Laura Chapman is a civic volunteer, social justice activist, and works with human-services nonprofits that help neighbors in need.
PUTNEY-There are empty rooms while people are sleeping outside.
Vermont’s General Assistance Emergency Housing program, commonly known as the motel voucher program, is administered by the Vermont Agency of Human Services through the Department for Children and Families’ Economic Services Division. The program provides temporary shelter to people experiencing homelessness when no other safe housing options are available.
It pays participating motels directly with state funds, particularly during the winter months, to prevent people from sleeping outside in dangerous conditions.
In fall 2025, a local case manager told me something that stopped me cold. They believed that motel rooms in Brattleboro were being restricted. Not because vouchers had run out. Not because motels were full.
Rooms existed. Funding existed. The statewide cap had not been met.
Yet people from Brattleboro who were experiencing homelessness, many medically fragile, were being told there was no availability in town and were instead sent hours away from their providers, recovery networks, and community. For someone fighting addiction, managing mental illness, or navigating chronic health conditions, that kind of displacement can undo months or years of fragile stability.
A few months later, on one of our colder winter days, when statewide restrictions were supposed to be fully lifted, a local social worker described the same pattern. Some of their most vulnerable clients were being placed outside the community because there “weren’t rooms.”
In a small town, people talk. They knew motel managers who said they had space.
On paper, the state had funds to pay. Still, placements were being diverted and, in some cases, not happening at all.
* * *
As I compared notes with a variety of colleagues and community members experiencing homelessness throughout Vermont and examined public records, it became evident that these were not isolated incidents.
A review of reporting dates between December 2024 and January 2026 shows that during the coldest months, while statewide winter motel voucher use declined by approximately 9%, Brattleboro’s winter motel voucher use declined by nearly 59%.
On Jan. 13, 2025, Brattleboro listed 242 rooms housing 235 households. On Jan. 19, 2026, it listed 100 rooms housing 96 households. These figures reflect two single days in mid-January for both years, but the scale of the difference exceeds normal weekly fluctuations and merits explanation.
Need did not fall by 59%. It rose. Vermont’s 2025 homelessness data showed record levels, with agencies statewide reporting that they were serving upwards of 4,600 people.
On Jan. 28, during subzero temperatures, Groundworks Collaborative’s outreach team reported 50 individuals sleeping unsheltered in Brattleboro.
At the same time, motel voucher funding was reported as underspent. On Jan. 15, during House Appropriations testimony, Rep. Theresa Wood, chair of the House Committee on Human Services, stated that the General Assistance emergency housing line item was projected to underspend between $5.5 and $8 million.
Shelter is budgeted. Need is prevalent. Rooms are physically available. Yet room utilization and spending have slowed significantly.
This is not surprising when you look at the motel lists and see directives such as “no new placements at request of municipality,” with Brattleboro motels having some form of limitations set on all but one participating motel in December.
Brattleboro is not alone. Similar municipal caps and requests appeared in Barre, Rutland, Bellows Falls, and other districts.
* * *
I raised concerns about the limited number of motel rooms with the Brattleboro Selectboard multiple times. On Jan. 6, I asked during a public meeting and received no answer. On Jan. 17, I followed up by email with one board member and received no response.
More than a month later, I asked again at the Feb. 17 meeting and was told it would be discussed at another time. Selectboard member Isaac Evans-Frantz requested additional information, but the discussion did not move forward.
During the same period, the Selectboard voted on zoning changes that could affect where services can operate, eliminated municipal funding for social service organizations, and enacted a camping ordinance that does not provide public space or consistent 24-hour bathroom access for people who must remain outdoors.
Each decision alone warrants debate. Taken together, they narrow the options available to people trying to survive homelessness.
If the goal is cost containment, shifting people from motel rooms does not achieve it. If the goal is to reduce visible homelessness, exporting placements does not solve it.
The strain has not disappeared. It has shifted.
Mutual aid networks are scrambling to arrange transportation to distant motels before check-in deadlines. Hospitals report people seeking overnight refuge in emergency departments. Case workers report individuals declining distant placements rather than facing the stark isolation and unknowns of leaving their community.
Some report their agencies or mutual aid networks paying for motel rooms when ESD reported none were available. These are individual community members and smaller nonprofits spending finite resources on something the state has already funded.
* * *
There are, of course, some legitimate reasons behind some municipal requests. Public health concerns, staffing capacity, and coordination challenges are real. But when restrictions affect access to shelter during extreme weather, the reasons and process should be clear to those impacted and their advocates.
What gives me pause is that I’m hearing from people within these systems who do not feel these questions are being openly addressed. When elected officials, frontline providers, and the people they serve lack clarity about system restrictions and decision-making processes, this creates confusion, undermines stability, and makes achieving positive outcomes harder.
If rooms are capped by municipal request, how are those decisions reviewed? What criteria are used? What outcomes are measured? Why are elected officials, social workers, and people experiencing homelessness left guessing about the reasons?
And how can individuals or organizations appeal being declined or displaced if they are unaware that rooms are available but administratively restricted?
These questions are not about blame. They are about transparency, process, and oversight when municipal requests directly affect a person’s ability to access funded shelter. These questions are intended to encourage clearer communication and fuller use of available shelter resources while winter conditions persist.
If rooms are available and fully funded by the state, what process guides municipal influence over access during extreme weather, and how are the human impacts of those decisions assessed?
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.