Testimony by Joshua Drumming, Staff Attorney

April 30, 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.

Recently, making ends meet has become more difficult for low-income D.C. residents. Housing has become more expensive, cost of living continues to increase, and the social safety net is steadily unravelling. While the precariousness of the situation is known, the mayor’s proposed budget fails to reflect the need. Low-income and primarily Black residents are the most impacted by critical program and funding cuts in D.C.’s FY27 local budget. D.C. Council needs to invest in permanent housing resources, legislate so that DHS improves its provision of services, expand access to rental assistance, suspend all full encampment evictions, and improve the shelter system.

1. End Homelessness: Housing Vouchers

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. Homelessness has risen 4.4% since 2025. However, Mayor Bowser’s proposed budget includes zero new vouchers to end homelessness in FY27. Residents need access to a variety of voucher types to meet their housing needs. PSH vouchers are appropriate for some, but LRSP vouchers are also necessary, less costly, and more accessible to a larger number of D.C. residents in need of stable housing.

This will inevitably lead to increased homelessness. D.C. has an unemployment rate 155% of the national average (6.7% versus 4.3%), an Emergency Rental Assistance Program with a higher-barrier eligibility threshold and only $7 Million FY27 budget, a Rapid Re-Housing program that has been largely dismantled and with paused entries, voucher programs with paused matching despite D.C. Council allocating those funds last budget season, and zero new vouchers for individuals or families. Circumstances are dire for those who rely on D.C.’s human services sector.

D.C. Council must adequately fund vouchers for individuals and families. This is necessary to protect encampment residents from future targeting and prevent prolonged homelessness amongst families in shelter and temporary housing programs. D.C. Council must also 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.

We, along with our coalition partners, request the FY27 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:

Once vouchers are funded, this committee and D.C. Council at large must ensure that DHS is appropriately budgeting in order to properly administer funds allocated by D.C. Council. After being appropriated, DHS funds are often reprogrammed and shifted away from the programs and services that D.C. Council intended. Many of these changes are masked by opaque agency budgets and inaccurate accountings of programmatic costs.

D.C. Council must increase oversight of DHS and DCHA to promote more efficient voucher administration, utilization, and staffing, and to reduce bureaucracy that prolongs homelessness due to delays in distributing and utilizing vouchers. D.C. Council must also increase funding for all permanent voucher programs and increase investment in homelessness outreach services.

II.   Prevent Housing Instability and Repeated Homelessness for Residents with Extremely Low Incomes

Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) was created to aid 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. DHS has generally focused its resources on shallow subsidies, such as DC Flex, that, even when funded, are incapable of establishing enduring housing stability for the extremely low-income residents that make up the overwhelming majority of those who need housing assistance. However, in the proposed FY27 budget, Mayor Bowser even abandoned those meager shallow subsidies.

The decision not to fund permanent housing vouchers or shallow subsidies reflects a troubling policy seemingly indicating that D.C. residents who cannot afford to live in D.C. without government assistance/support should not be in D.C. Unfortunately, this stance is further supported when DHS utilizes its programs and funding to pay D.C. residents to leave D.C.

D.C. must meaningfully consider the housing needs of residents that cannot afford D.C. rents and make substantial investments in housing and supplemental resources that keep people permanently housed. We urge D.C. Council to require accurate and transparent program data and costs from DHS in all of its time-limited and shallow housing subsidy programs, including data on the long-term housing stability of participants after the assistance has ended, evaluate current DHS program outcomes and barriers to more appropriately invest in permanent housing stability, and fund permanent housing subsidies.

III.   Expand Access to Emergency Rental Assistance

The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) allows D.C. residents to avoid eviction and stay in their homes when they face emergencies that hamper their ability to afford rent. This budget year marks the second year ERAP has been cut, having lost nearly forty-five (45%) percent of its funding since Fiscal Year 2025. Due to last year’s legislative alterations that drastically restrict eligibility, ERAP is now inaccessible to many D.C. residents that need it. These were not data-driven changes. 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 that D.C. Council revise and pass updated ERAP legislation that reverses the harm of the current legislation, expands access, and requires landlord accountability and cooperation with the ERAP application process. Further, we ask that the ERAP application process be improved to ensure it is fully accessible, low-barrier, and legally compliant. Lastly, we ask that Council increase its oversight of DHS to require consistency in ERAP administration and distribution and regular agency reporting, including timelines, staffing, delays of administering organizations, and demographics of approved residents, ensuring residents can access sufficient funds to prevent massive displacement/eviction, trauma, and homelessness.

IV.   Reform and Expand Access to Family Shelter System

D.C.’s housing landscape and social safety nets have been greatly diminished. This will naturally increase the number of D.C. residents that require and seek emergency and family shelter. D.C. Council must make these sites safe and accessible. Unfortunately, accessibility has seemingly decreased since the Virginia William Family Resource Center’s (VWFRC) move to 64 New York Avenue. 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. Council must ensure that any eligible D.C. resident is able to access shelter. Once in shelter, residents should be treated with dignity, not subjected to unsanitary conditions, and not be forced to choose between access to safe shelter or keeping their belongings/remaining within their chosen family.

We urge this Committee to amend the Homeless Services Reform Act (HSRA) to require low barrier family shelter, 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, D.C. Council should enact legislative policies to ensure that all shelters, including current and future non-congregate shelter sites, operate at intended maximum capacity, with legal protections pursuant to the Homeless Services Reform Act (HSRA).

D.C. Council should fully fund and implement the Pets in Housing Amendment Act of 2024 and dedicate $1.5 Million towards secure storage options to safeguard the belongings of those experiencing homelessness. D.C. council should also reintroduce, pass, and fund the Housing is Maternal Health Amendment Act, and require DHS to permit legal services outreach at Virginia Williams Family Resource Center.

Conclusion

This is the most harmful proposed local budget for low-income residents in recent years. Many D.C. residents have made the difficult decision to leave the city or had the decision made for them after multiple D.C. budgets that have restricted access to crucial supports, refused to tax wealth, and funded affluent comfort over low-income survival.

D.C. Council must make a different decision for FY27or risk continuing this cycle of harm and displacement.

Testimony of Charisse Lue, Staff Attorney and Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation of 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.

We are all aware of the economic challenges now facing the District of Columbia and nationwide which make it even more critical that Council remain steadfast in its commitment to create and preserve affordable housing for the most vulnerable. While D.C.’s median rent is approximately fifty-four (54%) higher than the national median, an estimated forty-four percent (44%) of D.C. residents are rent burdened.. Over eighty-seven percent (87%) of those that are rent-burdened live below 30% AMI. Recent data shows homelessness remains above pre-pandemic numbers and the United States Marshall Service reported that the 2025 eviction filings increased by two-hundred fifty percent (250%). D.C. permits these trends to continue; they will undoubtedly cause an avalanche of socio-economic devastation for D.C. residents. Black D.C. residents are ninety-one percent (91%) of those experiencing homelessness in D.C. and will continue to be most impacted. D.C. Council must use all available tools to stop the harm and slow the displacement of current residents.

Currently, the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) is the primary resource for the creation and preservation of deeply affordable housing, housing for residents with extremely low incomes (0-30% AMI).  It is the most effective tool to remedy the dearth of deeply affordable housing in D.C. D.C. Council must protect and strengthen the progress D.C. has made over the last few years to prioritize the creation of deeply affordable housing.

The latest Housing Profile report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) shows that over 56,000 D.C. renters have extremely low incomes (0- 30% AMI) with housing costs up 5% from the previous year.  The dearth of affordable housing for the extremely low-income is currently as severe as -37,429, with only thirty-two deeply affordable homes available per one hundred renter households. These grim statistics do not even account for the barriers that the lowest income tenants face within the housing market when in need of accommodation for large families and accessible units for those with physical disabilities. We urge D.C. Council to continue recognizing the distinct housing needs of the lowest income residents of D.C.

Deeply affordable housing (0-30%AMI) is the most needed and the least created. Unfortunately, the utilization of funds for the creation of housing for the lowest income households continues to fall short of its legislative mandate. HPTF legislation explicitly mandates that fifty percent (50%) of the annual funds are to be spent for the creation of deeply affordable housing. In FY22, only twenty percent (20%) of HPTF expenditure spent was on the creation of deeply affordable housing units. In past performance oversight testimony, Director Green reported that that statistic doubled to forty-three percent (43%) for FY23. DHCD also projected that forty-four percent (44%) of the HPTF expenditures would be spent on the creation of affordable housing for those at or below 30% AMI in FY24. DHCD has yet to report the data for FY24 or FY25. While we hope for continued improvement, the lack of transparency is unacceptable. D.C. Council must continue to require and track DHCD’s adherence to HPTF requirements.

 The Council enacted the Housing Production Trust Fund Transparency Amendment Act in FY23’s Budget Support Act. However, additional transparency measures are necessary.  Additional provisions should require DHCD to provide detailed post-completion reports on each project and publish the number of projects that have met the eligibility requirements.  DHCD should also include detailed data about each awardee and report the amount of the operating subsidy that is granted. D.C. Council should consider taking more affirmative measures to uphold HPTF funding allocations and consider separating the funds for the extremely low-income to avoid the misallocation of funds that occurred in the recent past.

The creation of deeply affordable housing is more crucial for D.C. residents than it has ever been. To meet the housing needs of D.C. residents, we strongly urge the Council to require additional transparency through reporting and create legislative safeguards that protect funds allocated for the creation of affordable units for households with the lowest income.

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

April 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.

This is among the most dangerous and tumultuous times D.C. encampment residents have faced. D.C. encampment residents are beset by local and federal agencies that are targeting them on the streets and a mayoral budget that does nothing to mitigate the harm caused or address the underlying issues at hand. As we have testified to on multiple occasions, 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 remove encampments without notice on the website or at the encampment site, as long as DMHHS claims they pose immediate risks to public health and safety. Under the current, purposefully vague standards, anything can qualify as a “public health and safety” risk. 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. Many immediate dispositions are used for single persons. Those encampment residents often receive little to no outreach before removals and posted signage may not even be visible. Once removals begin, all, or nearly all, belongings are thrown away, despite DMHHS’s mandate to store non-trash items. The seizure and/or destruction of belongings during immediate dispositions without notice (or adequate notice), due process, or post-deprivation proceedings are likely unconstitutional.

Increased encampment evictions and immediate dispositions have worsened an already precarious situation. DMHHS removed thirty-six (36) encampments in Fiscal Year 2024. In 2025, DMHHS removed 128 encampments, a 355 percent (355%) increase. Despite a massive increase in displacement efforts, there is no increase in availability of housing resources. These numbers indicate a clear policy choice to prioritize erasing the visibility of homelessness instead of actually ending homelessness. While DMHHS used to conduct site cleaning engagements like bulk trash removals, agency leadership has recently admitted that their current policy is to dismantle and remove all encampments. If D.C. has an austerity budget, unnecessary encampment site removals should be eliminated. Last year, D.C. government spent $3.4 Million to displace its unhoused residents through encampment evictions. Those funds could have been better spent to permanently and stably house those same residents. When people have stable and safe housing opportunities, encampments will decrease. 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. Further, D.C. Council should reallocate encampment eviction funds to invest in housing resources that end homelessness, 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.

The mayor’s proposed budget does nothing to provide stable housing. Mayor Bowser has funded zero vouchers in this budget to end homelessness. Last year, we testified to the harm that would come from funding zero vouchers for individuals. We have seen the results of that policy choice: increased trauma and harm. Now, D.C. Council has been given a budget substantially worse than the FY26 budget. Mayor Bowser has proposed an FY27 budget that excludes housing resources for unhoused individuals and unhoused families. The mayor’s budget narrative is that her proposals will “Grow D.C.,” but all residents are not included in the proposed vision for D.C. growth. Unsheltered residents are being evicted from the homes they have made and often displaced from D.C. It is deeply troubling for D.C. government to remove encampments while simultaneously defunding housing vouchers and other housing resources. Council must increase funding for all permanent voucher programs, increase DHS and DMHHS budget transparency, and increase investment in homelessness outreach services.

This budget comes at a time of unprecedented local-federal cooperation. Joint federal and local efforts to “clean up” or “beautify” D.C. has resulted in decreased encampment visibility, but District homelessness persists. Unhoused residents have been forced to relocate, but they still exist. D.C. homelessness still exists.

Following a federal executive order last year, local and federal officials coordinated to target and remove encampments, subjecting unhoused D.C. residents to increased risk of harm and criminalization.

Over the next few months, the United States will be celebrating its 250^th anniversary and D.C. will be hosting the America250 events. Many advocates and community members are concerned that the events may prompt renewed efforts to rapidly displace unhoused residents. Time is of the essence. D.C. Council must ensure that there are adequate shelter and housing resources and appropriate legislative policies in place to ensure resident safety. Additionally, D.C. Council should suspend any D.C. government efforts to direct or cooperate with any federal government targeting of encampments for evictions/displacement.

D.C. Council must ensure that a resident’s housing status, income, and/or race do not determine whether they are included in the vision for D.C.’s future. The vision for D.C. must include a plan to meet the needs of all residents. D.C. Council must be willing and able to fight for and protect all of D.C.

Testimony by Charisse Lue, Policy and Advocacy Attorney

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.

Today’s hearing is full of legislation that aims to make drastic changes to major tenets and provisions of housing and tenant-related laws that will have a substantial impact on the lives of thousands of D.C. residents. Each of these bills could, and probably should, warrant its own hearing to allow community members, advocates, and council members a meaningful and thoughtful opportunity to respond and consider such substantive measures. Residents deserve thoughtful and meaningful consideration of such impactful provisions.

The Housing Production Omnibus Amendment Act of 2026 should not pass as currently drafted. It fails to include provisions that focus on remedying the dearth of deeply affordable housing for households with 0-30% AMI income. The proposed bill language should maintain the prioritization of creating and preserving deeply affordable housing, ensure that the production and preservation funds are spent only to create and preserve more affordable units and create a straightforward path to remedy D.C.’s affordable housing crisis. Currently, the Housing Production Trust Fund (“HPTF”) is the primary resource for the creation and preservation of deeply affordable housing and the most effective tool to remedy the dearth of deeply affordable housing in D.C. The HPTF legislation mandates that fifty percent (50%) of the funds must be expended for the purpose of creating or preserving deeply affordable housing for households with incomes at 0-30% AMI. The proposed bill does not include any requirement to prioritize housing creation for those with incomes at 0-30% AMI. Instead, it inappropriately lumps low-income and extremely-low income brackets together and allows up to fifty percent of the fund to be used within the Housing Production sub-account that explicitly excludes production for those with the lowest incomes. This new legislation should not be deprioritizing the demographic that needs housing the most in D.C.  Any proposal for a new iteration of the HPTF must continue to prioritize 0-30%. AMI. This legislation should include an explicit mandate that fifty percent (50%) of the Housing Opportunity Fund and its sub-accounts are spent on increasing access to affordable housing for households with incomes of 0-30% AMI. If developers are not required to build deeply affordable units, they won’t.

The latest Housing Profile report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) shows that over 59,000 D.C. renters have extremely low incomes (0- 30% AMI) with housing costs up 5% from the previous year.  The dearth of affordable housing for the extremely low-income is currently as severe as -37,429, with only thirty-two deeply affordable homes available per one hundred renter households.

D.C. Council must protect and strengthen the progress D.C. has made over the last few years to prioritize the creation of deeply affordable housing. While the proposed bill, as drafted, segregates and focuses funds for the creation of an affordable housing sub-account, it de-prioritizes 0-30% AMI households and fails to include the HPTF mandates that are demonstrating to be effective in increasing the creation of deeply affordable units. In FY 2022, DHCD reported that only twenty percent (20%) of HPTF expenditure was spent on the creation of deeply affordable. However, after increased oversight by this Committee and the inclusion of mandates focused on combatting the dearth of deeply affordable housing, that statistic doubled. Director Green reported that for FY23 forty-three percent (43%) of expenditures of funds were for the creation and preservation of affordable housing for those within the extremely-low income bracket. The legislation proposes new exclusions that dis-incentivize producing deeply affordable housing.

            Additionally, proposed language explicitly limits allowable uses of the ‘Affordable Housing Subsidy Account’ to expenditures for only shallow operating subsidies. Shallow subsidies do not result in permanent housing for those who do not have substantial incomes to maintain expensive D.C. rents on their own. Shallow subsidies are not appropriate subsidies for those with the lowest incomes. Also, while Tier 1 and Tier 2 are defined in the legislation and named as the targets for the subaccount, they are lumped together without any specific mandates for Tier 1. Combining 0-30% AMI with 31-50% AMI without mandating specific requirements for 0-30% AMI production only harms efforts to expand deeply affordable housing. Last year, WLCH named this issue when the Executive proposed to expand the eligibility for LRSP. As we explained then, the proposed language to amend the LRSP definition by raising it to 50% AMI only incentives developers to continue their practice of utilizing the Housing Production Trust Fund (HPTF) funds to develop rental units for higher levels of income affordability. The mayor’s proposal to raise the LRSP AMI eligibility to 50% would have de-prioritized what is most needed in D.C., which is deeply affordable housing. Lumping Tier 1 and Tier 2 in this proposed legislation has the same effect and will cause the same harm. A failure to produce deeply affordable housing.

The proposal to also utilize the affordable housing subaccount for “supportive services for tenants above minimum requirements” is inappropriate, vague, and detracts from the purpose of the current HPTF, which is to increase access to affordable housing units to meet the greatest need in the District. The funds in HPTF should not become a massive catch-all funding mechanism for various DHS-based third-party service contracts. Finally, the proposal for contract loan funding in a subaccount specifically meant for housing creation for the lowest-income residents should require that more than 30% of units in a building are available for the demographic.

Finally, in general, we support the increased transparency and reporting measures included in the proposed bill. However, accountability measures are also necessary. The legislation must include accountability measures to ensure that awardees use the Housing Opportunity funds for the stated purpose and meet the award requirements upon completion of their eligible project. There must be explicit claw-back provisions.

It is critical that Council remain steadfast in its commitment to create and preserve affordable housing for the most vulnerable. While D.C.’s median rent is approximately fifty-four percent (54%) higher than the national median, an estimated forty-four percent (44%) of D.C. residents are rent burdened. Over eighty-seven percent (87%) of those that are rent-burdened live below 30% AMI. Recent data shows homelessness remains above pre-pandemic numbers and the United States Marshall Service reported that the 2025 eviction filings increased by two-hundred fifty percent (250%).

When Mayor Bowser announced her goal for 36,000 affordable units, we were disappointed that the administration failed to commit to ensuring that one-third of those 36,000 affordable unit target would be deeply affordable. We recommend that the Council, through the Fair Share Housing Target Act of 2025, demonstrate a commitment to creating deeply affordable housing throughout the District by including the definitions of extremely low income and low-income households as “affordable housing” in the bill language and explicitly include extremely low-income and low-income affordability targets.

D.C. must stop making broad announcements about “affordable housing” without being clear on who exactly can afford it. Too often, people forget that overall AMI in this region is extremely high. Affordable housing generally includes housing for those making up to 80% AMI. In D.C., eighty percent (80%) AMI for a family household of four is a household with an income as high as $131,000. Fifty percent (50%) AMI for that same family means an income of up to $81,950.  Thirty percent (30%) AMI means an income of up to $49,150. The income differences are substantial. Since the use of “affordable” is applied over such a broad range, it is imperative that D.C. is clear about which levels of housing affordability are being prioritized and created. Without these definitions and explicit targets, there will continue to be a concentration of affordable housing produced for the higher income levels of affordability and in certain geographic areas. Without utilizing the data and being intentional, D.C. will continue to fail to produce the deeply affordable housing that it needs throughout the City.

The creation of deeply affordable housing is more crucial for D.C. residents than it has ever been. To meet the housing needs of the majority of D.C. residents, we strongly urge D.C. Council to maintain prioritization of housing creation for residents with incomes at 0-30% AMI. Legislation must include explicit mandates, accountability, and transparency measures that will produce deeply affordable units for those who most need housing options in D.C.

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

Testimony of Charisse Lue, Staff Attorney and Brittany K. Ruffin, Legal Director, Systemic Advocacy and Litigation of 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.

The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless strongly recommends that this Committee uses its oversight authority to ensure DCHA adheres to local and federal laws and establishes policies and systems designed for better accessibility and preservation of affordable housing through transparent reporting and open communication with DCHA applicants, participants, stakeholders, and board members. We urge the council to continue to invest into the repair and maintenance of the neglected and dilapidated public housing infrastructure that so many D.C. families, disabled and elderly residents had to endure for so many years. However, it is also crucial that this committee use its oversight authority to ensure that D.C. Housing Authority is efficient, flawless, and transparent when appropriating those funds for that purpose. D.C. Housing Authority is executing a large-scale public housing demolition and renovation of several public housing properties. This Committee should use its oversight authority to ensure that DCHA lays out a clear organizational plan that includes an effective resident engagement process and centers the needs of those impacted, leaving no resident behind. Council should utilize its authority to protect displaced residents and codify their rights including residents’ right to return by reintroducing and passing the Public Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Amendment Act of 2020 and including its language in the Budget Support Act (BSA).

After many proposed iterations of the Administrative Plan and the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Plan (ACOP), DCHA began engaging legal service providers and tenant advocates in workgroup sessions where advocates detail the many concerns and offer solutions to the very problematic and overly burdensome changes to the regulations. We appreciate those meetings and know that the agency did as well, as they have highlighted the engagements in their responses and testimony. However, advocates, stakeholders and participants need DCHA to demonstrate meaningful consideration of the feedback and solutions provided. Some of the proposed final regulations increase barriers to affordable housing such as the dramatic increase of the criminal “look-back” periods. DCHA proposes that instead of HUD’s recommended three years “look-back” period, D.C. residents in need of affordable housing will need to overcome a more burdensome “look-back” period of five and seven years for the ACOP and Admin plans, respectively. Not only are these increased “look-back” periods draconian, but they are also arbitrary, confusing and ignore the well-known and documented relationship between racism, poverty, and over-policing. At this time, when D.C. residents are facing unprecedented obstacles, DCHA opted to be more restrictive than HUD requires for admission to the most basic of human needs, housing. Additionally, for each of the emergency and proposed regulations advocates have provided the feedback that DCHA neglects to cite to the local laws where applicable. This is not a harmless error, citing applicable federal and local laws that DCHA and its residents are governed by, are there to protect and educate DCHA staff, applicants, and residents.

Communication and transparency continue to be issues. We are looking forward to the roll-out of improved systems, however as it stands, DCHA continues to fail in its obligation to produce requested documents and files before hearings, a barrier that further diminishes agency accountability and violates due process rights. Applicants and residents still find it incredibly difficult to contact the appropriate staff members or even know which staff member assigned to their case, no matter how urgent their matter may be. At the most recent STAR Board meeting the board was unable to vote on the resolution to adopt the proposed final administrative plan when the agency failed to provide the amendments in advance for the Board to review. These are only a few examples. DCHA must develop and execute systems and policies designed to be responsive and transparent to its residents, applicants, stakeholders, and its oversight bodies.

While we are supportive of the rent-reasonableness policy there continues to be a lack of transparency and guidance that is causing confusion with its implementation. The process continues to cause barriers for voucher holders. This confusion and lack of transparency encourage housing discrimination and continues to result in prolonged housing instability and homelessness. Additionally, DCHA needs to be more transparent with voucher holders during the lease-up process. Not providing voucher holders information or status updates during the RFTA process and denying the applicants access to view the portal is resulting in voucher holders losing their voucher due to no fault of their own. DCHA’s efforts should focus on clear instructions and equitable transparency to both voucher holders, and landlords. Currently, DCHA only informs the landlord of the rent-reasonable range, and what documents DCHA needs from the landlord during lease-up, leaving applicants unaware and powerless. Additionally, DCHA should use improved technology that allows for greater agency accountability, transparency for the applicants, better collaboration with DHS, and a much shorter lease-up period.

Finally, we know that Washington D.C. is pleasantly unique, as it has enacted locally funded permanent housing programs. This body specifically enacted and funded these programs to provide affordable housing to our residents in need without the limitations of the federal program. We ask that DCHA, with the guidance and oversight of this committee, continue to manage our local programs in a manner that coincides with D.C.’s values and the intentions of our local permanent housing programs, including record keeping, eligibility standards and reporting mechanisms. The WLCH is hopeful that the Council accepts our recommendations and uses its legislative and oversight authority to ensure that DCHA becomes an agency that all D.C. residents in need can rely on to provide safe, healthy, and affordable housing.

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.

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.