By: Brit K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation
On July 7, D.C. Council made its final decisions on D.C.’s FY27 budget. Yesterday, D.C. began its new fiscal year. For the last few years, budget conversations and decisions in D.C. have been discouraging. With the release of Mayor Bowser’s proposed FY27 budget, the budget season forecast was even more bleak than in previous years. Once again, investments that respond to human needs and save lives were the first ones eliminated when reductions in the budget were contemplated. Those who need the most support and face the most harm from budget cuts had to do the most advocacy to see their needs reflected in D.C.’s fiscal plan. Despite the substantial need and recent Point-In-Time (PIT) data indicating that homelessness in D.C. has increased by 4% overall and nearly 16% for families, Mayor Bowser’s FY27 budget proposal did not include any new vouchers for individuals or families experiencing homelessness. It did, however, include an overwhelming lack of care demonstrated by devastating cuts to critical programs/services that assist and sustain D.C.’s lowest-income residents.
D.C.’s Department of Human Services (DHS) and D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA) reported a combined $42.2M gap in voucher funding needed to keep residents housed in FY27 and prevent the loss of existing voucher resources that could be issued to new households in need of permanent housing. Without additional investments to the mayor’s proposed budget, more than 1,000 households that rely on vouchers to maintain housing were at risk of losing their housing. Advocates and community members sounded the alarm. Fortunately, the urgency and reality of that loss for D.C. and the impending harm to D.C. residents caused D.C. Council to prioritize the concern and work to secure the required funding.
The Legal Clinic is pleased that D.C. Council secured funding to maintain and provide vital permanent housing resources for 493 households. A majority of the identified spending pressures that would have caused homelessness and/or resulted in housing resources being unavailable to new residents were funded in the FY27 budget. D.C. and its residents certainly cannot afford to lose any existing vouchers. Of course, that massive effort of allocating funds to avoid a devastating resource loss meant that the annual focus on securing substantially more and new permanent housing resources was overshadowed. However, out of the total vouchers funded in FY27’s budget, 171 are new housing vouchers that will be used to maintain the housing stability of families, including ones specifically for those facing time-limit Rapid Re-housing program exits. Still, the need for permanent housing vouchers for D.C. residents far exceeds what was funded in FY27. Additionally, without full funding of the reported voucher “gap” by the conclusion of the FY27 budget process, more than 500 households remain at risk of homelessness due to changing federal government policies and cuts to investments in the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program. D.C. Council indicated an interest in funding the estimated $9M needed to maintain EHV households by prioritizing the funding on its contingency list of items, promising funding if D.C.’s future revenue estimates support doing so and the federal government has not fixed the problem. As of now, we continue to await an EHV resolution.
The total $31M FY27 investment to fund repairs and rehabilitation of DCHA’s aged and dilapidated public housing stock was a bit more than the FY26 investment, but also much less than in previous years. Additionally, this spring, people with vouchers and searching for housing reported that, after applying for and being approved for housing, they were unable to “lease up” in their unit because there were no remaining DCHA funds to assist with security deposits—an incredible and ridiculous barrier to face after doing everything it takes to secure a housing voucher and find a rent-reasonable unit. The Legal Clinic was pleased that D.C. Council addressed the late and urgent need with immediate and FY27 budget investments so that, hopefully, no one has to experience prolonged homelessness due to a lack of security deposit funds in FY27.
D.C. is too well-resourced to find itself at the center of the same scarcity-driven budget conversations each year. At this point, it is by design. The unfortunate fact is that the lack of budget transparency from the Bowser Administration/DHS and its constant practice of unlawfully reallocating funds that D.C. Council specifically allocated for housing vouchers greatly contributed to the significant funding gap. D.C. Council has the ultimate authority to allocate funding, and it must not continue to allow DHS or any other agency to usurp its power or create unnecessary budget chaos after budgets have been finalized. Funding gaps and spending pressures that critically and inequitably impact the safety net for D.C.’s lowest-income residents cannot continue to be the expectation in D.C.
D.C. continues to face unique challenges. National safety net program cuts and federal government intervention in D.C. governance have compounded harm in a jurisdiction already rife with extreme racial and economic disparities. In D.C., thousands of federal government jobs have been lost, child poverty rates have spiked, housing instability has increased, and people experiencing street homelessness have had to navigate being the target of traumatic local and federal policies without any local investment to protect them or their belongings. D.C. budget cuts and spending pressures simply do not impact everyone equally. When D.C. catches the proverbial common cold, extremely low-income and Black D.C. residents catch pneumonia. D.C.’s Black unemployment rate is approximately ten percent (10%), the highest in the nation. According to data analyzed by DCFPI, the majority of Black children in D.C. live below the federal poverty line. Black D.C. household incomes are more than one-third less than White D.C. household incomes. Despite being less than half of D.C.’s population, the overwhelming majority of residents experiencing homelessness in D.C. are Black. Without intentional intervention, existing trends will only increase the many disparities that involve and impact marginalized D.C. communities.
Disappointingly, deficits in D.C.’s human services programming and budget are too often driven by deficits in D.C.’s purported values. Recently, it has been more of the same struggle for low-income residents and their advocates: attempting to hold on to the basic resources previously funded. D.C. lawmakers must refuse to be complicit in dissolving critical safety nets for the residents who desperately need them. Instead of spurring into action with reactive measures to mitigate harm, D.C. lawmakers must prevent and reverse systemic harm by proactively offering resolutions and funding to address the needs of their most marginalized residents. The focus on budget constraints in D.C. will likely continue. However, balancing the local budget with deprivation and divestment that targets D.C.’s lowest-income residents is a choice that D.C. government can refuse to make. The fiscal theme in which housing and human services are considered optional investments must be disrupted. The funds and programs that keep people alive, protected, fed, and housed must be respected, maintained, and increased. If D.C. Council and the next mayoral administration genuinely care about ensuring that D.C. is a place for all of its residents, they have to actually invest in the policies and programs that meaningfully sustain and support those who rely on its critical resources.
** Check out all of Legal Clinic’s 2026 funding and reform recommendations here.**
| Program | Recommendation | Outcome |
| TAH | 938 vouchers | 100 vouchers (for families exiting RRH) |
| PSH-Families | 782 vouchers | 122 vouchers (45 new) |
| PSH-Individuals | 1200 vouchers (multi-year ask) | 243 vouchers (turnover/restored) |
| LRSP tenant vouchers | 2988 vouchers | 26 vouchers (for families exiting RRH) |
| LRSP vouchers for returning citizens | 60 vouchers | 0 vouchers |
| Outreach | $6.4M | $3.14M |
| Public Housing Repairs | $60M | $31M |
| Storage funding for unhoused individuals | $1.5M | $0 |