Reach Up, Vermont’s basic safety net program for children and families, has been on the minds of many at the statehouse in recent weeks. The decision by the House Appropriations Committee to accept the Governor’s recommended budget for Reach Up and cut funding for the program by $4.6 million led to a flurry of engagement with legislators on the part of both constituents and advocates as well as news media. As independent advocates for children, such conversations about Reach Up are a regular part of our work. Our goal is to help transform systems that perpetuate inequity and direct resources where they can do the most good. Income support programs like Reach Up can be powerful anti-poverty tools, but if they are not adequately funded, they can serve to hold families in a state of hardship that we know is harmful to children.

Yet for such a seemingly straightforward matter–ensuring that the families of those children with the least resources have the financial means to get their needs met–the broader discourse surrounding Reach Up can sometimes seem impenetrable. As we continue our efforts toward systems change, it’s worth examining some of the consequential funding decisions that are shaping the future of Reach Up today.

What happened with the Reach Up Budget in the House?

Despite its focus on Vermont’s youngest and poorest population, Reach Up has been underfunded since its inception two decades ago. The only adjustments to basic needs grants for families have come through legislative action. With no increases proposed by the last three administrations, and repeated cuts to the Reach Up budget as caseloads declined rather than using that slack to increase benefits, advocates tried a new approach. The state budget for the current fiscal year includes language that requires the administration to distribute any unspent Reach Up funds in the program at the end of the fiscal year directly to enrolled families, rather than shift it to other areas of the budget.

In response, not only did the Scott administration fail to factor in a cost of living adjustment as the country faces the highest inflation in 40 years; his Department for Children and Families also based their fiscal year 2023 budget on indefensibly low caseload projections. For the 2023 budget, the projected model included two scenarios: one with a continuing downward trend, should pandemic supports continue, and the other predicting a dramatic uptick in participants if these pandemic programs were to disappear. Immediately after those projections were issued, federal unemployment benefits ceased, and in December the expanded child tax credit ended. Yet DCF based their FY23 RU caseload projections on the very lowest figures modeled. Since October, actual caseloads have already exceeded the model's low-end projections by 15%.

This all but guarantees that the Reach Up budget will be underfunded and require a significant increase during the mid-year budget adjustment process in order to break even. It’s bad budgeting that only makes sense if the goal is to ensure there are no funds left to reinvest into the program at the end of the fiscal year. The fact that the Scott administration and his Department for Children and Families will take this approach rather than simply adjust the budget to match the current costs of living for the most economically disadvantaged children in the state is tough to understand.

That’s why we were excited to find champions in the House Human Services Committee (HHS) this year, who took a close look at the administration’s budget proposal, and found the basis questionable. In their memo to House Appropriations, HHS expressed “fears that the Administration is not appropriately planning for potential increases in caseloads based on [recent] projections.”

To our surprise and disappointment, and with very little public discussion, Appropriations members voted to sidestep the policy committee’s recommendation and agree with the administration. We can only speculate about the reasons, but there’s no question that kids and families in poverty are the ones who will experience the consequences. The legislature and administration have the power to erase, or at least ease, child poverty in our state. Why won’t they use it?

Why Funding Reach Up Adequately Matters

Reach Up’s stated purpose in Vermont law is to “improve the well-being of children by providing for their immediate basic needs, including food, housing, and clothing” while the adult caregivers of these children work to overcome barriers to employment. Between 5,000 and 8,000 Vermont kids benefit from Reach Up in a given month. Of these, 40-45% are under the age of 6, a critical age for brain development and growth.

Current assistance for Reach Up is based on a subsistence budget from 2019, cut in half. For a family of three, that translates to a maximum of $880 in Chittenden County and $856 for the rest of the state. For reference, current HUD fair market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in Burlington is $1,500. Outside Chittenden County, the average is over $1,000. Only 40% of Reach Up households are connected to subsidized housing. Do the math, and you’ll get housing insecurity and material deprivation for the thousands of children and families who are supposed to be protected from harm by our safety net. When pandemic rental assistance ends, many RU families will be at risk of homelessness.

One of the arguments that is occasionally offered in defense of keeping Reach Up benefits so low is that these families have adequate support thanks to other public programs. Let’s consider a family of three with a maximum Reach Up grant of $856. They will receive about $915 combined additional assistance for food, housing, and utilities, for a grand total of $1,771 per month (not including temporary pandemic programs ending prior to the 2023 budget year). That’s $21,252/year. Take a minute to outline a household budget based on this. Imagine the effort required to make this work, while you are supposed to be gaining education and job skills, addressing physical and mental health barriers, and providing stability and nurturing to your children. It’s a trap, and as a state we’re the ones setting it and enabling the damaging cycle of generational poverty to continue.

It’s time to fulfill Reach Up’s obligation to children and families

The House recently passed H.464, a bill with excellent policy changes designed to improve outcomes for families on Reach Up. What’s missing is a firm foundation of being fed, housed, and clothed, so that families can turn their energy from survival to security. We call upon the Senate to increase Reach Up grants for families and enact automatic cost of living increases going forward. And we challenge the administration and the entire legislature to engage directly with the families and children whose lives and well-being are shaped by Reach Up, to center their needs and experiences in making decisions about the program, and to begin the transformation of Vermont’s social safety net that we know is within our reach.

On Funding Vermont's Social Safety Net for Children and Families and Why It Matters