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/2025/09/Joint-Letter-from-DC-Orgs-in-Response-toBowsers-Federal-Intrustion-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-againstunhoused-d-c-residents/

https://www.legalclinic.org/press-release-unlawful-arrests-and-forced-displacement-of-homeless-dcresidents-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.

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

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.

D.C.’s rise in unaffordability is an annual occurrence but this year has seen D.C.’s economic standing shaken by outside factors. We are in a crisis and what D.C. Council does in this budget will determine whether D.C. residents are able to survive it. This budget will serve as a lifeboat for those that need one or a weapon that further displaces D.C. residents of color. The time is now for D.C. Council to invest in permanent housing vouchers, reform Rapid Re-Housing, reject the HSRA BSA subtitle, increase rental assistance, and enhance and improve the current and future shelter system.

Ending Homelessness

The local and national economies are in dire straits and D.C. residents need District intervention to weather existent and future economic storms. Many that are housed today lie on the precipice of homelessness. 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

 Last year, Point-in-Time data showed a fourteen percent (14%) increase in homelessness and a thirty-nine (39%) percent increase in family homelessness, D.C. evictions reached a ten-year high, ERAP funding saw a forty (40%) percent drop, and hundreds of families were purged from Rapid Re-Housing. Despite these facts, the 2025 PIT numbers show a curious decrease in homelessness. Advocates have questions and concerns about how data is gathered, omitted, and interpreted to reach such a conclusion. A lack of investment in housing resources will not lead to a decrease in homelessness.

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. 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 should also be converted to permanent vouchers because D.C. Flex will not maintain housing for 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:

Program	Households	Cost
Permanent Supportive Housing-Families	764	Approximately $30.03M
Targeted Affordable Housing	3,058	Approximately $93.01M
LRSP Tenant Vouchers	800	Approximately $17.33M
PSH-Individuals	1,260 (for 3 consecutive years)	Approximately $36.6M
LRSP Vouchers for Returning Citizens	60	Approximately $1.3M
Outreach	—–	Approximately $6.4M
Total	5,942	Approximately $184.67M

We ask that D.C. Council increase oversight of DHS and DCHA to promote more efficient voucher administration 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.

Rapid Re-Housing Program Reform

The Rapid Re-Housing Program (RRH) has exacerbated housing insecurity through poor program 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 Re-Housing 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, but for the roughly 2,000 families that have appealed their termination. Beyond that, D.C. Council passed a Budget Support Act 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 that are not germane to the budget. D.C. Council must remove that subtitle from 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. This act is the culmination of years of advocacy from RRH families, D.C. organizations, and individuals, and previously supported by D.C. Council. Among other things, this legislation prohibits terminations based on reaching arbitrary time limits if the family cannot afford market rent on their own, ensures participants only pay thirty (30%) percent of their income in rent, requires evaluation for permanent housing resources, and makes case management truly optional.

 The fiscal impact has yet to be determined, as DHS has resisted providing RRH program data and costs for a fiscal impact statement (FIS). DHS cites budgetary constraints as their reason for not being able to maintain the households already placed in Rapid Re-Housing but continues to offer Rapid Re-Housing to new families. We ask that D.C. Council ensure that 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, and pass and fund the Rapid Re-Housing Reform Amendment Act.

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.

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 $100 million 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.

Conclusion

Many low-income D.C. residents feel like they are being assailed from all sides. The federal government is doing much to strip away protections and economic security from U.S. citizens, and this is more acutely felt in the District of Columbia than in most places. Now, more than ever, D.C. residents need a D.C. government that stands up and supports them. D.C residents need a budget that does not avert its eyes from the economic suffering of the most vulnerable and provides a rainfall of support to D.C.’s droughted human services sector.