Donate
Get Legal Help

  • Rapid Rehousing: What Happened and What’s Next?

    Rapid Rehousing: What Happened and What’s Next?

    With the dust having settled on a number of decision points on rapid re-housing, we wanted to take a moment to update you on what has happened over the last few months and what the families being terminated for reaching a time limit are facing in the next few months:

    Bowser administration proposed no new vouchers, started terminations of 2200 families in rapid re-housing, and deprived participants of due process

    Mayor Bowser announced in the spring that her administration would cut the budget for rapid re-housing for individuals and families significantly in the next fiscal year. She proposed to “right-size” the program by terminating the rental assistance and services of 2200 families who had been in the program for one year. The Department of Human Services (DHS) acknowledged that less than 1% of families in rapid re-housing can afford market rent on their own when they are exited for time limits. The 2024 Point in Time count revealed that homelessness had increased: despite the count being long criticized for undercounting families, the data showed a 39% increase in family homelessness from 2023 to 2024. Mayor Bowser failed to add any additional funding for permanent housing programs to the budget to provide the support people need to maintain housing stability after rapid re-housing, and proposed regressive and harmful legislation that deprives people of due process if they appeal the time limit exits.

    Hundreds asked the D.C. Council to stop the terminations, fund permanent housing vouchers, and pass/fund permanent legislative reform (Rapid Re-Housing Reform Amendment Act) 

    Many individuals and organizations raised their voices via emails or during hearings, actions, and visits with elected leaders to demand housing justice and reform. Nearly every single councilmember raised preventing the displacement of families in rapid re-housing as a high priority during every public debate and conversation about the budget. Many expressed frustration and disappointment about the position that they were put in this budget season, where they had to restore millions to critical programs just to maintain the status quo.

    Council funds new vouchers, fails to stop mass displacement of 2200 families, and guts legal protections for families in rapid re-housing

    Despite the Bowser administration’s strangely conflicting advocacy that simultaneously sought to reassure the Council that the families would be fine because the mayor had requested 1300 vouchers from the D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA) (more on that below) and to convince the Council not to fund new vouchers because vouchers “don’t encourage people to pursue economic independence,” the Council increased funding for housing vouchers. By the end of the budget process, primarily thanks to Councilmember Robert White and Chairman Phil Mendelson, the D.C. Council increased new permanent housing vouchers from zero to 619, of which 451 are dedicated to families exiting rapid re-housing. (You can read more about our take on this year’s budget here.) Since that number is far short of the vouchers needed to serve every family hitting a time limit in rapid re-housing and the Council did not pass and fund the Rapid Re-Housing Reform Amendment Act, they did not stop the exits. That is not to say the Council’s efforts were in vain, though—every single housing voucher funded is one household’s lifeboat off the sinking ship of rapid re-housing.

    Meanwhile, the Council was engaged in a battle over the legislative language the Bowser administration had included in the budget that stripped rapid re-housing participants, families and individuals, of basic due process rights. While the Housing Committee originally struck the language entirely, DHS claimed the Council couldn’t strike the language and restore constitutional rights without finding millions of dollars—because DHS had baked the deprivation of constitutional rights of the D.C. residents into their budget for the program.  The Chairman, in an attempt to restore some procedural rights, managed to eviscerate legal defenses and rights in the program, while stating that he was forced to do so because he, and the Council as a whole, couldn’t find the money to restore the rights.

    (As an organization that was deeply in the weeds on this fight, we cannot even begin to express how frustrating and demoralizing this entire process was. Without getting into the very wonky details, suffice it to say that we have never seen such an unpredictable, illogical process, where you could not count on logic, reason, constitutional protections, or even just math to carry the day.)

    One bright note– the Council passed an emergency act to require that DHS provide extensions to families when funds are available. We believe that DHS does have resources to provide extensions. Every family that is not provided an extension has the right to appeal that decision, and the right to full due process, including a fair hearing. We strongly encourage every family to request extensions, and to contact us for legal assistance.

    The aftermath: families remain in crisis despite significant housing resources

    The Bowser administration advocated for 1300 vouchers from DCHA to be dedicated to families exiting rapid re-housing to prevent the families from losing their homes. On July 11, the DCHA Board of Commissioners voted to create a set aside of 1300 vouchers for families who have exited or are exiting rapid re-housing. According to the resolution: “The preference is intended to prevent such families from losing their housing assistance when their [rapid re-housing] subsidy ends.” With these 1300 vouchers, about 400 slots in DHS housing programs, and the 451 new vouchers that will be available in October, DHS has enough housing vouchers to transition nearly every family they had planned to exit from rapid re-housing into permanent housing—preventing mass displacement, eviction, and return to homelessness.

    However, when we reached out to DHS to ask if they would commit to keeping families supported until they could transfer to these new housing programs, they said no. Specifically, the DHS representative said: “Unfortunately, due to budgetary limitations, [rapid re-housing] will continue to exit families while expeditiously working to gather required application documents and submit completed applications to DCHA.” It seems that DCHA expected their contribution to the crisis—the 1300 vouchers—to be an intervention that would keep families stably housed. The Bowser administration now has enough housing resources to humanely exit families from rapid re-housing – which is all anyone has ever asked them to do. Yet they are still refusing to do so in way that maintains their housing stability.

    Several thousand D.C. families are at risk of losing their rental assistance, falling behind on rent, and subsequently facing eviction—all because the Bowser administration refuses to extend the families for a few months until they can transfer into another housing program. To add insult to injury, DHS recently announced that ERAP—D.C.’s emergency rental assistance program—is out of funds and DHS will not be taking any new applications. Families will not only suffer the well-documented trauma and lifelong consequences of eviction and repeated homelessness, but even when they receive a voucher, they will have a harder time finding and securing a new home, because now they have rental debt and an eviction on their record. They will also be looking for housing while bouncing from place to place or living in an emergency shelter, a program DHS also runs and that is far more costly than sustaining families in rapid rehousing.

    Demand housing stability for rapid re-housing families

    We ask you to stand with us in demanding that Mayor Bowser keep families in rapid re-housing supported with rental assistance while D.C. government processes their housing applications and transfers them to the new vouchers. We know that D.C. is capable of moving quickly on housing vouchers when it is motivated to do so, but we fear that, if the government isn’t sustaining families in rapid re-housing while they process their applications, it will not be as motivated to move quickly. Stay tuned for next steps.

    Action Alert: Sign Open Letter to Mayor Bowser to Keep Families Housed!

  • There is a Better Way to Clear Encampments: Housing

    This week, a joint effort between the D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services (DMHHS) and the National Park Service (NPS) began to target and clear between fifty and seventy people from Foggy Bottom. This is the largest encampment clearing in the District since McPherson Square was cleared in February 2023. Wayne Turnage, who has headed DMHHS for the past five years, initially confirmed that these encampment closures were scheduled to proceed despite insufficient shelter vacancies. He has since stated that space has been made available at Emery and Adam’s Place shelters, but as these shelters were initially marked as full, they likely have inadequate space for fifty to seventy new occupants. Many of the residents of these Foggy Bottom encampments have already been displaced from McPherson Square, or perhaps another encampment.

    It is not news that we at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless oppose the mayor’s practice of regularly clearing encampments. We have been raising concerns for years, including in a class action lawsuit. We have opposed the “no-tent” zones created by the Bowser administration from the beginning and advocated for legislation to create a more transparent and constitutional process for interactions with encampments. We signed onto an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. Grants Pass, and highlighted the stakes in that case here. We have always said that the better—more humane and effective—way to respond to any concerns about encampments is to provide low barrier and accessible shelter and housing opportunities. But we have, unfortunately, made little progress in convincing our elected leaders that there is a better way to respond to street homelessness.

    Under Mayor Bowser and Wayne Turnage, the District has drastically increased encampment clearings. In 2023 alone, DMHHS’s Encampment Response Team (ERT) cleared over eighty encampments. While it is common sense that continuous displacement of people and destruction of their belongings does nothing to end homelessness, and in fact makes it harder for people to get connected to housing and services, the mayor’s proposed budget for FY25 actually invests more money in clearing encampments than it does in providing housing for people experiencing homelessness. As a result of the mayor’s failure to invest in real solutions to homelessness, the number of people experiencing homelessness in D.C. grew by twelve percent in 2023 and  fourteen percent in 2024.

    Recently, Street Sense covered a particularly distressing encampment clearing that took place on the northeast side of the city. The resident, Tavoncia, is a young pregnant woman with health conditions who had lived there for approximately six months. She said she had not seen the notice that the clearing was going to happen that day. Claiming that Tavoncia was having a mental health crisis, “officers…took hold of her arms and put her in handcuffs.” While they held her in a police van for an hour, “DMHHS staff and police officers disposed of all of the items at the encampment except for three trash bags full of [her] belongings.” D.C. claims they do not criminalize homelessness because they do not arrest people for sleeping outside. But when the police handcuff and hold someone in a police van for an hour to clear an encampment, that may be a distinction without a difference.

    Over the last eighteen months, we have seen a dramatic increase in DMHHS’s use of their immediate disposition protocol. This protocol allows DMHHS to clear an encampment with no notice when there is an immediate risk to health and safety. DMHHS often uses this protocol to clear single tents or very small encampments, and then sometimes makes that little area a “no-tent” zone—where belongings can be destroyed immediately with no notice or ability to challenge, apparently forever. While creating black holes of due process throughout D.C.’s public spaces seems problematic, to say the least, it is also ineffective if the desired objective is to make homeless people leave the area—often the resident of that encampment just moves down or across the street. Unfortunately, the encampment resident has no legal recourse to challenge whether an immediate disposition is actually warranted—i.e., whether there is in fact any immediate risk to health and safety—prior to the clearing taking place. If they don’t move their belongings, they will be destroyed. This is a system ripe for abuse. (In fact, an immediate disposition was once used to clear a single tent so that Mayor Bowser could hold a press conference on affordable housing at a recreation center.)

    A perfect storm is brewing. These continuous clearings, the closing of the PEP-V program, the District’s delay in opening the Aston (D.C.’s first non-congregate shelter), the lack of shelter vacancies, the looming termination of 2,200 families in rapid rehousing, and the lack of affordable housing funded in the FY25 budget, spell troubling days ahead.

    We encourage you to take action to stop the Foggy Bottom encampment evictions, as well as do this action to stop the looming 2,200 exits from rapid rehousing before we end up with families living on the streets of D.C. We also encourage you to join us in:

    1. Asking the mayor to end all full encampment clearings and in their stead, conduct trash-only cleanings and reform D.C.’s shelter system so that shelters can be clean, safe, and accommodating environments for D.C.’s unhoused community.
    2. Asking the D.C. Council to:
    • Fully fund permanent housing vouchers,
    • Codify standards and due process to govern what constitutes an immediate health and safety risk for immediate dispositions,
    • Dedicate more funds to bring low barrier, non-congregate shelters online, and
    • Dedicate $1.5M to storage solutions for encampment residents.

    Author: Joshua M. Drumming, Law Graduate, Policy and Advocacy

  • End the Cliff: We Must Prevent 2,200 Families from Losing Housing

    End the Cliff: We Must Prevent 2,200 Families from Losing Housing

    The director of the D.C. Department of Human Services (DHS), Laura Zeilinger, announced at a D.C. Council hearing that the agency would be terminating 2,000 families from rapid re-housing by the end of September. (We later learned the number is actually 2,200 families.) We are already seeing these families come to us for legal assistance. More families will likely be terminated next year without reform of the program. The Bowser administration claims they do not have enough money to sustain all those families in housing and that the program has grown too large in recent years. Without significant investment in permanent housing resources and real reform to the broken rapid re-housing program, thousands of D.C. families will lose their housing support and likely face eviction or homelessness. When that happens, we know there will not be enough eviction prevention funds or emergency shelter to support the families.

    (If you are thinking this sounds familiar, it is because we have been warning that this program was headed for disaster for years. We have advocated for a more humane exit strategy from the time-limited rental assistance program almost since the day rapid re-housing first showed up in D.C. because short-term housing programs with strict time limits will never work on a large scale in jurisdictions where the gap between income and market rent is so cavernous.)

    This crisis was entirely foreseeable and preventable—without resorting to mass terminations and trauma. When the pandemic hit, the Bowser administration rightly put a pause on rapid re-housing exits. When the public health emergency ended, they proposed terminating almost 1000 families to “right-size” the program. But those families were still struggling, and the gap between income and rent had only widened for most low-income families during the pandemic. We, along with many partners and allies, advocated for families to exit the program only when they could afford market rent or had been transitioned to a more appropriate housing program. That spring, the D.C. Council invested in more housing resources for these families and Chairman Mendelson introduced a bill to reform the rapid re-housing program.

    Meanwhile, the Bowser administration continued to grow the time-limited program while failing to fund sufficient permanent housing subsidies. Now, despite resounding support for reform, DHS is proposing a historic number of terminations and the most arbitrary, strictest time limit the program has ever had, directly contrary to the law that the D.C. Council passed last spring to ensure extensions would be considered. Housing providers no longer even have the discretion to extend a family’s time in the program based on whether the family just had a baby, whether they just need a few months to recover from a health condition, whether they are about to get a degree, or any other individual circumstance. You can read our comments, along with Children’s Law Center and Legal Aid DC, on the recent emergency regulations here. Rapid re-housing is now a one-size-fits-all program, or perhaps a one-size-fits-no-one program.

    The reality is that due to structurally created poverty and D.C.’s systemic lack of affordable housing, most families placed in rapid re-housing simply cannot grow their income enough to afford market rent in 12 to 18 months. (Recent data provided by the agency shows that less than 1% of families in the program can afford market rent at exit.) Terminating families for reaching a time limit when the agency knows the program has done nothing to support the families in increasing their income enough to afford market rent is unfair, unjust, and will lead to disproportionate harm to low-income Black families, who make up 97% of the participants in the program.

    Fortunately, the D.C. Council has a strong path forward to prevent the continuing trauma of this failing program. We are asking the Council to:

    1)           Demand, and legislate, that the Mayor immediately withdraw all time-limit termination notices that have been issued by the Department of Human Services (DHS) and not issue any more terminations for time limits unless the participant can afford market rent. (This ask includes disapproving the program’s emergency regulations as well as striking the Mayor’s proposed Budget Support Act subtitle that deprives participants of due process.);

    2)           Increase funding for permanent affordable housing vouchers for families in next year’s budget so that rapid re-housing participants can transition into a program that better maintains housing stability, including Permanent Supportive Housing, Targeted Affordable Housing, and Local Rent Supplement Program tenant vouchers; and

    3)           Pass and fund the Rapid Rehousing Reform Amendment Act to fix this deeply flawed time-limited program, once and for all.

    D.C.’s rapid re-housing program is the least successful, most harmful, and most expensive housing intervention D.C. operates. Please join us in demanding housing justice for D.C. residents in rapid re-housing by taking action here.

  • Supreme Court Debates Rights of Unhoused and Unsheltered People

    Supreme Court Debates Rights of Unhoused and Unsheltered People

    This week, the Legal Clinic joined hundreds of advocates, impacted community members, providers and others at a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the Court heard oral arguments in Johnson v. Grants Pass.

    The case involved a city ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, that allows citations and jail time for repeat offenses for sleeping or camping in public, as defined by merely resting with a blanket or pillow. The record indicated that the ordinance was only enforced against people who were homeless and was in fact an intentional strategy to target people who are homeless and get them to move to another town or area. The ordinance allowed enforcement even when the town had no shelter beds available — meaning that people had nowhere to sleep but outside. The lower court found that Grants Pass had violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when it criminalized “involuntary homelessness,” i.e. sleeping outside when no other shelter is available. As Justice Kagan stated during oral arguments, “for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public.”

    According to the National Homelessness Law Center, “over 1,000 organizations and public leaders have filed more than 40 amicus briefs (amici) in support of Gloria Johnson and homeless rights…” The briefs focused on many different facets of the case, spanning many different policy and legal arguments for upholding the lower court’s decision. The Legal Clinic signed onto an amicus brief authored by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, and the National Low Income Housing Coalition. This brief focused on some of the structural causes of homelessness, such as unaffordable housing, federal disinvestment in affordable housing and safety net programs, the impact of criminal and eviction records on obtaining housing, and the far more effective choices that cities and states have if they truly want to reduce or end homelessness.

    No one is arguing that cities should turn a blind eye to street homelessness. What we do argue, though, is that people without homes have the same rights under the Constitution as people with homes, including the right to expect police and other government actors to treat them humanely and not discriminatorily. We argue that cities have a choice when their residents have no homes—they can react with punishment and cruelty, or they can provide housing and services (if needed) to permanently end their residents’ homelessness. Providing housing instead of handcuffs is not only the moral, effective, and humane choice, but also the Constitutional one.

  • On National Homeless Persons’ Remembrance Day and Every Day, D.C. Must Do More to Save Lives

    On National Homeless Persons’ Remembrance Day and Every Day, D.C. Must Do More to Save Lives

    On December 21, winter solstice, communities across the country will recognize National Homeless Persons’ Remembrance Day. In D.C., People for Fairness Coalition, an advocacy group composed of current and formerly unhoused D.C. residents, will hold a vigil the night before to honor the lives and acknowledge the passing of all those who died unhoused in D.C. this year.

    More information on the schedule for December 20 and 21 can be found here.

    The pandemic laid bare the critical connection between housing and health care, both on the individual level and more broadly as a public health intervention. For the first time in history, there was widespread support for an eviction moratorium, for rent relief, and for non-congregate shelters. There was a recognition that bureaucratic barriers to safety net programs were dangerous in a time of crisis, and that the government needed to be nimble, flexible, and humane. D.C. lowered barriers to many programs, forgave past debts, extended time in programs, and even sealed eviction records to allow people fresh starts. Many of those changes were formalized and institutionalized and will therefore last long beyond the sense of urgency that came from the pandemic.

    However, at the same time, rents continued to increase and rent relief runs out as quickly as the program can accept applications. No meaningful rent control or rent cancelation passed. People with high incomes secured more wealth, while people with low incomes struggled more. The income and wealth gaps grew, and the gap became a chasm when race was factored in. All the various disparities compounded for Black residents of D.C. who suffered far more during the pandemic than their white counterparts. The Legal Clinic is contacted by an increasing number of primarily Black D.C. residents who need a lawyer’s help to access basic housing and government programs—programs that they need quick and unfettered access to in order to survive in this city, like emergency shelter.

    People experiencing homelessness in D.C. are caught in the middle of a perfect storm of bias, government incompetence, and lack of political will. For the past two years, the government has failed to quickly place people into a voucher program, leaving D.C. residents languishing (and dying) on the street, in shelters, and in the remaining pandemic-relief hotel. Some Ward 2 neighbors are suing to stop the opening of the Aston, a non-congregate shelter designed specifically to shelter and protect the health of people who are not served appropriately by large congregate shelters.

    While the D.C. government cannot control the opposition of neighbors to a new shelter, they can control their competence at administering basic programs, their funding priorities, and whether people have a safe place to go while they wait for the government to get its act together. D.C. has repeatedly failed to ensure that unhoused residents have access to safe, accessible shelter while they complete the process of obtaining permanent housing. D.C. government decided to delay the opening of the Aston for months and to close the last shelter space for medically vulnerable shelter residents earlier than planned, displaying no regard for the health and safety of D.C.’s most vulnerable communities. Despite their health concerns, people were displaced and left to choose between inappropriate congregate shelter placements or the street. Some of those displaced residents sought legal representation and the Legal Clinic has been working closely with them to advocate for safe and accessible placements. Unfortunately, D.C. government is actively fighting those placements.

    Too often, the undervaluing of low-income and primarily Black and brown lives results in death. Tragically, without access to safe housing, over 90 unhoused D.C. residents died without a home this year, 57 of whom were already matched to housing. Even one such death is far too many. The Legal Clinic will stand with our friends at the People for Fairness Coalition this week at the 11th Annual Memorial and Vigil to commemorate those lives lost. We will continue to stand with our unhoused clients every single day to demand that the D.C. government prioritize the lives and needs of people by ensuring that everyone in D.C. has access to safe, accessible shelter and housing. We hope you stand with us in the fight for a more equitable and just D.C.

  • In Memoriam: Cheryl K. Barnes

    In Memoriam: Cheryl K. Barnes

    In May, Cheryl K. Barnes, a longtime Freelance Homeless Activist and Legal Clinic Board member since 1997, passed away. All of us at the Legal Clinic mourn her passing. Cheryl’s friendship, wisdom, and talent are enduring gifts to the Legal Clinic community, and we carry them with us on the continued journey toward housing justice.

    Cheryl was an active homeless activist. She was part of the Speaker’s Bureau at the National Coalition for the Homeless and was one of the first impacted community members to be on the D.C. Interagency Council on Homelessness. She was active in the Fair Budget Coalition and testified at many D.C. Council hearings.

    Cheryl also left behind a legacy of art. She generously shared her art with us over the years, whether auctioning off pieces for fundraisers or brightening our living and working spaces. A little window into her life and her art can be found here.

    We welcome your memories of Cheryl in the comments below. May her memory and her impact bring inspiration to us all.

    Artist: Cheryl K. Barnes
    Artist: Cheryl K. Barnes
    Artist: Cheryl K. Barnes

  • Mayor Bowser’s Budget Fails Unhoused D.C. Residents

    Mayor Bowser’s proposed FY24 budget isn’t just tight, it is deeply and fundamentally out of balance– particularly when it comes to the needs of District residents experiencing housing instability and homelessness. Where the government has failed to follow the law or implement its programs, there is no consequence levied on the government-only on District residents. When cuts are made to critical programs, they are accompanied by deliberate policy choices that deepen the cuts. Make no mistake—the investments in ending and preventing homelessness are not anywhere near what they need to be. This has serious consequences for District residents. Below, we lay out our priorities and grade the Mayor on her investments and policy choices. In all but one housing priority—public housing repairs—the Mayor receives a failing grade.

    1. End Homelessness Quickly by Investing in Voucher Programs: F

    The D.C. government is not leasing up vouchers quickly. The government’s response to their own dysfunction is to cut or flat-fund voucher programs, give performance bonuses to DCHA employees, clear encampments—even advocating for a more aggressive clearing schedule for federal land—and cut hundreds of families from rapid re-housing for reaching an arbitrary time limit. The Council should increase funding for vouchers and, until those vouchers are adequately funded and in people’s hands, prohibit any government action that harms D.C. residents because of their homelessness or poverty.

    The Mayor’s budget does not increase investments in any of the voucher programs that end homelessness. In fact, there may be cuts to funding for vouchers. We ask that those cuts be restored and funding increased. In addition, the Mayor published regulations for TAH that contradict the FY23 Budget Support Act (BSA) requirements for eligibility. We recommend amending the BSA to override those regulations and incorporate TAH eligibility standards, much like the Council had to do with LRSP eligibility rules.

    Program Households Cost
    Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)-Families 480 $18.87 million
    Targeted Affordable Housing (TAH) 1,920 $58.4 million
    LRSP Tenant Vouchers 800 $17.33 million
    PSH-Individuals 1,260 $36.6 million
    LRSP Vouchers for Returning Citizens 60 $1.3 million
    Total 4,520 $132.5 million

     

    1. Ensure Stable Housing for Families by Reforming Rapid Re-Housing: F

    Not only did the Mayor fail to include any new permanent housing vouchers for families in the budget, her Administration also cut the budget for rapid re-housing. Yet, knowing that families will have even fewer options to exit rapid re-housing into permanent affordable housing, the Department of Human Services has proposed instituting an even stricter time limit for rapid re-housing and plans to send terminations notices to 500 families in the next six months. There will be no extensions after eighteen months, no matter the family’s circumstances—not if you just had a baby, not if you are about to start a new job, not if you are working full-time but still cannot afford rent, not for any reason.

    The Council must pass and fund the Rapid Re-Housing Reform Amendment Act of 2023. Much, if not all, of this bill can be funded by meeting the need for PSH and TAH listed above. The bill must go into effect as quickly as possible to prevent hundreds of time-limit terminations this fiscal year and next.

    1. Prevent Evictions and Homelessness: F

    The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) has been cut from $43 million to $8 million after the program ran out of funds halfway through FY23. The Mayor also refused to even fund a part-time temporary worker to slow the pace of rent increases. Consequently, rents will go up as rental support drastically decreases. The Council should increase funding for ERAP and if the money runs out, reinstate an eviction moratorium until funds are available.

    We are asking for a minimum of $50 million in the FY23 supplemental budget and a minimum of $117 million in the FY24 budget. We support BSA amendments to require reporting on ERAP administration and distribution, including timelines, staffing, and delays of administering organizations.

    1. Ensure Adequate Shelter Capacity to Meet the Need: Mixed

    DHS intends to close down all PEP-V hotels this fiscal year. They anticipate at least fifty people will not have housing and will return to the street or shelter. At the same time, seasonal hypothermia shelters are closing and, due to shelter renovations, there will be 100 fewer year-round shelter beds this spring. Two buildings will be developed into non-congregate shelter and although that is great, these shelters will not be available for months, at a minimum. We propose keeping PEP-V open until the renovated shelters and new, non-congregate shelters are open. We also support adding $1.5 million to provide additional storage in shelters—often cited as a barrier for people who would like to enter shelter.

    1. Restore and Increase Funds for Domestic Violence Shelter and Housing: F

    The Mayor cut $6.85 million from domestic violence housing and victim services in the current budget and proposed cutting an additional $8.4 million in FY24. Prior to learning about the cuts, domestic violence providers identified a need for an additional $9.6 million this year to meet the current needs of survivors and $18.6 million in FY24 to add more housing for survivors. We support the domestic violence community’s efforts to restore all cuts and increase funding for domestic violence shelter and housing.

    1. Restore Public Restroom Funding: F

    The Mayor cut the funding to build downtown public bathrooms and has removed portable toilets from encampments, yet continues to criminalize public urination and defecation—even if the person has no other choice. The Council should restore the funds and decriminalize public urination and defecation.

    It is particularly cruel to continue to criminalize these acts when the D.C. government has failed to provide public restrooms and has stalled its efforts to end homelessness.

    1. Repair Public Housing: A

    We asked for a recurring $60 million to address the substantial preservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment needs of D.C.’s public housing properties. The Mayor has proposed $54 million in FY24: 90% of our ask. We are asking the Council to reintroduce the Public Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Amendment Act of 2020 and include its language in the BSA to memorialize DC Housing Authority’s stated commitment to its residents, ensuring that public housing residents can rightfully access the housing that is intended for them upon any property redevelopment or transformation.

    1. Build and Preserve Deeply Affordable Housing: ?

    It is unclear whether the Mayor has included sufficient operating funding so that the full amount of 0-30% AMI affordable housing can be built. We urge the Council to make sure those funds are included and to ensure that DHCD is compliant with all reporting requirements under the newly passed Housing Production Trust Fund Transparency Amendment Act, an important piece of legislation that increases transparency and reporting requirements. DHCD continues to fail to meet its targets for producing 0-30% AMI housing with this fund. The Council should explore disaggregating the funds so that 50% of the funding is actually dedicated to producing deeply affordable housing.

    Overall grade: F

    We have a few ideas for where to find the money (pickleball courts, Farragut Square renovations, and MPD signing bonuses are but a few examples). We also urge the Council to reject the Mayor’s proposed expansion to the Tax Abatements for Housing in Downtown Act of 2022, which gives developers tax breaks while weakening affordable housing requirements, waiving tenants’ rights, and not requiring developers to prioritize D.C. residents for jobs.

    The Council has a hard road ahead over the next few weeks to turn this into a more humane and just budget. Stay tuned for more information on how to advocate for the budget to prioritize the pressing needs of unhoused District residents.

    Take action here to tell the Council to fund vouchers to end homelessness!

  • Join Tenant Advocates in Opposing Emergency Legislation to “Reform” DC Housing Authority Board

    Today, the Legal Clinic joins our legal services and tenant advocacy colleagues in urging the D.C. Council to vote no on the District of Columbia Housing Authority Stabilization and Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2022. See below for the letter we sent to the Council today. Take action to urge your elected representatives to pursue real reform instead of this bill, which is harmful at worst, performative at best.

    1. Send an email with Empower DC’s email action.
    2. Sign up to make a phone call with Jews United for Justice for Monday or Tuesday.

     

    December 19, 2022

    The Hon. Phil Mendelson

    Council of the District of Columbia

    1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

    Washington, DC 20004

    RE: District of Columbia Housing Authority Stabilization and Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2022

    Dear Chairman Mendelson and Fellow Members of the Council of the District of Columbia:

    The undersigned organizations write to express deep concern and opposition to the emergency legislation regarding the DC Housing Authority. We urge you to oppose the District of Columbia Housing Authority Stabilization and Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2022, and its many proposed amendments, that would dissolve the DC Housing Authority (DCHA) Board of Commissioners (Board) and replace it with a “Stabilization and Reform” board, diminish the role of residents served by DCHA, and remove all non-mayoral appointees–the only members that have consistently raised many of the issues cited within the HUD Report. Further, the emergency bill fails to address the fundamental problems identified in the HUD report.

    As organizations that represent the interests of low-income tenants who reside in DCHA properties or receive DCHA Housing Choice Vouchers, we are interested in reforming the DCHA, but we firmly oppose the pending emergency legislation that would remove critical voices from the Board, including those of resident leaders, and further expand Mayoral control of the Board. The legislation would radically alter the structure and make-up of the Board without public input or well-informed debate.   The bill removes the DCHA board member seats selected by labor and housing advocates and reduces representation of elected DCHA residents, without adequate justification. By eliminating these voices and converting any resident representation to mayoral selections, this bill would prevent the Board from performing a key function: rigorous oversight and independent monitoring.  Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the “Stabilization and Reform” Board would be more effective than the current Board. During a time when DC residents need more confidence in the leadership at DCHA, this bill would breed further distrust in the agency.

    The fact that DCHA is in need of substantial reform does not justify the radical changes proposed through the pending bill, particularly without an adequate opportunity to comment. Further, any effort to rehabilitate DCHA must substantially address the HUD Report’s programmatic concerns, and this bill fails to do that. Notably, HUD found that the current Executive Director “has no experience in property development, property management or managing federal housing programs,” yet this bill does not address current leadership or other staffing concerns. True reform aimed at resolving the fundamental problems at DCHA must also address leadership, internal agency deficiencies, and the grave failings to meet the many needs of DCHA constituents in the provision of safe and affordable housing.

    For these reasons, we vehemently oppose the District of Columbia Housing Authority Stabilization and Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 2022. DCHA requires thoughtful reform, and we hope the DC Council will join us in opposition to this haphazard and ill-informed legislation. While we certainly agree that there are significant issues that need to be addressed within DCHA and DCHA Board structure, rushed emergency legislation and hurried amendments are not the path to meaningful reform for such a critical agency. We are encouraged by the recent introduction of permanent legislation to reform DCHA, and hope DC Council considers it a tangible step forward.  Residents and the public deserve thorough legislation and the opportunity for input. Anything less will be devastating to the lives of DC’s most vulnerable residents and the preservation of public housing.

    Sincerely,

    Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

    Legal Aid of District of Columbia

    Bread for the City

    Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs

    Legal Counsel for the Elderly

    Children’s Law Center

    Rising for Justice

    Empower DC

     

    CC:

    The Hon. Kenyan R. McDuffie

    The Hon. Anita Bonds

    The Hon. Elissa Silverman

    The Hon. Robert C. White, Jr.

    The Hon. Christina Henderson

    The Hon. Brianne K. Nadeau

    The Hon. Brooke Pinto

    The Hon. Mary M. Cheh

    The Hon. Janeese Lewis George

    The Hon. Charles Allen

    The Hon. Vincent C. Gray

    The Hon. Trayon White, Sr.

  • The Longest Night of the Year: National Homeless Persons’ Remembrance Day

    The Longest Night of the Year: National Homeless Persons’ Remembrance Day

    On December 21, winter solstice, communities across the country will recognize National Homeless Persons’ Remembrance Day. In D.C., People for Fairness Coalition, an advocacy group composed of current and formerly unhoused D.C. residents, will hold a vigil the night before to honor the lives and acknowledge the passing of all those who died unhoused in D.C. this year.

    To attend the vigil, please sign up here.

    The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically proved that housing is a critical public health intervention– yet the learnings of the pandemic have not yet deepened into a broader understanding that housing is quite literally a life-saver. It is irrefutable that the life expectation of someone in housing is far greater than that of someone who is unhoused. We know that housing is healthcare, that many people’s physical and emotional health improves when they obtain safe, stable housing. Even when housing is not capable of preventing an individual’s death, housing inevitably allows for an easier and more dignified passing.

    We here at the Legal Clinic extend our condolences to the friends and family members of all those who have died unhoused this year. We are resolute in fixing the broken systems and the insufficient political will that lead to people dying without homes.

  • Statement on the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Scathing DC Housing Authority Audit

    Statement on the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Scathing DC Housing Authority Audit

    The following statement was prepared and signed onto by Bread for the City, Children’s Law Center, Empower DC, Legal Aid DC, Legal Counsel for the Elderly, Neighborhood Legal Services Program, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless.

    The recent report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that lays out eighty-two ways in which the DC Housing Authority (“DCHA”) is failing residents, tenants, and voucher holders confirms what housing advocates and residents have long known. DCHA is a failed agency, and its failure has been happening in plain sight, with little or no oversight. Residents and advocates alike have been testifying before the DC Council and the DCHA Board of Commissioners for years about the agency’s horrifying living conditions, closed waitlists, mismanagement, scandal, high staff turnover, and all-around lack of responsiveness to residents. This is and has always been a race, gender, and class injustice. The majority of public housing residents are Black, and DCHA’s failures disproportionately impact Black residents, particularly Black women and children. While resident voices over the years should have been enough to spur DC leadership into action, we appreciate that the HUD report confirms their experiences. The report spotlights DCHA’s utter failure to fulfill its only mission: to safely and stably house DC’s lowest income residents.

    It is hard to think of a recent DC Council oversight hearing or Board of Commissioners meeting that did not have public housing residents documenting the horrifying conditions that they live in – from mold, to lead, to constant leaks, to mouse and roach infestations. In fact, DCHA confirmed this publicly in 2019 when its then Executive Director declared that 2,610 of its public housing units were in “extremely urgent” need of repair, and 4,445 units were in “critical condition.” The situation was so dire that an estimated $2.2 billion was necessary to repair all the public housing units. No one should be forced to live in these conditions, and yet this is the reality for public housing residents. The District should be ashamed.

    DCHA has also failed the tens of thousands of residents who have been languishing on its waitlists for decades. According to DCHA’s latest oversight responses in 2022, the public housing waitlist has 24,368 people on it, and the voucher waitlist is even longer, with 37,160 people waiting for their chance at affordable housing. And this isn’t even a true count of the need. These waitlists have been closed since 2013, so anyone who has turned 18 or has come to need affordable housing in the past 9 years cannot even add their name. In the face of this obvious and critical need, DCHA has let over 20% of its public housing units sit dilapidated and vacant.

    The HUD report confirms that DCHA is failing to serve its residents and run any of its housing programs in accordance with the law. Public housing residents and voucher holders alike cannot access or complete basic program functions, from completing recertifications to requesting transfer vouchers or reasonable accommodations. Constant turnover of high-level positions at the agency means tenants and advocates rarely know who to turn to with their problems.

    The solutions to these many problems must be thoughtful and intentional because, although HUD’s report has put into laser focus the failures of DCHA, some of its proposed solutions could potentially hurt the very residents that DCHA is failing. Any plan to put DCHA back on course should be centered around preventing further harm to DCHA residents. As a first step, DCHA should forgive any outstanding rent due from public housing residents who have been living in unsafe and unhealthy conditions.

    DCHA has lost its way and strayed from its mission. The dysfunction starts at the top and runs all the way down to the program offices. Therefore, meaningful change cannot start until the Board of Commissioners, which is controlled by a majority appointed by the Mayor, is rebalanced and constituted with members who prioritize serving DC residents over giving land and deals to developers. DCHA needs experienced leadership with expertise in each of its program areas, and the Council must increase its oversight of DCHA’s operations for the foreseeable future. Rebuilding DCHA from the ground up is going to take time, and the time to start was years ago. DCHA must recommit itself to prioritizing the needs of its tenants–the lives and safety of thousands of DC residents depend on it.

I am a Search Dialog!