February 24, 2026
Testimony of Jesse Owens, Staff Attorney, and Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation, The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless envisions a District of Columbia where housing is a human right, racial justice is a reality, and all people have true and meaningful access to the resources needed to thrive.
D.C.’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has documented an increase in cases regarding public benefits and housing over the last few years. Since D.C. residents are dependent on OAH to render decisions on the provision of critical resources, it is important to ensure that OAH operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. This Committee and OAH must prioritize changes that make the process of an appeal to OAH more timely, more transparent, and easier for parties and their representatives to navigate.
I. Lack of Timeliness in Receiving Final Decisions, Responses to Motions, and Scheduling for Hearing Requests
The increase in appeals and large staff caseloads have seemingly contributed to unacceptable administrative delays by OAH. The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless has received delayed responses from OAH on multiple occasions. In regard to final decisions in fair hearings, final order decisions are consistently exceeding the statutorily required response time of fifteen (15) days. § 4–754.41(f)(3)(C). In one example, despite several requests for status updates and previously filed
motions, OAH did not release a final decision until eight (8) months after the fair hearing. In another matter, a client waited four (4) months before receiving a final decision. Both of these clients were facing dire circumstances and housing instability when their appeals were originally filed. Such delays disregard the magnitude of consequences for those seeking appeals.
Unfortunately, final decisions are not the only instances of OAH delays. Delays in OAH scheduling and responses to motions for reconsideration, benefits pending, and voluntary dismissal have become too common. Some scheduling delays have even resulted from unnecessary clerical errors. Hearing dates have been rescheduled due to lack of proper notice to counsel and mistyped e-mail addresses. These avoidable errors needlessly extend case duration and resolution. OAH must have the necessary agency staffing and training support from this Committee to remedy these concerns. OAH delays of decisions pertaining to critical resources and programs compound harm for D.C. residents.
Additionally, we are concerned that OAH currently lacks sufficient systems for emergency hearing requests. When attempting communication about emergency hearing requests, it has been increasingly difficult to reach anyone at OAH that can give substantive answers about status or scheduling. While lack of timely communication is a general issue, it is extremely concerning for emergency hearings requests. Emergency hearings are requested so that residents needing an immediate response and facing immediate harm can get an urgent decision. There was a time when emergency hearings were timely and scheduled appropriately to offer immediate resolution. Families that are denied shelter without a safe place to stay are prime examples of those that have filed for and benefitted from OAH emergency hearings. Now, there is no urgency from OAH in response to emergency hearing requests. The scheduling of emergency hearings is woefully insufficient, dismissing the emergency nature of the filing entirely. As it has had in the past, OAH needs staff specifically dedicated to fielding emergency requests. OAH must return the sense of urgency to its emergency hearing protocol.
WLCH requests that the Committee work to prioritize the needs of those who file for fair hearings at OAH. We urge this Committee and D.C. Council to work with OAH to ensure statutory
deadlines are met and enforced. The staffing capacity concerns reported by OAH must also be addressed to ensure OAH is able to properly manage the rising caseload. Further, prioritizing development of an electronic portal that would update filers as to the status of their case and any pending motions would be an effective way to provide clarity to individuals and their representation. Increasing and/or better utilizing staff to inform and substantively update callers to OAH on the status of their appeal would also be helpful.
II. Limited Access for Hearings
Currently, the vast majority of OAH hearings are still being done exclusively by phone. While we appreciate client access to hearings through means other than through in-person convenings, the automatic scheduling of a hearing to be conducted on a conference line should not be the sole option. Those with cases at OAH should have the option to be heard and seen when presenting their case for appeal, if desired. They should also have the option to see the other parties and their arbiter. OAH should return to providing an option for hearings on video platforms so that D.C. residents, D.C. agencies, and OAH judges can present more fully, if desired. OAH has indicated that the agency is assessing methods to improve accessibility and exploring hybrid options. The Committee should support the assessment, require OAH to expand options to include video hearing access, and provide OAH with the proper resources to do so.
III. Conclusion
With public benefits and housing cases rising at OAH, this Committee and D.C. Council must use its authority to ensure that OAH is a highly functional and accessible administrative body. Hearing delays, statutory noncompliance, and barriers to full hearing access cannot be permitted at an agency tasked with some of the most critical decisions impacting the lives of D.C. residents. D.C. Council must
ensure that OAH is fully operational, efficient, and supported with the resources needed to successfully serve D.C.