Testimony of Joshua M. Drumming, Policy and Advocacy Attorney, and Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal
Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation, The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
October 30, 2025
Since 1987, the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless has envisioned and 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.
While we appreciate the opportunity to clarify the purpose and administration of D.C.
Flex through the Flexible Rent Subsidy Program Amendment Act of 2025, permanent legislation
to address a pilot program in which DHS has yet to provide full pilot program data and outcomes
is premature. There has not been a comprehensive reporting of what the existing program has
succeeded and/or failed at and what the outcomes have been for the participants that entered this
program years ago. D.C. Council should not be moving to create permanent programs from any
pilot without relevant data showing that the pilot has been successful at achieving its goal and the
investment is fiscally sound. Funds for homeless services are never plentiful. Money could and
should be used more appropriately to fund existing housing programs if the data reflects that
conclusion. A comprehensive analysis of existing data for D.C. Flex must be completed and
provided before determining permanent next steps.
One of our largest criticisms of D.C. Flex has been that the subsidy amount, current and
proposed, is too small to be applied appropriately to the current demographic in which D.C. Flex
is widely offered. For the last couple of years, D.C. Flex has been touted by DHS as a viable
option for families in shelter or being terminated from Rapid Re-Housing. The Legal Clinic has
continued to express frustration with this agency talking point. The reality is that the majority of
families or individuals in shelter or Rapid Re-Housing do not have enough income to maintain
housing in D.C. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Rapid Re-Housing participants report
TANF as the sole/primary income. Despite these realities, DHS continues to act as though D.C.
Flex is comparable to the subsidies of permanent vouchers or Rapid Re-Housing. Current DHS
participants maintaining their housing through subsidy programs cannot and will not be able to
maintain their housing in any substantial way through D.C. Flex.
On average, one-bedroom apartments in DC cost $2300/year. That number increases to
$2950-3360 if one wants a two bedroom. A yearly subsidy amount of $8400 or $11,300 will
allow families a few months of rent in D.C.’s rental market. Realistically, D.C. Flex will only
operate as another form of emergency rental assistance for most, allowing recipients to pay just a
few more months of rent before they ultimately face eviction. There is no “flexible” feature of
the program for families or individuals that have to rely primarily on the subsidy each month to
supplement their housing costs.
The eligibility criteria established in this bill remains unclear. Participants must be found
by DHS to have sufficient income or potential to grow income such that enrollment in the
program would end or prevent an episode of homelessness. It is unclear what constitutes a
“potential to grow.” This ambiguity, if left as is, could be weaponized against program
participants-or, at the very least, applied differently to different people. Furthermore, it is unclear
who the target demographic is for D.C. Flex. As aforementioned, the majority of current DHS
shelter and RRH participants do not have enough income to maintain their housing without a
substantial subsidy. If the majority of those who utilize DHS services are not the target of the
program, DHS should be clear on who the program actually aims to serve. This Committee
should have data that illustrates exactly what percentage of current DHS clients/participants
would qualify as having “sufficient income” to be eligible for D.C. Flex under the proposed
rules. If the majority of those utilizing DHS services would not have sufficient income to be
eligible for the program, the goal and purpose of the program within DHS is unclear. D.C. Flex
should not simply be another fund that serves the same narrowed population that ERAP now
serves. However, a “potential to grow” qualification provides no tangible criteria and acts as a
catch-all to allow the same mismatch of subsidy that currently occurs. If DHS simply wants to
provide a few months of rental assistance, that is fine. However, DHS should be forthright in
acknowledging that while D.C. Flex will be helpful in extending subsidies briefly, it will be
quickly exhausted by the majority of its current clients/participants and a return to
shelter/homelessness will swiftly follow.
Another area of concern is the ambiguity regarding what happens to participants when
they have exhausted all of the current year’s subsidy before the year’s end. It is unclear whether
participants are exited from the program when they have used all of the year’s subsidy or if they
are simply left a dormant “participant” until the next calendar year. It is unclear what
“participation” would even look like once the subsidy has been exhausted. Realistically,
participants would have to leave their units or face eviction once the annual subsidy had been
used. They would return to homelessness and shelter services, forfeiting additional yearly
payments without access to a rental unit.
A most alarming provision of this bill cedes control of everything from the subsidy
amount to program duration length to the Mayor. Mayor Bowser’s administration has shown
D.C. residents and D.C. Council multiple times that it is willing to, with little notice, completely
upend the rules, rights, and benefits of programs under its purview–rules upon which vulnerable
D.C. residents detrimentally rely. If D.C. Council plans to move forward with permanent
legislation on this current pilot program, it must actually legislate to establish some of the most
basic and critical program framework.
At a time when more people than ever need permanent vouchers, DHS and the Bowser
administration continue to focus more on palliative fixes like D.C. Flex and HPP that do not
actually end homelessness for most. These programs can be effective in the right situations but
are simply not enough to address the homeless and housing insecurity issues of which D.C.
residents seek DHS services. D.C. Council must evaluate existing program data and outcomes,
ensuring that any permanent program extension builds upon current successes, not simply
rubberstamps a failing venture and/or wastes critical D.C. funds. D.C. Council must utilize data
to evaluate and only affirm DHS programs that are responsive to D.C. resident needs.