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

February 26, 2026

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.

It seems that every year, residents see a further dismantling of D.C.’s social safety
net, making mere survival in the District increasingly implausible. Black residents that have
lived here for generations continue to struggle to survive in a D.C. that increasingly
prioritizes affluence. D.C. Council needs to invest in permanent housing resources, force
DHS to improve its provision of services, restore access to rental assistance, improve the
shelter system, and make D.C. a place that reconciles the new D.C. with the D.C. of old.

I. End Homelessness and Increase Transparency  

One of the most effective ways to end D.C.’s homelessness and affordability crisis
is to use and appropriately fund all of the different types of vouchers available. This means
PSH vouchers, but also lower barrier vouchers, such as LRSP vouchers, which are less
costly and more accessible to a larger cross-section of D.C. residents in need of stable
housing. D.C. Council must ensure that DHS and DCHA have the requisite staffing and
coordination for participants to be quickly identified and approved for permanent housing
resources and to swiftly lease up. Agency bureaucracy prolongs homelessness.

This year’s Point-in-Time census was canceled, but due to multiple legislative
changes, as well as policy and regulatory shifts, there is a high likelihood that
homelessness in the District has increased. D.C. has an unemployment rate 155% of the
national average (6.7% versus 4.3%), a largely defunded Emergency Rental Assistance
Program with a higher-barrier eligibility threshold, a Rapid Re-Housing program that has
been substantially dismantled, and inadequate voucher resources. A lack of investment in
housing resources will only lead to an increase in homelessness.

Last budget season, zero vouchers for individuals were funded by the Mayor or D.C.
Council. While 176 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) vouchers and 160 Targeted
Affordable Housing (TAH) vouchers were funded, the amounts are woefully inadequate to
meet the need. This is an even more dangerous state of affairs since last year ushered in an
unprecedented level of local-federal cooperation, via a joint local-federal encampment
task force, that specifically targeted unsheltered D.C. residents. It is incumbent upon the
D.C. Council to adequately fund vouchers for individuals so that there will be fewer
unhoused residents subject to this task force’s actions. In addition to this new threat, the
unsheltered community must always contend with the inherent and natural dangers of
living outside. Between 2023 and 2025, 272 homeless individuals died from multiple
causes related to living outside. These deaths should be unacceptable in a place as well-resourced as D.C.
Unfortunately, vouchers have little utility if they are not appropriately used to end
homelessness for D.C. residents. This Committee must ensure that DHS is appropriately
budgeting in order to properly administer funds allocated by D.C. Council. Too often, issues
about inaccurate costs arise after funds are allocated. DHS cannot be allowed to have an
opaque agency budget. D.C. Council must increase oversight of DHS and DCHA to
promote more efficient voucher administration, utilization, and staffing.

II. Plan Appropriately for Residents With Extremely Low Incomes

Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) was created to support low-income D.C. residents, placing
them on a path to financial fortitude by subsidizing the majority of their monthly rent.
Unfortunately, the program has never achieved its stated ends. Its “one-size-fits-all” model
cycles the lowest-income residents in and out of homelessness, sometimes saddling them
with evictions and experiencing more financial harm than before entering the program. We
have testified to this reality for years, but instead of reforming the program into one that is
more narrowly tailored to better address its issues, DHS decided to mass exit participants
from the program. These program exits hinge upon arbitrary benefits cliffs rather than
participants reaching financial stability or being matched to permanent housing resources.
In lieu of the latter, DHS has put nearly all of their resources into shallow subsidies, such as
DC Flex, that are incapable of establishing enduring housing stability for the extremely low-income residents that make up the overwhelming majority of Rapid Re-Housing’s
participants.

Beyond this, DHS promulgated regulations and a Budget Support Act that
eviscerated virtually all substantive and procedural appeal rights, in complete violation of
due process standards. Instead of participants being able to appeal their program exits
before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), they are confined to DHS
administrative hearings, a body that has a vested interest in exiting them from the program.
Cutting participants from the Rapid Re-Housing Program and/or other shallow
subsidies without any real plan for housing stability only results in a cycle of residents
returning to the shelter system more harmed by D.C. government than when they originally
entered Rapid Re-Housing. There have also been several instances of families being exited
from Rapid Re-Housing, losing their subsidy without another means to pay rent, facing
eviction and/or returning to shelter, and then eventually receiving a new offer of Rapid Re-Housing. DHS has even expressed a willingness to pay people to leave D.C. through their
Project Reconnect program rather than pay for them to be housed in the District. Such
actions are harmful, cruel, and defy logic. Families should not be treated with such a lack
of care. DHS and D.C. Council need to realistically and meaningfully plan for the many
families and individuals who cannot afford market rent when the short-term housing
programs and subsidies end.

III. Restore ERAP Accessibility

The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) helps D.C. residents maintain
housing and avoid eviction. Due to last year’s legislative alterations that drastically restrict
eligibility, it is now inaccessible to many D.C. residents that need it. These changes were
largely based upon unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, racist tropes, and classist myths
about low-income, Black people. D.C. Council should amend the program yet again to
expand access and prioritize tenant interests.

We ask D.C. Council to increase oversight to require regular reporting on ERAP
administration and distribution, including timelines, staffing, and delays of administering
organizations. D.C. must collect and share data on the efficiency of the current program
and the demographics of the residents able to access the rental assistance. Council must
put pressure on DHS to release new ERAP regulations that provide greater transparency
and guidance on the current ERAP regime. D.C. Council must also increase landlord
accountability in this process, establishing minimum standards for participation and
cooperation with ERAP when a tenant is seeking assistance. When landlords refuse to
cooperate, tenants should not have to bear the consequences.

IV. Reform and Expand Access to Shelter System

Changes in D.C.’s housing apparatus have likely led to an increase in overall
homelessness. It is incumbent upon D.C. Council to make these sites safe and accessible.
Accessibility has seemingly decreased since the Virginia William Family Resource Center’s
move to 64 New York Avenue.

Last oversight season, we testified about the changes to the VWFRC status quo.
Historically, The Legal Clinic has played a critical role in informing denied families of their
rights and assisting them in obtaining emergency shelter. Upon VWFRC’s relocation, our
staff was prohibited from continuing to do outreach in the VWFRC lobby, severely reducing
the number of denied, but eligible, shelter applicants we can help access shelter. While
DHS assured D.C. Council that their services would remain just as accessible as they were
in their Rhode Island location, our office’s shelter access case numbers indicate that this is
not the case. If shelter applicants cannot connect with assistance and are unaware of their
rights under the HSRA, particularly during hypothermia season, families will unnecessarily
remain in unsafe conditions. This Committee should ensure transparency and
accessibility.

Beyond shelter access issues, there are many shelter conditions issues. Many
people in encampments have cited shelter issues that prevent them from accessing
shelter. Some of those concerns include employee aggression and harassment, pest
infestations, limitations on the number of belongings that may be brought into the shelter,
lack of storage, sanitation issues, and limited and limiting views on what counts as family–
particularly as it pertains to pets and nontraditional family members. D.C. Council should
put forth legislation that enhances shelter storage capabilities, recognizes different types
of families, implements shelter training and protocol standardization, and acknowledges
the dignity of all who seek services.

Conclusion  

Increasingly, D.C. residents are being reminded of how fragile their access to critical
human services continues to be. It consistently seems that those without high incomes are
forced to defend their right to exist in D.C. Residents deserve programs and agencies that
aim to provide efficient and adequate support. D.C. Council must use its oversight
authority to ensure that DHS is accountable to the residents it serves

February 13, 2026

Regulations Division
Office of the General Counsel
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street NW, Room 10276
Washington, DC 20410-0500

Re: Docket No. FR-6540-P-01 HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s
Disparate Impact Standard

Submitted via regulations.gov

We, the undersigned members and allies of the Partnership for Just Housing (PJH), write to
vehemently oppose the Trump-Vance administration’s proposed rule seeking to not only
change HUD’s disparate impact standard, but effectively eliminate the standard
altogether.

Convened by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), VOICE of the
Experienced, the Formerly Incarcerated and Convicted People and Families Movement
(FICPFM), the National Housing Law Project (NHLP), and Bluhm Legal Clinic’s Tenant
Advocacy Center¹, the Partnership for Just Housing (PJH) is a national collaborative of
directly impacted leaders and other advocates working to end housing discrimination
against people impacted by the criminal-legal system. Together, we work to advance
economic and racial equity at the intersection of housing and the criminal-legal system.
PJH centers the expertise of people with direct criminal-legal system involvement in
forming and executing its agenda.

We oppose HUD’s abandonment of its role in fighting against disparate impact
discrimination, per the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) issued January 14,
2026, and urge HUD to withdraw the proposal. This proposal is designed to make it more
difficult, if not impossible, for people experiencing housing discrimination to challenge
discriminatory policies and practices, a change that will impact formerly incarcerated and
convicted people and their families, adding to the barriers they already face in finding safe,
stable housing. With little to no justification, the NPRM trades existing guidance and
transparency for confusion. HUD does not meet its obligations by refusing to articulate or
enforce this well-recognized basis for Fair Housing Act liability.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, disability, national origin, or familial status in the sale, renting, or financing of
housing. HUD has long interpreted the FHA as prohibiting not only overtly or purposefully
discriminatory housing practices, but also practices with a discriminatory impact, even if
the intention of the practice or policy is not to discriminate².

HUD’s disparate impact standard is an important tool in identifying and remedying such
policies. In 2013, after years of seeking input and feedback from stakeholders, HUD issued
a final disparate impact rule standardizing a three-step “burden-shifting” approach to
determining whether a policy or practice has or will likely have a discriminatory effect. In
2019, the Trump-Pence administration proposed a drastic revision to the disparate impact
standard, creating a five-part set of tests that shifted the responsibility of proving
discrimination almost solely to people experiencing discrimination. These changes were
designed to make it much more difficult for people of color, women, members of the
LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, and other members of FHA’s “protected classes” to
challenge discriminatory policies and practices, tipping the legal scale in favor of housing
providers, governments, and businesses accused of discriminating³.

The 2013 disparate impact standard was reinstated by the Biden-Harris administration in
2021; now, the Trump-Vance administration is once again changing the standard to tilt the
odds against people experiencing discrimination and make it more difficult to hold bad
actors accountable, this time by “[removing HUD’s] discriminatory effects regulations and
leaving to courts questions related to interpretations of disparate impact liability.”⁴ This
change will exacerbate housing insecurity, particularly among formerly incarcerated and
convicted people.

HUD previously recognized the potentially discriminatory impact of broad bans against
people impacted by the criminal-legal system. In a 2016 memo (rescinded in 2025), HUD
advised housing providers that policies and practices imposing broad bans against people
with conviction or arrest histories from housing may be discriminatory under the FHA, due
to the disproportionate impact such a policy has on members of protected classes⁵.
Generations of biased policies and practices have led people of color – particularly Black,
Native, and Latino people – as well as people with disabilities and members of the LGBTQ+
community to be disproportionately targeted and impacted by the criminal-legal system.⁶
As such, unnecessarily strict policies that deny housing opportunities for people with any
conviction or arrest record are more likely to impact members of these protected classes.

Indeed, HUD notes in the memo “a housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on
any person with any conviction record – no matter when the conviction occurred, what the
underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then – will be
unable” to prove the “policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate,
nondiscriminatory interest.” Removing disparate impact regulations and rescinding
previously issued guidance do not change housing providers’ obligations under the FHA;
rather, it stirs confusion and makes it less clear how housing providers should conduct
screenings in a way that upholds FHA protections.

A conviction or arrest record poses a significant barrier to finding affordable housing in an
already extremely tight rental market. Nationally, there is a shortage of 7.3 million
affordable, available rental units for people with the lowest incomes, and only 3 affordable,
available rental homes exist for every 10 families with the lowest incomes.⁷ Overly
restrictive screening practices, like excessive lookback times, screening for records that
have no bearing on an applicant’s success as a tenant, or screening for arrests and records
that did not result in a conviction, place people impacted by the criminal-legal system at a
significant disadvantage to finding quality, affordable housing. Formerly incarcerated and
convicted people also experience employment discrimination, making them more likely to
be unemployed or underemployed and unable to afford the growing cost of rent⁸.

As a result of these barriers, people who have been incarcerated once are seven times
more likely to experience homelessness than the general population, while those who
have been incarcerated more than once are 13 times more likely to experience
homelessness.⁹ Homelessness, in turn, puts people at increased risk of interacting with
the criminal-legal system, especially as more communities enact laws criminalizing homelessness.¹⁰ These barriers can trap people in a cycle of incarceration, homelessness,
and reincarceration from which it is difficult to escape.

While there is significant evidence of the harm overly restrictive policies cause to
individuals, families, and communities, there is no evidence justifying the blanket
exclusion of people with conviction histories from housing. Rather, studies show that once
they can access housing, people with criminal records have similar rates of maintained
housing stability as people without criminal records. Moreover, 22 Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) have adjusted their screening policies to limit the scope of records
considered, and have not reported any significant changes to public safety outcomes.11
Access to affordable, stable housing is foundational to helping formerly incarcerated and
convicted people gain employment, advance their education, reunite with family, and
thrive.

HUD should be working to expand housing opportunities for everyone, not fighting to
dismantle the few tools it has to enforce its own policies. We urge HUD to withdraw its
harmful, regressive changes to the disparate impact standard, and continue enforcing the
2013 rule.

Sincerely,

All of Us or None Texas
Coalition on Human Needs
Community Voices Heard
Fair Chance for Housing Coalition NYC
Forward Justice
Grassroots Leadership
Illinois Justice Project
Tenant Advocacy Center
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Housing Law Project
National Low Income Housing Coalition
The Fortune Society
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
Vera Institute of Justice

Footnotes

¹ The Tenant Advocacy Clinic engages in this work on its own behalf, not on behalf of the Bluhm Legal Clinic as a whole.
² https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44203
³ https://nlihc.org/nlihc-resource-disparate-impact
⁴https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/14/2026-00590/huds-implementation-of-the-fair-housing-acts-disparate-impact-standard
⁵ https://archives.hud.gov/news/2021/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.pdf
⁶ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/racial_and_ethnic_disparities/
⁷ https://nlihc.org/gap
⁸ https://www.vera.org/news/the-challenge-of-finding-a-job-after-prison
⁹ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html#:~:text=The%20revolving%20door%20%26%20
homelessness&text=But%20people%20who%20have%20been,from%20their%20first%20prison%20term
¹⁰ https://housingnothandcuffs.org/emergent-threats-homelessness-criminalization/
¹¹ https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2024-0031-001

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

January 27, 2026

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. encampment residents in the District of Columbia have long been under siege but are now, likely, in the most precarious position they have ever had to experience. As we testified to during the last oversight and budget season, DMHHS has decreased their notice period from fourteen-days to seven days. However, following both an executive order and a mayoral order, DMHHS oftentimes bypasses notice altogether through its use of the immediate disposition protocol – more so than it already did.

Immediate dispositions allow DMHHS to clear encampments without notice on the website or at the encampment site, as long as DMHHS claims they pose immediate risks to health and safety. Encampment clearings can too easily qualify as immediate dispositions due to the nebulous nature of the “public health and safety” determination. Justifications for determinations are not shared. As a result, encampments that appear to be no different than any other and pose no actual public risk are often swiftly dismantled and their residents are dispossessed. Often, immediate dispositions are used for single persons. Those encampment residents often receive little to no outreach before clearings and posted signage may not even be visible. Once clearings begin, all, or nearly all, belongings are thrown away, despite DMHHS’s mandate to store non-trash items. The seizure and destruction of belongings during immediate dispositions without notice (or adequate notice), the requisite risk factor, due process, or post-deprivation proceedings, are likely unconstitutional and will potentially lead to unnecessary litigation.

Increased encampment clearings and immediate dispositions have created unnecessary chaos and outreach disruptions in D.C. From 2024 to now, the number of encampments has declined from over eighty to sixty-two. DMHHS cleared thirty-six encampments in Fiscal Year 2024. In 2025, DMHHS removed 128 encampments, a 355 percent increase. These numbers indicate a clear policy choice. While DMHHS used to conduct engagements like bulk trash removals, agency leadership has recently admitted that a current policy goal is to dismantle and clear all encampments. Unfortunately, that policy goal does not necessarily come with an offer of stable housing.
To be clear, the joint presidential and mayoral efforts to “clean up” or “beautify” D.C. and the resulting decrease in encampment visibility are not evidence of a decline in District homelessness. Unhoused residents have been forced to relocate, but they still exist. D.C.
homelessness still exists. In the last year, without first being offered housing, unsheltered D.C. residents have been dispossessed by the dual forces of DMHHS and federal agencies.
Last year, President Trump issued an executive order, targeting all encampments on federal land, and creating an encampment eviction task force meant to coordinate with local officials to clear D.C. land as well. Last August, the Legal Clinic witnessed a large group of law enforcement officials, composed of MPD, FBI, and Secret Service, descend upon a small group of encamped residents located at Washington Circle. These were residents who had already received notices of a pending clearing by DMHHS for a future date. These residents, to their detriment, relied on the assumption that they could trust dates on D.C. government notices. Ultimately, they were forced by law enforcement to relocate days earlier than expected.
In another instance, an unhoused woman, adamant about preserving her belongings, heeded DMHHS warnings and moved several times in an attempt to avoid any negative government interactions or risks to her property. Despite her efforts, her belongings were ultimately thrown away during an unnoticed encampment clearing while she was away briefly attending to her personal needs. She would later recover a few, damaged items from DC government personnel.

In yet another case, a client set up a tent as D.C. was beginning to enter hypothermia season. He received a DMHHS notice to move his tent. He complied, moving his tent under a bridge, but received a new notice there. He had a brief respite before he was, within a span of a few weeks, relocated six times. During this period of time, he, someone who simply wanted somewhere to sleep at night, had interactions with personnel from NPS, USPP, DMHHS, and MPD. It is a sobering truth that in the nation’s capital, people that pose no risk of violence are subjected to interactions with almost half a dozen local and federal agencies.
Unfortunately, these situations are far too common. We have met multiple unsheltered D.C. residents who have been pushed around the city, with their encampments targeted almost as soon as they have relocated. Some individuals have reported leaving D.C. to prioritize safety and avoid the uncertainty that now comes with being unhoused in D.C. Months later, we have far fewer visible encampments and more, primarily Black, DC residents displaced throughout the District and out of D.C., due to the fear of losing possessions and potential law enforcement interaction. The extent of the harm that has been done to D.C.’s unsheltered community as a result of the increased clearings and DMHHS’s cooperation with the federal government is still unclear, but the harm is empirically evident when walking down D.C. streets. Unhoused D.C. residents have retreated further into the shadows and become fearful of the D.C. agencies that are supposed to be concerned for their safety.
We urge D.C. Council to evaluate the encampment protocol and create legislative policies that standardize definitions and requirements for encampment evictions of all types, establishing due process for encampment residents and minimizing opportunity for random and/or politicized encampment evictions. We ask that D.C. Council enforce a prohibition against law enforcement engaging in pretextual stops that hinge upon race, ethnicity, and/or housing status.
D.C. Council should suspend all encampment clearings. Instead, D.C. should conduct trash only cleanings, provide additional trash cans at encampments, and maintain portable bathrooms and hand washing stations. Additionally, D.C. should suspend all D.C. government efforts to direct or cooperate with any federal government targeting of encampments for evictions/displacement.

It is necessary that D.C. Council send a message that everyone, regardless of their socio-economic or housing status, is welcome in D.C. and that D.C. intends to protect and support all of its residents.

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.

Testimony of Joshua M. Drumming, Policy and Advocacy Attorney, Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director,
Systemic Advocacy and Litigation, and Charisse Lue, Policy and Advocacy Attorney, The Washington
Legal Clinic for the Homeless

October 29, 2025

Since 1987, the Legal Clinic 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 have
equal access to the resources that they need to thrive.

A series of executive orders and statements issued by the federal administration this year have
caused confusion and fear for D.C. residents. Residents have become targets simply due to their race
and/or ethnicity, perceived immigration status, and unhoused status—traits that are protected under
D.C. Human Rights Act. Federal government actions have increased law enforcement presence on D.C.’s
streets and heightened the vulnerability of unhoused residents. However, D.C. government’s
cooperation with the federal government has aided and exacerbated the fear and confusion felt by its
residents.

The Bowser Administration and federal government have continued to escalate efforts to
displace unhoused community members and clear encampments, causing displacement, trauma, and a
disconnect with service providers. Encampment evictions are inhumane, dangerous, and prompted (at
least, in part) by complaints from housed residents about the presence of those who are experiencing
homeless in their neighborhoods. Many D.C. clearings are determined to be “public health and safety
risks” and executed without adequate notice, clear metrics, or transparent policies justifying the
categorization. Long before the newest federal administration, we saw an increase in the application of
these types of encampment clearings (“immediate dispositions”) that depart from D.C.’s standard
encampment clearing protocol of providing written notice in advance of a scheduled clearing. D.C.’s
standard encampment clearing notice requirement was fourteen (14) days prior to earlier this year. In
early 2026, however, D.C. suddenly changed its standard encampment clearing protocol to reduce the
notice requirement to only seven (7) days.

In March of this year, immediately following presidential statements and executive orders
referencing those experiencing homelessness, DMHHS suspiciously expedited an E Street encampment
clearing without standard advanced notice. Though notice was given a day before, DMHHS denied it was
an “immediate disposition,” the only way that an encampment can be cleared with less than the
requisite seven days of notice under D.C.’s protocol. Later, DMMHS curiously and retroactively claimed
it was an immediate disposition. The circumstances surrounding the clearing certainly suggest that there
were other influences involved in D.C.’s decision. The E Street encampment clearing is only one early
instance of the chaos that federal interference and D.C. cooperation has caused. Of course, the clearest
instances of D.C. local and federal cooperation came after Executive Order 14333: Declaring a Crime
Emergency in the District of Columbia and Executive Order 14339: Additional Measures to Address the
Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia. These executive orders entangled D.C. government/ local
law enforcement with federal law enforcement in a way that still leaves community members
questioning the cooperation.

In August, community members and organizations that support those experiencing
homelessness rallied to protect unhoused D.C. residents from potential harm after it was indicated that
federal law enforcement would be randomly targeting D.C.’s unhoused encampment communities.
Unhoused community members and their advocates did not know what to expect or what
consequences would come from any law enforcement interaction at encampment sites. D.C.
government cooperated with the clearing of encampment sites, even when their involvement conflicted
with their own notices/D.C. policy. While the extreme levels of fear and disorder that D.C.‘s unhoused
community and advocates felt in August have minimized slightly, residents cannot be assured of their
safety or protection by D.C. government as long as the Bowser Administration continues to cooperate
with federal efforts to disrupt our local community and frustrate local protections.

D.C. government should not be coordinating with the federal government for encampment
policing. D.C. must ensure that it is not sharing data or other information with those seeking to violate
human rights and harm community members. D.C. government must demonstrate a clear commitment
to protecting its most vulnerable residents and upholding its own laws. Erasing the visibility of
homelessness does not erase homelessness. The solution to homelessness is housing, not further
displacement and dispossession.

For a joint letter of organizations, including The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless,
expressing disappointment with the Bowser Administration cooperation and other relevant accounts of
the harm of the August encampment clearings and recent federal interference/cooperation, we submit
the following articles and statements below:

https://www.legalclinic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Joint-Letter-from-DC-Orgs-in-Response-to-Bowsers-Federal-Intrusion-Praise.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/14/politics/washington-dc-homeless-trump

https://streetsensemedia.org/article/encampment-clearings-begin-after-trump-orders-federaltakeover-of-mpd/

https://www.legalclinic.org/d-c-stands-strong-against-trump-administrations-escalated-attacks-against-unhoused-d-c-residents/

https://www.legalclinic.org/press-release-unlawful-arrests-and-forced-displacement-of-homeless-dc-residents-expected-as-soon-as-tonight/

Testimony of Charisse Lue, Attorney and Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy,
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless

October 28, 2025

Since 1987 the Legal Clinic has worked towards a just and inclusive community for all
residents of the District of Columbia– where housing is human rights and where every individual
and family have equal access to the resources that they need to thrive.
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless is pleased to see the introduction of the
Rent Stabilization Protection Amendment Act of 2025. This legislation moves D.C. a step
forward in addressing its affordability crisis and increasing access to safe and affordable housing
by closing a harmful loophole that exempts units subsidized by the government from rent
stabilization laws. This is a necessary step to fulfilling D.C.’s goal of increasing housing choices,
opportunities, and affordability for D.C. residents.

In general, we support the removal of the rent stabilization exemption for any residential
property that is federally, and D.C. government assisted. Current law frustrates D.C. affordability
efforts and incentivizes income discrimination, in violation of both D.C. Human Rights Act and
the Eviction Record Sealing and Fairness in Renting Amendment Act. Source of income
discrimination is unlawful; landlords must accept applicants in a way that complies with law.
The current exemption perpetuates the perception that renting to government subsidy recipients
is an option instead of a legal obligation. Landlords should not need an incentive to follow the
law. Additionally, the Council should not delay ending this exemption for month-to-month leases
to October 2027 as many voucher-holders and government subsidized units hold month-to-
month leases. It is unclear the reason behind the delay to remove the exemption for month-tomonth leases instead of applying the law equally and universally to all rental properties and units
that qualify at once. As stated, the rent stabilization exemption for subsidized units frustrates
affordability for low-income D.C. residents and that includes those under a month-to-month
lease. To avoid confusion and provide better access to affordable housing for D.C. residents the
council should not delay removing the exemption.

D.C. was recently cited as having the most dramatic wealth gap in the nation which is
compounded with racial disparities that are similarly grim. Closing loopholes in our consumer
protection laws and housing policies that incentivize predatory and discriminatory practices by
landlords is crucial to eliminate these shameful and preventable disparities. The Washington
Legal Clinic for the Homeless appreciates that, through this legislation, D.C. Council is listening
to the concerns of DCHA residents, community members, advocates, and HUD. We look
forward to collaborating with the Council to further expand access to affordable housing while
increasing and safeguarding precious housing resources

Testimony of Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation; Charisse Lue, Staff
Attorney; Joshua Drumming, Staff Attorney; Amber Harding, Executive Director, The Washington Legal
Clinic for the Homeless

June 18, 2025

Since 1987, the Legal Clinic 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 that they need to thrive.

Over the years, we have seen two categories of harmful responses when D.C. elected leaders
claim, rightfully or not, that there are not enough resources to meet the pressing needs in the
community: 1) cuts or underfunding of housing and human services programs, and 2) tightening of
eligibility or reduction in legal rights of participants in those programs. Both of those responses reduce
the number of people served without reducing the number of people in need of services, causing harm
to D.C. residents. The Legal Clinic continues to advance advocacy that centers housing, economic, and
racial justice for D.C. residents and promotes strong legal protections and enforcement. Even when
resources are limited, we endeavor to uplift the real and full need of the low-income, and primarily
Black, community members who struggle the most to survive and maintain their lives in D.C.
Funding for human services and housing is (and should be) a significant percentage of D.C.’s
budget because they are significant and critical resources for D.C. residents—and, even still, the funding
supply is not currently enough to meet the demand. The funds and programs that keep people alive,
protected, fed, and housed cannot continue to be the first and primary service provisions to be
ransacked when cuts are on the horizon. D.C. residents deserve better. D.C. Council must resist reducing
funds and programs that serve D.C.’s most marginalized residents. Instead, D.C. Council must fund the
programs that support the lowest-income residents.

Housing Vouchers

To end homelessness and combat the lack of affordable housing, D.C. must fund and utilize all of the
diverse types of vouchers available. This budget adds very few vouchers despite vouchers being among
the most effective means of ending homelessness. The administration’s practice of underfunding DHS and
utilizing funding for other things has led to a massive reduction in housing resources for residents that
desperately need them. D.C. Council must ensure that DHS and DCHA have the requisite staffing and
coordination for participants to be quickly identified and approved for permanent housing resources and
to swiftly lease up.

After a few years of no voucher investment by the mayor, we appreciate that the mayor’s FY26 budget
includes some voucher investment. However, we know that D.C. needs a greater number and diversity of
vouchers to successfully meet the needs of those experiencing homelessness, for individuals and families.
D.C. Council must commit to funding more than the 156 PSH vouchers for D.C.’s unhoused community.
Last budget season, in an effort to minimize the harm caused by DHS and stop homelessness for
participants, D.C. Council funded 325 Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) vouchers, but a lack of budget
transparency from DHS reduced this number to only thirty-eight (38). That cannot happen again.
Additionally, PSH is a necessary, but high-barrier program. If the 156 vouchers are exclusively earmarked
for those being exited from FRSP, some of those may need to be converted to other vouchers to be
accessible to current FRSP families. The Mayor’s allocation of D.C. Flex for RRH families is a waste of funds
and should be converted to permanent vouchers because D.C. Flex will not maintain housing for any
families that do not have substantial income.

We, along with our coalition partners, request the FY26 budget meet the full housing needs of D.C.
residents by funding enough vouchers to permanently house approximately 6,000 households.

Specifically, we are asking for the following:

RRH

The Rapid Re-Housing Program (RRH) has exacerbated housing insecurity through poor program
implementation and administration. Ninety-seven (97%) percent of its participants are unable to afford
rent upon program exit and it has failed to reliably evaluate participants for permanent programs in
which to transfer. Data shows that eighteen (18%) percent of new family shelter entries came from
Rapid Re-Housing. Without any targeted educational/job training or job placement, families in Rapid ReHousing only saw a fourteen percent increase in their incomes over the course of their time in the
program and individuals in Rapid Re-Housing actually saw their incomes fall by ten percent while in the
program. Neither group can afford market rent at the conclusion of their participation. The Mayor’s
budget guts the Rapid Re-Housing program and does nothing to offset the damage. This will increase
D.C. homelessness.

Last year, DHS began terminating 3,000 families for reaching an arbitrary twelve-month time limit.
Hundreds have lost their subsidy and even more would have without the right to appeal their
termination, but for the roughly 2,000 families that have appealed their termination. Beyond that, D.C.
Council passed a Budget Support Act last year that included a subtitle that eviscerated the rights of
Rapid Re-Housing participants, carving away the only thing separating many families from
homelessness. Now, the Mayor has attempted to make more harmful and confusing changes to Rapid
Re-Housing and the Homeless Services Reform Act (HSRA) in her proposed Budget Support Act, some
not that are not germane to the budget. D.C. Council must remove that subtitle K from the Budget
Support Act.

It is time for D.C. Council to fix the Rapid Re-Housing Program by holding a hearing and passing the
recently reintroduced Rapid Re-Housing Reform Amendment Act of 2025. Additionally, we ask that D.C.
Council ensure that currently allocated vouchers are accessible to FRSP families, do more to mitigate
unnecessary terminations, require accurate and transparent RRH program data and costs from DHS,
restore due process rights of participants.

Shelter System Reform

DHS relocated the Virginia Williams Family Resource Center (VWFRC) to 64 New York Avenue. Even
before the move and despite the Legal Clinic’s intervention, VWFRC denied over seventy-five (75%)
percent of the families that sought shelter in FY24. This is an astronomical number of families to deny
from shelter each year-so large that its presence should naturally invite further inquiry and
investigation. DHS promised that Virginia Williams accessibility would not decrease after their move.
However, the number of calls that we receive regarding family shelter access has dropped dramatically.
If the family shelter acceptance numbers have not drastically increased now, the decrease in need for
assistance must be linked to a decrease in accessibility and/or knowledge of recourse for unjustified
denials. The Mayor’s budget also proposes over $5 million for an additional VWFRC site without any
details. That funding can be better spent on housing resources.

We ask this Committee to amend the Homeless Services Reform Act (HSRA) to require low barrier family
shelter, including passage and funding of the Housing is Maternal Health Amendment Act of 2024,
implement consistent and standardized staff training so that families are not routinely, arbitrarily, and
unlawfully denied shelter placements, and increase reporting and data on access, eligibility, and denials
to D.C. shelter services. Additionally, the mayor has included a major and harmful proposed change to
the HSRA in her Budget Support Act. In it, her administration attempts to restrict shelter eligibility and
remove the right of non-congregate shelter from families accessing emergency family shelter. D.C.
Council should not permit or pass such substantive changes to the HSRA in the BSA.

Non-Congregate Shelter Expansion & Storage Funding

We ask that D.C. Council dedicate $1.5 million towards secure storage options to safeguard the
belongings of those experiencing homelessness, ensure current and future non-congregate shelter sites
are operated as intended, including with legal protections pursuant to the Homeless Services Reform
Act (HSRA), and invest additional funds for future non-congregate shelter sites.
Encampments

D.C. Council should suspend all encampment clearings. Instead, D.C. can conduct trash only cleanings,
provide additional trash cans at encampments, and maintain portable bathrooms and hand washing
stations. Ending full encampment clearings saves D.C. money in a year when the D.C. funds are being
withheld and the budget is projected to be tight. If the decision is made to impose cuts to critical human
services in the FY26 budget due to a tight budget, there is certainly no justification for the maintenance
of DMHHS funding in the FY26 budget that will only be used to unnecessarily clear encampments and
cement D.C. as an arm of the federal government. Additionally, Council should create legislative policies
that standardize requirements/criteria and definitions related to encampment evictions, establishing
due process for encampment residents, and minimizing opportunity for random and/or politicized
encampment evictions.

Subtitle K of Section 4 in the BSA (also see one-pager at end of testimony)

We strongly oppose the mayor’s major and harmful proposed changes to the HSRA in Subtitle K of her
Budget Support Act. In it, her administration attempts to restrict eligibility to shelter, remove the right
of non-congregate shelter from families, prohibit class actions, and further eliminate rights to Rapid ReHousing and other programs. By DHS’ own admission, there is no fiscal impact for the non-RRH related
provisions. Those substantive changes are not germane to the budget and must be removed. Even the
alleged fiscal savings of the RRH provisions should be carefully examined. Council should not continue to
tolerate further deprivation of basic rights just because the Mayor alleges it will save money. For many
years, cost savings would not be certified based on speculative reduced services in a non-entitlement
program. The subtitle eviscerates due process—creating fewer rights and protections for participants
than they would have in any other publicly-funded benefit or housing program. D.C. Council should
reject and remove the entire subtitle from the Budget Support Act.

ERAP

The Mayor has reduced ERAP by eighty-one (81%) percent from the level D.C. Council funded in FY25,
despite rental costs, evictions, and housing insecurity in D.C. rising. We ask that D.C. Council increase
ERAP to at least $100M and improve the application process to ensure that it is accessible and legally
compliant. Recent legislation narrowed eligibility. A reduction in funds makes ERAP even more
inaccessible.

DCHA/Public Housing

We are pleased to see that the mayor has invested $26.2 million in public housing repairs in the FY26
Budget, with a total of $54.2M in FY26 and FY27, but residents need more. We, along with our Fair
Budget Coalition, ask D.C. Council to add to that investment for a recurring $60 million/year
commitment to DCHA’s public housing preservation, renovation, and rehabilitation process. DCHA needs
to dramatically improve operations, its delivery of services, and develop accountability mechanisms for
the benefit of its residents. The D.C. Council should also require DCHA to issue a quarterly report that
demonstrates how these funds are utilized and how the funds result in positive outcomes for residents
and to DCHA properties. It is also critical to the success of DCHA’s repositioning plan that the D.C.
Council utilize its authority to codify residents’ right to return and reintroduce and passing the Public
Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Amendment Act of 2020 and includes its language in the
BSA. Additionally, to develop the agency that D.C. residents truly deserve, D.C. Council must develop a
board structure that is focused on the agency’s mission and avoids undue mayoral influence and control.
While the Board should have knowledge of affordable housing development, it must also prioritize a
concern for and understanding of the people who actually live in the properties. It is crucial that the
Board’s structure supports independent, critical, and transparent analysis in its decision making–
especially when DCHA is conducting a massive redevelopment and rehabilitation process for multiple
housing units that will impact thousands of D.C. residents and applicants. The Board must also include
voting resident members, as resident expertise and direct decision-making authority is crucial for the
success of DCHA overall and to achieve its reformative goals.

HPTF

We are pleased to see that the mayor increased her Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) investment
to $100 million in her FY26 budget proposal, after cutting it in FY25. We hope to see D.C. continue this
commitment, and at a minimum, sustain this level of funding going forward. The Housing Production
Trust Fund is the primary resource and a crucial toolkit for the creation and preservation of deeply
affordable housing for extremely low-income residents. It must be used effectively.

The HPTF legislation explicitly mandates that fifty percent (50%) of the annual funds are for the creation
of 0-30%AMI housing deeply affordable housing; however annual utilization continues to fall short. In
FY22, only twenty percent (20%) of HPTF expenditure was spent on the creation of deeply affordable
housing units. In FY23, after increased legislative oversight measures, that statistic doubled to fortythree percent (43%). DHCD projected that forty-four percent (44%) of the HPTF expenditures would be
spent on the creation of affordable housing for those at 0-30% AMI in FY24. DHCD has yet to publish
FY24 results. While this would be another improvement if it occurred, it still does not meet the
legislative mandate. D.C. Council should protect and strengthen the strides it has made by maintaining
project-based LRSP eligibility at 0-30% AMI. It must reject the RENTAL Act and the mayor’s LRSP subtitle
that changes the eligibility for the Local Rent Supplement Program maximum from 30% AMI to 50% AMI.
Raising the AMI level would only further incentivize developers, DHCD, and the mayor to dismiss
housing production efforts for those who need deeply affordable housing the most.