Donate
Get Legal Help

  • Bowser Administration Misled the Public About DC General Replacement Shelter Progress—Will the DC Council Hold Them Accountable?

    Legal Clinic attorney Amber Harding delivered the testimony below before the DC Council Committee on Human Services and Committee on Transportation and the Environment, at the Public Oversight Roundtable on June 25, 2018.

    Want to know more? You can read Amber’s full testimony and attachments submitted to the Committees. You can also watch the hearing in its entirety, and follow along with this fact-checking piece published by Washington City Paper.

    Good afternoon Chairwomen Nadeau and Cheh and Council members. My name is Amber Harding and I’m an attorney at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. The Legal Clinic envisions – and since 1987 has worked towards – a just and inclusive community for all residents of the District of Columbia, where housing is a human right and where every individual and family has equal access to the resources they need to thrive.

    Bowser Administration officials appear to have purposely misled the Council, the community and, most importantly, homeless families about whether the Wards 7 and 8 DC General replacement shelters would be ready this fall. These same officials have assured families that there will be enough shelter to meet the need when they close DC General this fall. These same officials have assured families that all the construction and demolition at DC General is being done competently and safely, without risking lead poisoning or other irreparable harm. How can families – or any of us – trust these assurances? This hearing presents an opportunity for the Council to figure out who knew what, and when, and the extent of their falsehoods. We ask the Council to demand the resignation of anyone who knew or should have known of the massive incompetence and delays and either did nothing about it, or engaged in the cover-up.

    The timing of the replacement shelters coming online is critical, since many plans hinge on that. We want to be clear that our bottom line, though, remains unchanged by the timing of the construction—DC General must close, but not until all the replacement shelters are ready. That was, after all, the original plan that we all agreed was best for homeless families. (As Homeward DC states: “When all of the new units are delivered, we can close DC General.”) We also want to be clear that our position is still that no demolition should take place on the DC General campus until the families have moved out, and even then, the process must be done to the highest standard of safety for the sake of the women at Harriet Tubman and the men and women at the DC jail.

    It is critical to have this roundtable today, both because this type of incompetence and dishonesty from government officials should not be tolerated, but also because the public needs the Council to shine some real transparency on the DC General closure plan. There are limited ways that the public can really know how the executive is performing, after all. We have the press, freedom of information requests, public meetings, and Council oversight. But what good are any of those avenues when the Bowser administration flagrantly lies, obfuscates and/or violates open government laws to avoid every attempt at checks and balances?

    Perhaps it seems harsh that I am already characterizing the Bowser Administration’s statements as lies when they haven’t yet testified. Perhaps they were hopeful that they would work out the problems with the sub-contractor and indeed open the shelters on time. But there was no hedging, no qualifying. They did not give anyone any indication that the timeline might be drastically different, that they were struggling to work with a completely inexperienced company. They did not say “we hope” that the shelters will be on time or “we’re working towards” a fall delivery date. They made strong, assured statements, leaving no room for anyone to doubt or question or even help, and then they engaged in a pattern of withholding, of hiding, critical public information that could have pushed a wedge of sunlight in. People with no intent to lie do not speak to 20 people and a PR firm before giving a one sentence statement to the press. People with no intent to lie do not put up every obstacle to FOIA requests they can, lawful or not, including denying the Legal Clinic’s public interest fee waiver request and charging more than $1400 for a few documents and completely blacked out emails. They lied. Repeatedly. To all of us. Today we need to learn who knew it was a lie, and who decided this lie must be maintained.

    My written testimony includes specific examples of the Administration’s lies to the press, to the public (including Wards 7 and 8 shelter advisory teams), to the Legal Clinic, and to the Council. I am happy to answer questions about any of those examples.

    Here are some basic questions that I believe the Administration needs to answer today:

    1. Why was Z Modular chosen? Whose responsibility was it to vet the subcontractor? Was it really just a “flashy video” that convinced them to contract with them? Is that their normal business practice?
    2. What is the actual status of each replacement shelters? In addition to Wards 7 and 8, are there contracts in place for 3, 5 and 6? Has construction started on those sites or not?
    3. If, in order to get the Wards 7 and 8 shelters finished by October they have to work until 1AM six or seven days a week, what are the overtime costs for that? What are the tradeoffs in quality if workers are there for eighteen hour days? What is the impact on neighbors? What is the impact on the FY18 budget?
    4. What is the impact on the recently passed FY19 budget if there are significant delays in any of the shelters? On capital spending? On hotel costs? On contracts for replacement shelters and their operating costs?
    5. Who was part of the “entire executive leadership team” that Director Gillis briefed on the progress of the shelters?
    6. Who is ultimately responsible for the plan to close DC General and open its replacement shelters? The Director to End Homelessness, who apparently also knew that these two shelters were behind schedule? The Director of DHS? The Director of DGS? The City Administrator? The Deputy Mayor? Assuming any one of them claims to have known nothing about the problems with the sub-contractor, is ignorance a defense to responsibility for anyone charged with closing DC General responsibly?

    ###

    What Can You Do?

    • Talk to the Mayor: Email Mayor Bowser (mayor@dc.gov). She needs to know that we all support closing DC General, but only if it is done in a way that centers and respects the health, safety, and stability of families who are homeless. Ask her to show you that commitment with actions, not words.

  • Dispatches from the Affordable Housing Initiative: Brookland Manor

    Dispatches from the Affordable Housing Initiative: Brookland Manor

    DC Zoning Commission hearings don’t typically draw large crowds, but on the evening of February 23, 2017, over 200 people rallied outside a

    Brookland Manor residents and supporters rally outside the DC Zoning Commission in February 2017

    DC government building in advance of a hearing that would last well into the night as scores of community members testified before the five-member Commission. The occasion was a hearing on the second stage Planned Unit Development that would fundamentally alter the Brookland Manor community in Northeast Washington, DC. With Ms. Minnie Elliott at the helm as president, members and neighbors of the Brookland Manor/Brentwood Village Residents Association, as well as neighbors and community members in solidarity, have engaged in the zoning process as part of their overall struggle to preserve family-sized affordable units at Brookland Manor.

    Due to the outpouring of community support for the Residents Association, the Zoning Commission had to split the hearing between two dates – video recordings of the hearings are available here and here. Will Merrifield, of the Legal Clinic’s Affordable Housing Initiative, represented the Residents Association before the DC Zoning Commission.

    Legal Clinic attorney Will Merrifield at the February 2017 Zoning Commission hearing

    The World War II-era buildings at Brookland Manor sit on over 20 acres of land in DC’s Ward 5, and contain 535 affordable units, including family-sized units of 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms. The ample green space the acreage offers, family-sized units, and affordable rent has made Brookland Manor home to working class families for decades. Many households in this primarily Black community are composed of tight-knit, intergenerational families whose ability to remain at the property is now at risk because the proposed redevelopment will result in an overall loss both of family-sized and affordable units.

    The property owner, Mid-City Financial Corp., has proposed a redevelopment plan with the following affordable housing implications:  

    • Demolition of the existing 535 units, and construction of over 1,750 new, mostly luxury, apartments. Five and four bedroom units will be completely eliminated in the new redevelopment. The number of three bedroom apartments will be reduced significantly from what currently exists.
    • Of the 1,750+ new units, only 373 will remain affordable via a Section 8 Project Based contract (an overall reduction of 162 affordable units).
    • Of those 373 units, 200 will be for senior-citizens only, and composed primarily of one-bedroom units that would not serve the needs of the many seniors at Brookland Manor who currently live in intergenerational households.
    • Outside of the 373 units under the project-based contract, the redevelopment will be composed of luxury apartments with a much higher market rate rent than what currently exists at the property. This could potentially create displacement pressures for hundreds of tenants who live at the property with the support of a Housing Choice Voucher, because the new units may to be too expensive for the Tenant Based program to cover the rent. Tenants would have to leave the redeveloped property and most likely would have to move to more segregated parts of the city where the rent is lower and housing conditions are substandard.

    The Brookland Manor Brentwood Village Residents Association does not oppose redevelopment of the aging buildings – or even the increased density – but it does demand that the number of all affordable and family-sized units be preserved so that current residents can remain in their community.

    Resident leaders speak on a panel following a preview of the documentary “Voices of Brookland Manor”

    Resident Association leaders have offered repeatedly to work collaboratively with Mid-City, and partner with them in order to seek gap financing from the Housing Production Trust Fund to facilitate the retention of affordable units at Brookland Manor. These offers, which remain on the table, have gained no traction with the developer or with Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie. So Ms. Elliott and the Association board – largely made up of women who lived through segregation and have raised multiple generations of Washingtonians – continue to seek other avenues to fight for their community. They are keenly aware of the families they have seen evicted already from the property, and the families that have ended up in DC’s emergency shelter system. They fight not only for the sake of their own households and neighbors, they do so in the context of the affordable housing crisis that grips all of DC, but that has caused the most damage and continues to loom most threateningly in working class and low-income communities of color.

    Demands of the Brookland Manor Brentwood Village Residents Association:

    1. The 535 units of affordable housing must be preserved at the current bedroom sizes and current subsidy levels.
    2. Residents must be able to remain on the property during the process of redevelopment (redevelopment in phases to prevent displacement) i.e.: build first.
    3. Residents must have the ability to access employment opportunities through the rebuilding of their own community, of which they have a fundamental right to be a part.

    The Brookland Manor Brentwood Village Residents Association’s position is straightforward: A redevelopment plan that seeks to triple overall density on-site (building 1,750+ units where 535 units currently stand ) while significantly reducing overall affordability (decreasing the amount of affordable units from 535 that currently exist to 373 in the redeveloped property) while also eliminating family-sized units, in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, cannot be considered a public benefit. It does not promote the health, safety, and welfare of the existing community. It is not sustainable for Washington, DC to continue to approve redevelopment projects that substantially decrease overall affordability onsite, and displace residents. To allow such a redevelopment plan to continue unchallenged will exacerbate the current affordable housing crisis, contribute to the hyper segregation DC is already facing, and force families into DC’s emergency shelter program.  In short, Mid-City’s plan, as currently proposed, is a case study in displacement.

    Because of the vastly increased density it proposes, Mid-City Financial Corp. has to seek approval from the DC Zoning Commission in order to build this project. In order for zoning relief to be granted for a project that increases height and density, the project must offer public benefits for the community it will impact. Thus far, the Zoning Commission has given its blessing to Mid-City to proceed with the Planned Unit Development. However, the Brookland Manor case has shone light on a bureaucratic ritual that typically takes place between developers and Zoning Commissioners beyond most DC residents’ realm of civic engagement.

    Brookland Manor residents waited over a year to receive a decision from the DC Zoning Commission. When the order was finally issued in April 2018, it was clear that the ritual between developer and Zoning Commissioners had gone uninterrupted by the overwhelming community input in support of the residents association: Commissioners approved Mid-City’s second-stage Planned Unit Development application unanimously. This was not wholly surprising – the Zoning Commission routinely acts as a rubber stamp for these large scale redevelopment projects. However, the order was damning in that it laid bare the Commission’s failure to contextualize the District’s affordable housing crisis and take into account existing communities’ health, safety, and welfare when analyzing what should be considered a public benefit in the Planned Unit Development process.

    Key takeaways from the DC Zoning Commission April 5, 2018 order on the Brookland Manor application:

    • The order indicates that Mid-City Financial Corp. “does not have an obligation to ensure that future rents in the redeveloped property meet the Section 8 payment standard.” As we referenced earlier, this means that households that currently live at Brookland Manor and are able to afford rent with the help of a housing voucher, might be unable to remain in their community after the redevelopment.
    • The order indicates that through the zoning process, Mid-City Financial Corp. does not have a legal obligation to build housing for families that require larger units with more bedrooms.
    • The zoning order also goes on to state that whether Mid-City Financial Corp. decides to build affordable housing or not build affordable housing is of “little relevance” to the Zoning Commission.

    Residents Association President Minnie Elliott has begun the process of appealing the Zoning Commission’s order, thus continuing the legal challenge to the proposed redevelopment. The Legal Clinic will represent Ms. Elliott in this endeavor.  Legal challenges are important tools in this struggle, but Residents Association leaders know that their goals won’t be reached without political action. The Association is committed to engaging the surrounding community, and is taking an on-the-ground approach to working with their neighbors to build political will to make this a victory for the community. It is important to note that these redevelopment projects could not move forward without the support of Councilmembers, ANC Commissioners, and the Mayor. It is incumbent on community members to make their voices heard and let elected officials know that they are in solidarity with the demands of the Brookland Manor/Brentwood.

    President Minnie Elliott and residents association board members at speak-out before Mayor Bowser’s 2018 State of the District address

    If you’re looking for concrete ways to get involved with and support this grassroots housing campaign, check out the Brookland Manor/Brentwood Village Residents Association website and make sure you’re on the community mailing list. The Association will keep the list updated on upcoming Civic Association meetings, ANC meetings, and on-the-ground organizing where residents will participate and the community can show up in support.

     

    The Affordable Housing Initiative was established in 2002 to intensify Legal Clinic efforts to preserve and expand affordable housing for low-income District residents. For information on current Affordable Housing Initiative work, please contact staff attorneys Akela Crawford (akela.crawford@legalclinic.org) and Will Merrifield (will.merrifield@legalclinic.org).

  • Dispatches from the Affordable Housing Initiative: Congress Heights

    Dispatches from the Affordable Housing Initiative: Congress Heights

    Alabama Ave/13th Street Tenant Coalition files Lawsuit
    Against Sanford Capital and CityPartners LLC

    Congress Heights tenants seek injunctive relief to put an end to business partners’ long-running scheme to deprive them of their rights under the
    Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act.

    As part of the Legal Clinic’s ongoing representation of the Alabama Ave/13th Street Tenant Coalition (The Coalition) through our Affordable Housing Initiative, we’ve partnered with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, and jointly filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on May 17, 2018. The Complaint asserts that the December 2017 transfer of the properties from Sanford Capital to its long-time joint-venture development partner, City Partners, LLC violated the tenants’ rights under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA).

    Check out this blog post for some background on the transfer and the Coalition’s vision for their homes and community.

    This transfer represents the latest attempt by Sanford Capital and City Partners, LLC to profit from years of mistreatment of the residents, and cynically prevent them from participating in decision-making about the redevelopment of their own community. Current development practices in Washington, DC, are premised upon rampant land speculation, and a manifest-destiny approach to the redevelopment of neighborhoods that have seen years of disinvestment. TOPA is a vital tool that allows tenants to push back against these short-sighted and harmful practices, fight to remain in their own communities, and move forward development goals that are inclusive and meet the needs of existing residents while promoting growth. Throughout this Congress Heights housing struggle, members of the Coalition, led by President Ruth Barnwell, have made clear that they are not only standing up for their own rights, but are also striking back against illegal practices that affect tenants across the District. Their decision to move forward with this lawsuit is the next step in this now years-long struggle.

    The Washington Post and Washington City Paper have covered extensively the resident-led struggle for housing justice for these Congress Heights properties, below are just a few articles that provide context for the legal issues at play and the politics behind the effort to displace Coalition members.

    “Congress Heights Tenants Sue Current and Former Landlords” Washington City Paper, May 18, 2018

    “An Abandoned Building in Congress Heights Is the Keystone in a Battle Between Tenants, Developers, and the District” Washington City Paper, September 14, 2017

    “Why a law meant to protect the poor from gentrification doesn’t really work” The Washington Post, February 6, 2016

    The lawsuit filed by last week comes in the midst of ongoing litigation brought by DC Attorney General Karl Racine against Sanford Capital in 2016 in response to unlawful and dangerous housing conditions at the properties. (The Coalition’s willingness to push back against Sanford Capital and City Partners has shone light on their practices, this is one of several cases filed by the OAG against Sanford Capital). The Office of the Attorney General has added CityPartners 5914 LLC as a defendant in that matter, and the case has an upcoming court date on May 30, 2018. If you’d like to be in solidarity with the Coalition at the upcoming court date in that case, join us in packing the room!

    When: May 30, 2018 at 2:00pm
    Where: DC Superior Court (500 Indiana Ave NW, Washington, DC), courtroom 518
    RSVP here!

     

     

    The Affordable Housing Initiative was established in 2002 to intensify Legal Clinic efforts to preserve and expand affordable housing for low-income District residents. For information on current Affordable Housing Initiative work, please contact staff attorneys Akela Crawford (akela.crawford@legalclinic.org) and Will Merrifield (will.merrifield@legalclinic.org).

  • DC Council Must Do Better on Affordable Housing by Second Budget Vote

    DC Council Must Do Better on Affordable Housing by Second Budget Vote

    On Tuesday, May 15, 2018, the DC Council took its first of two votes on the local DC budget for next year. On the housing front, there is good news and bad. The good news is twofold: 1) the Council devoted additional money to key affordable housing programs and 2) the Council took a bold step forward in right-sizing the Rapid Re-housing program so a greater percentage of families will get long-term affordable housing as opposed to time-limited assistance. The bad news is that the Council failed to dramatically increase spending on affordable housing, which means many DC residents will continue to struggle without help paying DC’s exorbitant rents—many forced to reside on the street or in emergency shelters, many whose health will worsen, some who will die because of the lack of housing.

    How can the DC Council do better before the final vote on May 29, 2018?

    The budget is a series of choices. Just  like the budget you might make for your family, our elected leaders are responsible for making choices that ensure that everyone in the DC family can meet their basic needs, including having safe housing, before the family spends money on anything else. Here are three basic strategies to ensuring that the DC budget reflects these values:

    Carve up the pie differently!

    There are countless examples of expenditures, from small to big, in the DC budget that many of us would agree are less important than providing life-saving housing to someone who is homeless. At the smaller end, the Council just devoted $191,067 to establish the Mayor’s Office of Night Life and Culture. We’re sure that office has its boosters, but surely ending homelessness is more important than creating that office. At the larger end, Events DC failed to spend $70.7 million of their money in 2017 after receiving dedicated tax revenue of $138 million. It is too early to tell how much of their budget they will be able to spend this fiscal year, yet the budget for next year will give Events DC $17 million more in taxpayer dollars. Surely reducing our affordable housing crisis would be a better use of taxpayer dollars than letting millions sit unspent in an account.

    More pie!

    If we carve up the pie differently and still find we are short of resources to end homelessness, DC should increase the size of the pie. For example, it is estimated that closing the carried interest loophole would bring in more than $150 million per year in revenue. The DC Fiscal Policy Institute recently laid out some other strategies to make more pie in a responsible way:

    “…last year’s federal tax cut is increasing inequality in the District. Thanks to the new law, DC’s wealthiest tax filers – those making more than $500,000 a year– are going to reap a $254 million tax windfall this year, while DC businesses will see an additional $460 million federal tax cut… DC should use its tax code to recapture some of the revenue from federal tax cuts and put it to good use for District residents. DC Council took an important first step by moving to block a local estate tax cut caused by the federal law, but this is only a small piece of what is needed.”

    Make sure any new pie goes towards affordable housing!

    Interestingly, one of the most fiscally conservative members of the DC Council, Jack Evans, chair of the Committee on Tax and Revenue, spearheaded a revenue increase this year. Instead of devoting those funds to meet basic survival needs of DC residents, though, he fought for the $30 million a year to go to the Commission on the Arts and Humanities and the Creative Economy Enterprise Fund. Every year in recent memory Councilmember Evans has opposed any proposal by advocates to increase revenue to meet human needs. He usually retorts that our budget is bloated and the government spends too much money, particularly too much money on social services. Yet even Councilmember Evans notes: “…homelessness is the other big, and seemingly intractable, problem that D.C. faces. ‘I jog five miles every day, and I see [homelessness] everywhere,’ he said. ‘There are homeless encampments all over Foggy Bottom.’” He’s right and he’s wrong. Homelessness is a huge problem, but it isn’t intractable. Ending homelessness just takes resources spent on housing programs that everyone agrees work well. But DC will never end homelessness if it continues to divert the investments it takes to solve the problem to other priorities, even when the Council raises revenue.

     

    We, as a community, can value art and still value ending homelessness more. We are sensitive to the need for art funding for communities who do not have access to the large endowments of more established institutions—but it’s unclear how much of this fund will be distributed to those who need it the most. (For example 40% of the fund must go to organizations “of demonstrated national repute.”) We are also wary of public funds supporting art that literally displaces people experiencing homelessness, not just by funding art instead of housing, but by prompting the destruction of encampments: this winter in NoMa, DC devoted $2 million in public funds to an art installation project that displaced people with no homes. $30 million would go a long way towards ending homelessness.

    What is the unmet need now?

    Housing for Families Experiencing Homelessness

    We asked for funding to house 1195 homeless families with permanent housing subsidies, like permanent supportive housing and targeted affordable housing. After the Council’s first vote, there is enough funding for housing for 514 families (43% of the need), leaving a gap for 681 homeless families. (The charts below show funding broken out by program.) We also asked the Council to meet this need, in part, by moving money from Rapid Re-housing (the $6.6 million increase plus $3.1 million) over to permanent housing subsidies. The Council moved Rapid Re-housing funds ($6.6 million) and some additional money from other sources over to permanent housing subsidies. There is a small reduction in the rapid re-housing program as a result (unclear because the agency has reported that costs have gone down), but a net gain in housing placements, and a significant shift in the balance between permanent and time-limited assistance for families.

     

    Housing for Chronically Homeless Individuals

    We (along with the Way Home Campaign) asked for 1220 chronically homeless individuals to be housed with permanent subsidies. After the first vote, there are enough funds to end the chronic homelessness of 459 individuals with permanent subsidies (37% of the need), leaving a gap of 761 chronically homeless individuals who need housing this year.

    Affordable housing for DC residents with the lowest incomes

    We asked for 2600 units of affordable housing (1/2 built, 1/2 leased) for extremely low income DC households (0-30% Area Median Income) in order to meet the true need for this type of affordable housing in ten years. The Council added enough money to project/sponsor-based Local Rent Supplement Program to allow DC to meet it statutory obligation to use 40% of the Housing Production Trust Fund to build housing for people earning between 0-30% of the Area Median Income, but nowhere near the 1300 units we were asking for. The Council added $1.5 million for 75 tenant vouchers (about 5% of the need), which is the least amount of money appropriated to that program since it began in 2007.

    Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors

    The DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence asked for an additional $5.5 Million to support domestic violence-specific shelter for 37 individuals or families, transitional housing for 119 individuals or families, and a flexible funding program that can keep survivors stably and safely housed and not needing to enter the housing continuum. The Council added $2.5 million, leaving $3 million unfunded.

    Eviction Prevention

    We asked for an increase of $12 million in the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), an extremely effective program that keeps people in their homes and prevents evictions. Instead, Mayor Bowser cut the program. The Council reversed the cut and added an additional $35,369.

    What can you do? Final decisions are being made between now and Friday afternoon! Contact your Council member and call Chairman Mendelson at (202) 724-8032. Thank them for increasing affordable housing—but also tell them that their job is to meet critical needs in the community before they turn to any other priority. They must do better by DC residents struggling with homelessness.

  • Do Your Elected Leaders Value Affordable Housing Enough to Fund It?

    Last week, DC Council committees held budget mark-ups where they had the opportunity to make changes they deemed necessary to Mayor Bowser’s proposed budget. As you probably know, the Legal Clinic advocates each year for a just and inclusive DC budget that prioritizes housing and other basic human needs. (All of our budget asks were developed with and are supported by the Fair Budget Coalition.) We’ve got updates for you on how the DC Council has done so far in terms of meeting those needs.

    The DC Council will take its first of two votes on the fiscal year 2019 budget next Tuesday, May 15. Now is the time to check in on how/whether your elected leaders are putting YOUR money where their mouths are when it comes to funding affordable housing– and to take action.

     

    Housing for Families Experiencing Homelessness

    We asked for 1195 homeless families to be housed with permanent supportive housing and targeted affordable housing.

    Mayor Bowser’s proposal: increase of permanent subsidies for 150 families. That’s 12.5% of the ask/need.

    DC Council: ZERO increase for families, leaving 87.5% of the need unmet.

     

    Rightsizing Rapid Re-housing for families

    After the Mayor and the Council refused to improve the program and instead re-committed to the harmful time limit policy that sets families up to fail, we, for the first time ever, are proposing a cut to this program’s funding and the money diverted to far more successful and humane housing programs.

    Mayor Bowser’s proposal: the LARGEST housing enhancement of any program, an increase of $6.6 million

    DC Council: We asked the Committee on Human Services to begin to right-size the family system by moving the $6.6 million increase and $3.1 million from current Rapid Re-housing funds over to permanent supportive housing and targeted affordable housing for families. The Committee declined to do so.

     

    Housing for Chronically Homeless Individuals

    We (along the Way Home Campaign) asked for 1620 homeless individuals to be housed.

    Mayor Bowser’s proposal: an increase in housing for 420 homeless individuals. That’s 25% of the ask, and far less than the full need.

    DC Council: The Committee on Human Services found enough money for housing for 37 chronically homeless individuals, leaving more than 1183 chronically homeless individuals in desperate need of housing this year.

     

    Affordable housing for DC residents with the lowest incomes

    We asked for 2600 units of affordable housing (1/2 built, 1/2 leased) for extremely low income DC households (0-30% Area Median Income) in order to meet the true need for this type of affordable housing in ten years.

    Mayor Bowser’s proposal: no new units for the people most in need, primarily because there is no operating subsidy and no tenant vouchers to take households off the DC Housing Authority waitlist. That’s 0% of the ask/need.

    DC Council: The Housing Committee committed no additional dollars to the Housing Production Trust Fund, the operating subsidy for new units, or tenant vouchers to take families off the waitlist. It did devote funds for 20 seniors to get vouchers.

     

    Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors

    The DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence asked for an additional $5.5 Million to support domestic violence-specific shelter for 37 individuals or families, transitional housing for 119 individuals or families, and a flexible funding program that can keep survivors stably and safely housed and not needing to enter the housing continuum.

    Mayor Bowser’s proposal: DECREASES funding for domestic violence-specific housing by $67,000.

    DC Council: The Judiciary Committee increased funding for housing for domestic violence survivors by $500,000, leaving $5 million unfunded.

     

    Eviction prevention

    We asked for an increase of $12 million in the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), an extremely effective program that keeps people in their homes and prevents evictions.

    Mayor Bowser’s proposal: DECREASES ERAP by 24% from last year’s budget, which is a 43% reduction from FY 2016.

    DC Council: The Committee on Human Services reversed the cut and restored ERAP to the same level as this fiscal year, which is still less than the year before, and certainly less than the full need.

     

    What can you do? Contact your Council member and tell them this gap between rhetoric and reality is unacceptable—that they must do better by DC residents struggling with homelessness.
    Use this “one-click” action or find their contact info here.

  • This Budget is Irresponsible. Flip It.

    Check out this excerpt from testimony presented by Amber Harding before the DC Council Committee of the Whole. The DC Council is considering making adjustments to Mayor Bowser’s proposed FY19 budget as we speak.
    The Council will take the first of two vote    s on the budget on May 15, 2018, so this is the perfect time to tell them to show the people of the District of Columbia that our local government values affordable housing!
    Send them an email here!

    My oldest daughter came to a Way Home advocacy day when she was five, and she could not stop talking about the man in our group whose friend had died on the street. She could not, and still cannot, comprehend why leaders would let that happen. She knows, like I do, that local government should have done better by that man’s friend. We are failing to build and sustain a District of Columbia in which I would be proud to raise my children.

    My daughter both wants to make sure everyone is safe and understands how unfair it is that some of us have homes and others do not. She has wondered out loud if it would be better if none of us had homes, because at least then it would be fair, and has advocated that we give up our home until everyone has one. She feels a personal responsibility to do what she can, and to sacrifice if others do not have what she has. My daughter is special in many ways, but this actually isn’t one of them. My experience is that children innately get what many adults seem to have forgotten—that it is incumbent on all of us to care for each other and to be fair.

    We’re also teaching our kids that you have to pay for basic needs first before you pay for other things. Every single piece of advice on creating a household budget says that you must pay for housing first. Then utilities, groceries, health care. If you have any money left, then you talk about planning a vacation, or going out to dinner, or buying a nice piece of art for your living room. Again, my kids get this, as do all children I have ever talked to about budgeting. Why should the budget for a city be any different?

    By this measure, DC’s budget is objectively irresponsible. In a city where one-third of children live in extreme poverty and 26,000 residents are in desperate need of housing assistance, the Council has before it a budget that does not meet the basic needs of all DC residents. Instead of starting with basic needs and adding other programs if there is extra, we start with a hodgepodge of programs, some critical and some not, and then maybe, if advocates and residents are very loud and insistent, the Council will move a few extra dollars from here to there to meet some residents’ critical needs. That movement of funds is well meaning and appreciated, but not adequate and certainly not transformative. The basic inequality and suffering that many DC residents endure remains mostly unchanged from year to year.

    We need to flip it. DC’s budget must first provide for shelter, food and health care before it turns to other priorities. We need a drastic up-ending of our budgeting process if we are ever to ensure that all DC residents have a fair shot of survival, much less the middle class, much less equity, much less justice.

    The Fair Budget Coalition and the Way Home Campaign have done excellent work in detailing specific programs and amounts our District budget must fund in order to serve our neighbors experiencing housing instability and move closer to economic and racial equity. The Legal Clinic strongly supports all of those budget asks. You can find the Legal Clinic’s specific Budget Support Act recommendations and asks that are directly related to ending homelessness and solving the affordable housing crisis here.

    Taking part in this action is quick and easy:
    Tell the DC Council to SHOW You That They Value Affordable Housing!

     

  • Clearing encampments addresses a visible symptom of the District’s homelessness crisis, not the crisis itself.

    The encampment clearing that took place in January of 2018 at an L Street NE underpass, on one of the coldest weeks of the winter, was sadly nothing new to our community. DC government insists on conducting twice-weekly encampment “clean ups” year-round. However, the optics and the consequences of that January clearing were a damning testament to the priorities of those who are guiding development in DC. The area that has served as home base for some of our neighbors experiencing homelessness was cleared out and then fenced off completely, displacing them from even their place on the streets. Why? To make way for an “art installation.”

    As new and expanding ‘”tent cities”’ are established by people experiencing homelessness throughout the United States, media attention on the issue is increasing, with even international outlets taking note– check out “Homeless swept up in America’s capital clean-up” from BBC, and “San Francisco or Mumbai? UN Envoy encounters homeless life in California” from The Guardian’s Outside in America series. The depth and breadth of media coverage of tent cities informed a December 2017 report released by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty on the rapid growth in tent cities across the United States. As with any other uptick in symptoms of housing instability, the creation of truly affordable housing sufficient to meet the need is the only solution that will address the structural factors that give rise to the systemic problem of tent cities. However, as the report notes, encampments “can provide important stability for people and their belongings that can actually enable them to get off the streets more quickly, or at a minimum improve their quality of life while homeless.”

    These encampment clearings do nothing to address the underlying factors that contribute to prosperous Washington, DC holding the dubious distinction of the highest per capita rate of homelessness in the nation. They are an in–your-face example of the pattern of displacement that has become the constant companion of redevelopment in the District, as shelter space and affordable housing continue to dwindle in the face of gentrification. These clean-ups can also be dangerous as they often result in the destruction of the only means that encampment residents have to stay warm and safe in the cold: their tents, blankets, clothing and other belongings. Washington, DC government has a Protocol for Disposition of Property on Public Space, which governs this type of operation. However, District government has in many cases refused to comply with the requirements of its own Protocol, by throwing away what are often the only possessions owned by people who have been forced to sleep outside.

    Access to emergency shelter is vital – it can mean the difference between life and death, particularly during extreme weather. But it is important to note that there are many reasons why people experiencing homelessness might truly feel that sleeping on the streets is a safer alternative, or even their only choice.  The DC government has acknowledged that it does not have sufficient shelter capacity, particularly for women, meaning that every night there are women experiencing homelessness who have no choice but to sleep outside. If a heterosexual couple becomes homeless and does not have children, they are faced with the choice of separating from one another in order to enter the singles shelter system, or staying together outside. Someone who experiences a health issue that suppresses their immune system may be putting their health at risk by entering a crowded singles shelter where conditions can be abysmal. If someone has mental health issues, they may feel unsafe and paranoid in a singles shelter, or be unable to comply with shelter rules and face conflict with staff or other residents.

    Encampments are visible symptoms of the District’s homelessness crisis. Clearing people away addresses optics, not the crisis itself. It can also further traumatize our neighbors who are already living at the margins as luxury redevelopment springs up around them, constantly signaling that their presence is considered a nuisance. The current manner in which the District is clearing encampments is a cruel use of taxpayer money. It also violates the Constitutional rights of encampment residents, which is the basis for a class action lawsuit recently filed against the District over its encampment clearing practices. For more information regarding this suit, contact Legal Clinic staff attorney Ann Marie Staudenmaier, at Annmarie@legalclinic.org.

    All residents should be heard and considered by our elected officials, not just those who have enough income to live comfortably in the District, which is broadly considered to be one of the most expensive places to live in the United States. If you have thoughts about how elected officials should be treating our neighbors experiencing homelessness, please contact the office of Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services HyeSook Chung, to voice your concerns.

    The Legal Clinic is a resource for those who have had their rights violated during the course of one of these encampment clearings. If you or someone you know wishes to speak with an attorney about those rights, please contact our main line at 202-328-5500.

  • “Abandoned All Over Again”: A Discussion on Aging Out of Foster Care & Homelessness

    Sacred B. Huff studies law at George Washington University School of Law and interned with the Legal Clinic in summer 2017. Following her internship, she wrote this piece reflecting upon challenges faced by youth aging out of the foster care system, with a particular focus on housing instability and homelessness.

     “Abandoned All Over Again”:
    A Discussion on Aging Out of Foster Care & Homelessness

    Written By: Sacred B. Huff

    Foster care is something that many of us may have heard of, but possess only a vague understanding of how the system actually works. Television shows such as The Fosters paint a picture of the most ideal scenario: children are placed in a foster home where eventually they will be adopted by a permanent and loving family.[i] Yet, this ideal scenario is not always the reality. Many foster children remain in the system residing in temporary foster homes, group homes, or residential facilities until they reach the maximum age to be eligible for foster care services, commonly referred to as “aging out.” Many states age out their foster youth at eighteen years old, but at least twenty states and the District of Columbia allow foster care services to extend to twenty-one years old.[ii]

    A common service that states use to prepare their youth for the transition into adulthood is the Independent Living Program (“ILP”), which offers supportive services such as lessons on life skills and career preparation. ILPs may entail older foster youth residing in state-sponsored apartments to practice living on their own while still receiving supportive services. Once foster youth reach the maximum age, all supportive services end and the youth are expected to transition to independence (regardless of their actual financial capability to do so). Sadly, the transition does not always happen so smoothly. Youth are frequently aged-out while unemployed and prior to completing their education.[iii] Furthermore, participation in ILP apartments is not guaranteed and quite limited; many foster youth are unable to utilize this service at all, leaving them completely inexperienced in budgeting a household and ill-prepared to obtain their own housing. This problem is worsened by the reality that these young adults usually lack any form of a family safety net. Therefore, once states discontinue supporting the youth, they often find themselves completely on their own as early as eighteen years old. Without adequate preparation and without a safety net, aged-out foster youth frequently end up couch surfing or sleeping on the streets.[iv]

    Taylor’s[v] story is one of many that demonstrates the failures of the transition out of foster care. Taylor has resided in multiple foster homes in the D.C. area since she was thirteen years old, and prior to aging out she was living in a residential facility in Maryland. Taylor was never given the option to participate in ILP, but when she turned twenty-one, she was still required to leave the facility where she was residing because twenty-one was the maximum age of eligibility for that program. Having nowhere to go, Taylor slept on the floor of her cousin’s apartment until her cousin stated that she could no longer afford having Taylor live with her. After Taylor’s cousin asked her to leave, Taylor went through the shelter application process for families and moved to the D.C. General Family Shelter, a shut-down hospital turned homeless shelter in Washington, D.C.[vi] This is where Taylor currently resides.

    I met Taylor while interning at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. After meeting her, I could not help but reflect on my own story. I am a former foster youth who aged out of care in Madison County, Alabama. I had the opportunity to complete ILP, and I believe the apartment provided by ILP allowed me to avoid sleeping on the streets and was helpful in my ability to finish college. Even though many improvements are needed to make this program truly effective at preparing foster youth for emancipation, at a minimum, having my own apartment meant stability from moving from home to home (which happened so often I lost count). On the downside, many of the supportive services that are supposed to accompany placement in the program are a myth. Frequently, I was told to sign a document agreeing that my caseworker and I worked on career goals – yet, “worked on career goals” really meant that we drove around and put in job applications at fast food restaurants even if those restaurants were not hiring. Whenever I was adamant in discussing my intentions to finish school and follow my dream of becoming a lawyer, I was often advised to “be more realistic.” Nonetheless, despite the flaws of ILP, I was grateful to have my own place to live instead of depending on friends or distant family members to allow me to spend the night. To learn Taylor did not have the same opportunity, I wondered what real chance she had to avoid homelessness. How did the District imagine that she would be able to provide for herself when she was not even employed when she aged out?

    Stories such as Taylor’s are not a rarity. It is well documented that youth aging out of foster care are more likely to experience homelessness than their non-foster youth peers.[vii]  Such statistics present a troubling paradox: youth are removed from their familial homes (most commonly due to neglect or abuse[viii]) in an effort to bolster their chances for “better” outcomes, but placement in foster care correlates with higher rates of homelessness, incarceration, and poverty.[ix] One would expect state and local governments to adequately care for the youth in its custody to improve such poor correlations. Regardless of whether foster youth are aged out at eighteen or twenty-one, there is clearly a time clock counting down for states to prepare them for emancipation.

    So why do so many aged out foster youth experience homelessness after leaving state care? Advocates and legal representatives point to a variety of explanations. In high-rent cities such as Washington D.C., the lack of affordable housing plays a major role in aged-out foster youth becoming homeless. Yet the lack of affordable housing only compounds the issues already afflicting this population, such as high levels of unemployment and low levels of educational attainment.[x] In addition to that, even when foster youth receive ILP services, the quality and effectiveness of such programs are questionable, as little empirical data exists about the standards and long-term success of such programs.[xi] One study showed that states with extended foster care (i.e. allowing youth to receive services until twenty-one) had lower rates of homelessness among its aged-out youth compared to states that emancipate its youth at eighteen years old. The same study revealed, however, that once services were cut off at twenty-one, the difference in homelessness rates diminished.[xii]  This may suggest that extending foster care without ensuring that the quality of ILP services is adequate to prepare the youth for independence merely delays the risk of homelessness as opposed to actually decreasing it.

    Another explanation advocates point to is the underlying trouble with youth involved with foster care: the lack of a family safety net. Most young adults will need some form of help after they leave their families’ homes. This may take place in the form of help paying rent, having someone co-sign for a loan, or even temporarily moving back to the family home. Young adults who have no history of foster care may have such resources readily available through their parents, grandparents, or aunts and uncles. For current and former foster youth, these resources are likely to be non-existent. Without family ties, there may not be anyone for these youth to turn to for a helping hand. Accordingly, states should serve as some form of a safety net for this population because states essentially serve as the “parents” for foster youth. To quite the contrary, many states are not even keeping track of their aged-out youth; longitudinal studies following the progress of aged-out youth are scant.[xiii] This is troubling because not tracking the progress of aged-out youth leaves states susceptible to continuing ineffective programs and ill-equipped to understand which programs are working and why. The lack of tracking coupled with their often ill-fated outcomes – higher risks of homelessness, high unemployment rates, and low educational attainment –indicate that state governments are “bad parents” for not living up to their duties of caring for youth who were taken into state custody mainly due to a legally found lack of care, quite an ironic reality.

    It may be tempting to accept the poor outcomes for aged-out youth as just unfortunate circumstances beyond anyone’s control, but many advocates – including myself – are hopeful that with a radical approach to how foster youth are exited from care, positive change can occur. As someone who grew up and aged out of the foster care system, the biggest change I would like to see is a newly established program specifically designed for foster youth seeking higher education. Instead of pigeon-holing foster youth into low-wage jobs, such a program should allow and encourage foster youth to obtain professional careers. This may be accomplished by allowing youth to receive ILP services (including residing in state-sponsored apartments) for as long as the youth are making satisfactory progress towards completing an Associate’s, Bachelor’s, or other professional degrees. Much more discussion is needed to determine what “satisfactory progress” commands, but for now, the most important thing to note is that the maximum age of eligibility should not be set at an arbitrary limit of twenty-one years old. Instead, the length of eligibility should be tailored around the completion of a college education, and the program should include supportive services that address the unique obstacles faced by foster youth that hinder educational achievement. In my own circumstance, I was often pressured to pursue a trade instead of attending college based on the reasoning that I could have finished the trade program and entered the workforce prior to aging out. There is no suggestion that pursuing a trade is undesirable; in fact, this suggested program may accommodate those who choose to pursue this option. However, it is troubling when foster youth are pipelined to this career path and strongly discouraged from having other goals. Although such advice may be well-intentioned (and maybe even logical), it instills a self-fulfilling prophecy into foster youth that they are unable to succeed at universities and professional schools. After all, only three percent of former foster youth graduate from college.[xiv] Establishing a program that emphasizes obtaining a degree will plant a new seed of realization in foster youth that they have the options and resources to aim beyond their circumstances and defy all statistics.

    Opponents may counter that allowing foster youth to receive ILP services during their entire pursuit of education may create a mentality of dependency on the government. That is unlikely, and in fact, the opposite may be true. A U.S.  Department of Housing and Urban Development report states, “[A] lack of stable housing can impede efforts to become self-sufficient. It is difficult for young people to pursue education and training or to find and keep a job if their housing is unstable.”[xv] Therefore, allowing foster youth to have secured housing while pursuing their educational goals promotes independence by providing the means for these young adults to climb out of poverty and break the cycles that produced their need to be placed in state care in the first place. For youth who were involuntarily placed and raised in state custody, it only makes sense that states ensure that the foster youth have the proper resources and training to grow into independent contributing members of society. As Frederick Douglass noted, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”[xvi] Unfortunately, former foster youth, such as Taylor and myself, feel that the system only left us further broken, not repaired.

    I asked Taylor what is one thing that she wanted me to say when I told her story. Taylor told me she feels “abandoned all over again,” first, by her biological family and now by the government who took responsibility over her. Nonetheless, we are hopeful that when stories such as ours are told, we will inspire social workers, child welfare service providers, and policymakers to make effective changes to the foster care system and especially to the aging out process.


    [i] The Fosters, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2262532/ (last visited Oct. 11, 2017).

    [ii] Teresa Wiltz, States Tackle ‘Aging Out’ of Foster Care, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Mar. 25, 2015, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/25/states-tackle-aging-out-of-foster-care.

    [iii] Id.

    [iv] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care: A Review of the Literature and Program Typology 3-4 (2012), www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/housingfostercare_literaturereview_0412_v2.pdf.

    [v] Name has been altered to maintain confidentiality.

    [vi] DeNeen L. Brown, What It Feels Like to Live in D.C. General Shelter, Washington Post, July 15, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/15/what-it-feels-like-to-live-in-d-c-general-shelter/?utm_term=.30d241bfc8d4.

    [vii] Amy Dworsky et al., Homelessness During the Transition from Foster Care to Adulthood, 103 Am. J. Pub. Health, 318, 318 (2013).

    [viii] For example, in Washington, D.C., the most common reason for placement in foster care is neglect or abuse. DC Child and Family Services Agency, Annual Public Report FY 2016 25 (2017), https://cfsa.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cfsa/publication/attachments/FY2016-CFSA-APR.pdf.

    [ix] Marsha S. Davis & Erik W. Burris, Transitioning Foster Care Youth and Their Risk for Homelessness: Policy, Program, and Budgeting Shortcomings, 3 Hum. Welfare 22, 24 (2014).

    [x] Id.

    [xi] Patrick J. Fowler et al., Homeless and Aging Out of Foster Care: A National Comparison of Child Welfare-Involved Adolescents, 77 Child. Youth Services Rev. 27, 28 (2017).

    [xii] Id. at 28.

    [xiii] Id. at 28.

    [xiv] Promises2Kids, http://promises2kids.org/facts-figures/ (last visited Oct. 15, 2017).

    [xv]U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, supra note iv, at 8.

    [xvi] Charles M. Blow, Fathers’ Sons and Brothers’ Keepers, N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/opinion/blow-fathers-sons-and-brothers-keepers.html.

  • Legal Services Organizations’ Sign On Letter: Rightsize Rapid Re-Housing

    This letter was sent to Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau, Chair of the DC Council Committee on Human Services, in advance of the April 12th Budget Oversight Hearing on the Department of Human Services, which runs DC’s Rapid Re-Housing program. 

    April 11, 2018

    Honorable Brianne K. Nadeau
    Council of the District of Columbia
    John A. Wilson Building
    1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 102
    Washington, DC 20004

    Dear Councilmember Nadeau:

    We, the undersigned organizations, are writing regarding Rapid Re-Housing, a District program that provides temporary rental subsidies to homeless families with children.  We are deeply concerned that Mayor Bowser’s proposed FY 2019 budget continues to invest substantial resources in Rapid Re-Housing despite the many well-documented problems caused by DC’s overreliance on the program.  As the chair of the Committee on Human Services, we ask that you lead the way in starting to rightsize Rapid Re-Housing, and re-investing those resources in programs that provide long-term, stable housing to families experiencing homelessness.

    Rightsizing Rapid Re-Housing

    In May 2017, we wrote to you that “our organizations have witnessed the pain and trauma caused by this deeply flawed program.”  We wrote that our attorneys have worked with scores of families in Rapid Re-Housing, and that the program “cycles many of them through short-term, and often substandard housing, before sending them right back into homelessness.”  Now, nearly one year after that letter and the release of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless’ Set up to fail report, our attorneys continue to see far too many families struggling with substandard housing in the program.  They continue to see far too many families facing eviction after being “exited” from Rapid Re-Housing without enough income to cover the rent.  And they continue to see far too many families who end up worse off after participating in the program, having damaged their credit and rental history.

    The Department of Human Services’ aggregate data on the program are consistent with what our attorneys see on a daily basis.  In FY 2017, 1,184 families exited the program, but only 83 of those families exited because they could afford the full rent.  This is hardly surprising given that families exited Rapid Re-Housing with an average monthly income of just $541, while the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment among program participants was $1,712.  This math will never add up for families.

    There has been some disagreement about how many families are “successful” in Rapid Re-Housing.  For our part, we recognize that the program works for a small number of families.  However, given the above figures, the undeniable reality is that most families are exited from the program even though they cannot pay their rent, putting them on a path to debt, eviction, instability, and, far too often, a return to homelessness.  As much as this Administration may wish it to be otherwise, this program simply does not make sense for the majority of families experiencing homelessness in DC.

    Since we last wrote to you, the Council considered a number of policy proposals that would have reformed Rapid Re-Housing and resolved many of the issues facing our clients.  By and large, these proposals were rejected, often based on the idea that the proper solutions to the problems with Rapid Re-Housing were budgetary, not statutory.  Since the Council decided not to reform Rapid Re-Housing, we believe it is now time to begin decreasing the District’s overreliance on the program and scaling up other programs that more humanely address family homelessness in DC.  The time has come to rightsize Rapid Re-Housing.

    Re-aligning the Budget with Homeward DC

    There is a growing recognition that the District has over-invested in temporary subsidies for families at the expense of long-term housing supports.  This idea is mostly clearly seen by comparing the Mayor’s proposed budget to the Mayor’s strategic plan to end homelessness, Homeward DC.

    According to Homeward DC, FY 2019 should see a District with:[1]

    • 1,293 locally-funded units of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for families,
    • 903 locally-funded units of Targeted Affordable Housing (TAH) for families,[2] and
    • 884 locally-funded Rapid Re-Housing slots for families.

    In contrast, the Mayor’s proposed budget would result in a total of:[3]

    • 1,077 locally-funded units of PSH, a gap of 216 relative to Homeward DC,
    • 762 locally-funded units of TAH, a gap of 141 relative to Homeward DC, and
    • 1,322 locally-funded slots for Rapid Re-Housing, 438 more than contemplated in Homeward DC.

    The vision of Homeward DC is not out of reach.  If the Council were to strategically redirect a portion of the funds that have been over-invested in Rapid Re-Housing, the District would be back on track with the Homeward DC plan for scaling up PSH and TAH for families.

    Investing in Long-term, Stable Housing

    Rather than continuing to increase investments in a deeply flawed program, we propose that the Council start the process of rightsizing Rapid Re-Housing and rebalancing the homeless services system for families.  More specifically, we propose that the Committee on Human Services:

    1.      Reallocate the $6.6 million increase that the Mayor is seeking for Rapid Re-Housing in FY 2019 towards TAH and PSH for families in Rapid Re-Housing and shelter.

    2.      Reallocate an additional $3.1 million of Rapid Re-Housing funds towards TAH and PSH for families in Rapid Re-Housing and shelter.

     These budgetary shifts would allow the District to fully fund the long-term housing resources for families contemplated in the Homeward DC plan for FY 2019 while also starting to scale down Rapid Re-Housing, also in line with Homeward DC.  In fact, by leveraging just a 9 percent reduction in the overall budget for Rapid Re-Housing, this proposal would add more than 500 units of permanent housing for families.

    It is crucial to note that we view these proposed course corrections for the FY 2019 budget as a part of a longer-term realignment of housing resources for families.  Given the many problems of Rapid Re-Housing, we think that further adjustments to the program’s budget will be necessary, as are additional investments in TAH and PSH.  As such, we support the Fair Budget Coalition’s request for additional TAH and PSH resources for homeless families, and the Fair Budget Coalition supports our proposal to realign a portion of the Rapid Re-Housing budget.  While our proposal will not end family homelessness, it is a critical first step in a broader shift towards long-term housing assistance for families, one that will at least start to bring the District back in line with its own strategic plan.

    This reallocation would also support the Administration’s stated goal of running the system based on a “progressive engagement” model, with families in need of more support being transitioned from Rapid Re-Housing to TAH or PSH.  This model only works if there are sufficient TAH and PSH resources available at the time families’ Rapid Re-Housing subsidies expire, and our proposed budget changes would provide a safety net to hundreds of families who stand little chance of remaining in stable housing after being exited from Rapid Re-Housing.  Without these changes, the District would continue to set up these families for continued instability and homelessness.

    The proposal outlined above would start the process of rebalancing the homeless assistance system for families by rightsizing Rapid Re-Housing, more closely aligning the budget with Homeward DC and providing 500 families with a safe, stable place to call home.  We would very much like to meet with you to discuss this proposal.  Please contact Max Tipping at max.tipping@legalclinic.org or (202) 328-5514 with any questions relating to these requests.  Thank you for your continued dedication to DC’s homeless and nearly homeless families.

    Sincerely,

    Bread for the City
    Children’s Law Center
    DC Law Students in Court
    Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia
    Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

     cc:

    Honorable Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Anita Bonds, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable David Grosso, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Elissa Silverman, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Robert White, Jr., Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Jack Evans, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Mary M. Cheh, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Brandon T. Todd, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Kenyan McDuffie, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Charles Allen, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Vincent C. Gray, Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Trayon White, Sr., Council of the District of Columbia
    Honorable Muriel Bowser, Mayor of the District of Columbia
    Laura Zeilinger, Director, Department of Human Services


    [1] Homeward DC Strategic Plan 2015-2020, DC Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2015, pages 81-84, available at https://ich.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ich/page_content/attachments/ICH-StratPlan2.9-Web.pdf.

    [2] This figure was calculated using a baseline inventory of 315 TAH units for families (as reported in the FY19 DHS Proposed Budget Summary, see note 3 below) plus annual increases of 147 TAH units each fiscal year (as described in Appendix 9 of Homeward DC, see note 1 above).

    [3] FY19 DHS Proposed Budget Summary, DC Department of Human Services, April 2018, page 11, available at https://dhs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhs/publication/attachments/FY19%20DHS%20Budget%20Overview.pdf

  • Families, not Developers, Must be Primary Drivers of DC General Timeline

    For years, the Legal Clinic has raised concerns about the conditions of homeless shelters in DC, and the pattern of warehousing people experiencing homelessness in old, rundown District buildings. We were right there with families experiencing homelessness at DC Village, as they organized to close down that shuttered nursing home-turned shelter after pleas to District leaders for repairs and better conditions yielded no tangible results. District officials were eventually spurred to action on closing DC Village, but only, it seemed, when WMATA needed the land for a “bus shelter”. Once that development took shape and urgency, DC stopped admitting anyone into DC Village, placed any remaining families in housing, and closed down the shelter. Because no replacement shelters were ready for DC Village, and because this closure occurred right on the precipice of a recession, the District began to rely heavily on another massive and abandoned facility: DC General Hospital. Like DC Village, DC General was initially used by District government as a family seasonal shelter – and only sheltered about 35 families. After DC Village was closed with no alternative emergency shelter for families, DC General grew to be the infamous behemoth District politicians talk about today, sheltering 280 families at its peak.

    It’s hard to believe now, but when DC Village was open, families strongly preferred being placed at DC General. It was clean, less crowded, and located right next to a Metro station. But after years of increasing reliance on DC General while failing to do necessary system upgrades and repairs, DC General became the new DC Village: overcrowded, unclean, poor conditions, terrible services, unhealthy and unsafe for families. Once again, families organized to protest and shed light on the situation at DC General via press coverage and Council oversight. In 2010, their efforts paid off to some degree as some conditions were fixed and the contractor that operated the shelter was fired. Most improvements were cosmetic, though, and the new contractor was only marginally better than the last. In early 2013 we released a report on the barriers for families trying to get into shelters as well as the poor conditions at DC General (mice, spiders, lack of heat and hot water, among other issues). At the same time, the number of children there peaked at 600, drawing additional press coverage and concern. A year later, in 2014, 8 year old Relisha Rudd was taken from DC General by a maintenance person who worked there. She is still missing.

    Later in 2014, then-Mayor Gray and the DC Council began serious discussions about closing DC General. From the outset, DC Council and the Mayor were in agreement with the community and advocates in saying that DC General must be closed in a way that ensures sufficient shelter capacity for all families who need it. In the fall of 2014, the DC Council passed, and then-Councilmember Muriel Bowser voted for, a resolution to close DC General if, and only if, certain benchmarks were met. One of those benchmarks was adequate replacement shelter capacity “sufficient and available to provide year-round access for homeless families.” Soon after, Mayor Gray announced a request for proposals for replacement shelters for DC General.

    The original plan: close DC General after replacement shelters are ready

    Mayor Bowser ran on a platform that included closing DC General, but it was a within the context of ending family homelessness by 2018: “Muriel Bowser’s goal will be to lesson [sic] the number of families and individuals in need of shelter. Muriel is committed to finding long-term solutions for would-be homeless families and individuals before turning to a shelter, developing smaller shelter alternatives, and, ultimately, closing DC General.” When her term began, she adopted the Interagency Council on Homelessness’ plan to end homelessness, Homeward DC, which states:

    When all of the new units are delivered, we can close DC General. This of course assumes that we are meeting the specified targets for reducing length of stay in shelter, which is the primary trigger for reducing our capacity need. It also assumes that we are able to meet year-round need, including any increase of inflow into the system, through these new units or available overflow. If either variable changes, we will need to revisit options during FY 2016 and FY 2017 to ensure we are able to adequately meet the shelter needs of families.

    Until a few weeks ago, nearly every public statement explicitly conditioned the closure of DC General on the opening of the replacement shelters. A few examples include:

    • Press release on DC General closure in 2015: “Over the course of the next few years, new emergency housing facilities for families will be brought online, in locations throughout the District, allowing the District to responsibly close and replace DC General Family Shelter.”
    • Press release announcing replacement shelter plan in 2016: “The buildings for the short-term family housing will need to be renovated or built from the ground up… Once they are all in place, the District will close the DC General Family Shelter.”
    • Mayor Bowser to NBC in early 2016: “We’re on a pretty strict timeline, and so we need all of the proposed units to come online in 2018… And if we are able to do that, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t be, we can close D.C. General in 2018.”
    • Testimony of Director Laura Zeilinger in support of the 2016 replacement shelter legislation: “And the longer we are in a place like DC General, the longer vulnerable families in DC aren’t provided with a fair shot at success or dignity. Our threshold for allowing that to continue should be only as long as it takes to develop and open these new sites… But we cannot close DC General without sites to replace its 270 units. We cannot create the types of programs we all agree are the right programs to have, without specific sites to build them on. This bill and closing DC General go hand in hand.”
    • Mayor’s Q&A document given to community members regarding proposed replacement shelter sites: “The short-term family housing facilities must be in place and open before we can close DC General… Once the final one is in place, the District will close the DC General Family Shelter.”

    The year that DC expected to be ready to close DC General has shifted back and forth over time, but the commitment to only close DC General when replacement shelters were ready has been unwavering—until now. The 2014 DC Council resolution anticipated that DC General would be able to close within a year, prior to the end of the 2014-2015 winter season. When that didn’t happen, Mayor Bowser announced that it would close in 2018 – the last year of her term of office. But in 2016, when the Council switched three of the Bowser Administration’s proposed replacement shelter sites to ensure that the shelters were DC-owned and safe for families, the expected date for closure of DC General shifted to 2020, because the newer sites were not expected to be ready until summer of 2019. The Mayor was certainly not pleased with the resulting delay, as she expressed in colorful terms to the Council Chair (“You’re a f—ing liar! You know it can’t close in [2018]!”), but there was no mention of closing DC General before the replacement shelters were ready.

    The new plan: close DC General and start demolition before replacement shelters are ready

    In January 2018, Mayor Bowser announced that she would close DC General by the end of 2018, despite the fact that only three replacement shelters (the sites in Wards 4, 7 and 8, totaling around 130 units) are anticipated to be ready for occupancy by that time. On the day of the Mayor’s announcement, there were over 230 families living in the DC General shelter. New admissions will end in April, and the Administration says it intends to reduce the number of families at DC General primarily via rapid re-housing placements and transfers to hotels and motels. Mayor Bowser also announced that the abatement and demolition process of buildings on the DC General campus would begin in February, which means 230 families (and 100 women in the Harriet Tubman shelter) will be living there while the District government begins abating lead and asbestos and tearing down surrounding buildings.

    Why did the plan change?

    It’s no secret that neighbors around DC General have been discussing redevelopment of that land (called Reservation 13) for more than a decade. The last that most neighbors heard was that the plot of land would be developed in phases by Donatelli Development into apartments and retail space. Meanwhile, Mayor Bowser’s bid to Amazon for its new headquarters in October 2017 included DC General as one of the location options.

    Mayor Bowser and her agency heads vehemently deny any connection between the proposed development of the DC General land and the modified timeline for the closure of the shelter. Administration officials instead claim either that they are not deviating from their original plan –– or that they are closing the shelter earlier than previously planned because it will benefit families who are homeless. The first explanation is simply untrue; the original plan was to bring all replacement shelters online before closing DC General, and this new plan does not do that. As to the claim that this is solely about doing what is best for homeless families, and not in response to development pressures, the Administration is going to need to do more than simply make that statement in order to be believed.

    How will the public and DC Council know if health and safety of families are prioritized over developers’ convenience in the new closure timeline?

    1. The Administration will not begin the process of demolishing buildings near DC General and abatement of lead and asbestos while families and women at Harriet Tubman are still living there.
    2. The Administration will not artificially reduce demand for shelter by increasing shelter denials, leaving families in unsafe settings.
    3. Families will not be placed in hotels and motels that have poor conditions or are removed from transportation and services.
    4. Families will not be unduly pressured to move out of DC General into housing that does not meet their needs (poor conditions, insufficient size, etc.) in order to clear out DC General by the new deadline.
    5. If there are increased costs due to increased reliance on hotels and motels, DC will budget appropriately for those costs without taking the money from programs that serve low-income DC residents.
    6. Decision makers will listen to any additional expressed concerns of families at DC General and in other emergency shelters and respond appropriately.

    What can you do?

    • Talk to the Mayor: Email Mayor Bowser (mayor@dc.gov). She needs to know that we all support closing DC General, but only if it is done in a way that centers and respects the health, safety, and stability of families who are homeless. Ask her to show you that commitment with actions, not words.
    • Stay tuned! The Legal Clinic is following this process closely, and we will update you as we learn more.

I am a Search Dialog!