely having trouble keeping up with demand,” Griffin said, adding that eligible people can also appeal their denial themselves when possible.
DCF officials declined to comment, but the state’s Sept. 9 motion, filed by the Attorney General’s office, said that the board’s decision would allow taxpayer dollars to be “misspent,” and cause confusion in the administration of the program.
“The Hearing Officers overseeing HSB cases have continued to overturn DCF decisions related to the interpretation of the 80-day cap,” read the motion, adding that the board’s decision last month “fundamentally contravenes law.”
In addition to incurring added costs of up to $2.1 million, the department estimated, the decision would likely cause the motel program to become full too quickly. Advocates have countered that the program appears to be well below its 1,100-room maximum as of Sept. 29.
“They have the resources,” said End Homelessness Vermont Executive Director Brenda Siegel, adding that the department’s motion “would have caused a lot of harm.”
Siegel said her organization was representing roughly 60 people who had been denied benefits, with “more coming every day.” In some cases, given their age or medical circumstances, Siegel said she would fear for the lives of her clients were they forced to remain outside.
The end of Gov. Phil Scott’s executive order extending motel stays for certain medically vulnerable people and households with children forced hundreds to leave shelter on July 1.
“These were all highly medically vulnerable people, or children or people who were pregnant,” Siegel said.
Griffin said she had recently been representing a family of six in their appeal to the Human Services Board. Both parents work, she said, and are raising four children while trying to locate more stable housing.
“I just don’t know how they could do that without having a safe place to stay,” Griffin said. The ability to access benefits, even during the period where the family’s case is being processed, could be crucial, she said.
“It seems that we’ve lost sight of what the purpose of this (program) is,” Siegel said, “which is to help human beings to be safe and be sheltered.”
