Good morning, everyone.

I would like to call to order this public hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.

I'm Councilmember Brooke Pinto, representing Ward 2 and chairwoman of the committee.

The time is now 9 34 a.m.

on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026, and we are conducting this hearing in person in room 500 of the John A.

Wilson building and streaming virtually on the DC Council's website and YouTube and X at CM Brook Pinto.

The Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety has performance and budget oversight responsibility for matters of including the district courts, criminal law, procedure and justice, public safety, policing, violence prevention and intervention, civilian police oversight, access to justice, victim services and justice grants, fire and emergency medical services, the districts 911 and 301 services, forensic science, fatality review and medical examinations, homeland security and emergency response, adult corrections, family law, probate in the states, and child support.

Today the committee begins our budget hearings reviewing the mayor's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and financial plan.

All district residents deserve to be safe in their communities, have access to affordable and stable housing and education, and maintain stable employment.

And our budget must reflect these pressing needs.

As the district grapples with a shifting federal landscape and rising cost of living, we confront the urgent need to diversify our local economy and provide innovative economic opportunities for our residents and maintaining fiscal responsibility, ensuring public safety for all of our residents and visitors, increasing affordability for housing and child care, and supporting our residents most in need.

These investments must be at the forefront to ensure that our residents can prosper.

The role of this committee is to work towards these goals within our jurisdiction, and it's incumbent on our entire council to work collectively.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues throughout this budget season and to all in the community who are a part of this process, and thank you for all of you for testifying today.

Today we're discussing three agencies' budgets.

First, the Office of Attorney General, which we refer to as OAG.

Second, the Office of Deputy Safety and the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, or ONES, and third, the Deputy Mayor of Public Safety and Justice, DMPSJ.

First, we will hear testimony from public witnesses on each of these agencies who are here in person, and then we will hear from the public witnesses for each of the agencies virtually, and then we will hear from the government witnesses for each of these agencies.

So it's a little different than our usual ordering, but we want to make sure to respect everyone's time, everyone's time, and those who are joined us in person today will be up first.

OAG is an independent agency charged with conducting the district's legal business.

OAG represents the district in most civil litigation, prosecutes certain adult crimes in nearly all juvenile criminal matters, and represents the district in a variety of administrative hearings and other proceedings.

In addition, OAG is responsible for providing legal advice to the mayor, to the council, and many of our district agencies.

The mayor's proposed FY 2027 budget allocates about 151 million for OAG, which reflects a 3.8% reduction from the current fiscal year.

This includes an 11 million dollar cut to staffing, which would require the agency to eliminate close to 58 positions that are already filled.

10% of essential support staff, which will significantly impact OAG's ability to protect and defend DC.

In addition, the proposed budget includes 3% cuts in vacancy savings, which is a $3 million cut, which would force the agency to delay backfilling vacant positions, placing additional pressure on attorneys and support staff that are already carrying large caseloads.

This proposed budget also concerningly makes a $1 million cut to domestic workers and workers' rights grants that we started several years ago to support organizations that educate workers about their rights.

Together, these cuts place the district and our residents in a more vulnerable position.

We depend on the hardworking attorneys at OAG to stand up for workers, defend survivors of domestic violence, fight for residents' rights to safe and clean housing, prosecute crime, facilitate restorative justice mediations, and much more.

And so I look forward to discussing our public witnesses today, what they're seeing with this budget, and speaking with Attorney General Schwab about the important work he and his team do every day and the impact that these cuts would have on their mission.

Next, we will hear about the Office of Safety and Neighborhood.

Ones was launched in 2017 to create a public health-based community-oriented model of violence prevention and public safety.

Ones is created based on the premise that the overwhelming majority of serious violent crime is committed by a relatively small group of people, and that by identifying and engaging these people, we can drastically reduce violent crime in the district.

Ones works towards that objectives, towards that objective through two programs, including the Pathways program, which identifies individuals at high risk of committing or being victims of violent crime, and gets them into a program that offers intensive job and life training for them.

And second, the violence intervention initiative, which uses a community-focused approach to reduce violent crime through violence interrupters, community members who are able to identify interpersonal conflicts that might lead to violence and work to facilitate ceasefires and mediations.

This proposed budget allocates about 20 million dollars for ones, which reflects an over 17% decrease.

Ones is also facing a significant decrease in full-time positions with 46 proposed cuts.

As a point of um relativism, the there were 88 positions that we funded in last year's budget, and 46 of those are proposed to be cut.

I'm very concerned about the effects of these cuts on people's jobs, on their ability to help keep our city safe, specifically the agency management and neighborhood safety engagement divisions.

And I want to ask ones today about how we will continue to fulfill our mission to keep all district residents safe and prevent violence without these important jobs and divisions.

Finally, we'll turn to the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, or DMPSJ, which is responsible for providing direction and support to coordination and coordination of the district's public safety agencies to develop and lead interagency public safety initiatives, improve the quality of life of our neighborhoods, and they provide oversight of all of the public safety cluster agencies, including MPD, Office of Safety, Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, Fire and Emergency Management Services, and the Office of Unified Communications.

The mayor's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget allocates about 12.5 million dollars for DMPSJ, which reflects a 20% decrease from last year.

DMPSJ has gone through significant growth and operational challenges and shifts in the past few budgets.

Last year, the office got additional grant making authority to issue safe and secure nonprofit grants, a program we started to ensure that our nonprofits and religious organizations can get the grants and security that they need.

In FY 2024, we shifted Safe Passage to DMPSJ out of the Deputy Mayor for Education's office, and the council also added the Safe Commercial Corridors grant program, which I created through my secure DC bill.

In FY25, the mayor's budget proposed shifting another program, the ONES Leadership Academy, also into DMPSJ.

And so I want to discuss with the deputy mayor today how all of those programs are going and how this budget ensures that they can continue.

Seeing if anyone else is joining us online.

Okay, so with that, we are going to turn to our first agency on the agenda today, which is the Office of the Attorney General.

Again, we're going to hear from our public witnesses who are here in person first on all three agencies, and then we will move to our public virtual witnesses.

So I'm going to ask you all to come up in the order that I call you if the first person can sit on my right and this first left chair, and we'll move on from there.

So Alana Eichner, Alex Samuels, Cherowan Troop T Patel.

Okay.

Okay.

Michael Messina.

Okay.

Great.

We will begin with Alana Eichner, DC Chapter Co-Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance.

Thank you, Councilmember Pinto.

And as you probably guessed, I'm here to testify about a really important and a very successful program at the Office of the Attorney General, the Domestic Worker Employment Rights Program.

Thank you for mentioning it in your opening remarks.

I'm really proud that you've often lauded the efforts and importance of this program.

Your staff has reached out to us to put materials that we made to this program in your newsletter to help share information about rights.

And so I'm hoping that you will be a champion for the funding for this program because we were really disturbed to learn just yesterday that the mayor's budget proposes completely eliminating and zeroing out this program in FY27.

Um, as you know, the women that my organization represents are subjected to low wages, high levels of harassment, and they really do the work that we count on to keep our city running.

The median salary is $25,000.

And if you think about trying to live in the district on $25,000, it's nearly impossible.

Um I think that the challenges of this moment make this program more essential than it's ever been.

We see employers of domestic workers actively using immigration to threaten their employees.

And so it is harder than ever for employer for domestic workers to speak up when their rights are violated, and that's why a co-enforcement model like this between community groups and the city is so important.

This program has a track record of success, and it is really in many ways in the private homes of domestic work, the only way that rights actually get enforced.

In just this last year of the grant, we have provided 432 domestic workers with written materials about their rights, graduated 12 workers from an in-depth training program, trains dozens of workers through informational sessions and know your rights trainings, and provided in-depth support to take action on workplace violations for over 30 workers.

And that's just in this past year.

And we're only one of four grantees for this program.

Um we've created publications about how to stay healthy and safe on the job, we've partnered with government agencies to spread information about rights.

Um this is a program that is deeply needed.

We have heard so many council members say that they are disturbed by what is happening with immigrants in the city.

If you are disturbed, what was happening with immigrants, the way immigrant workers are being exploited needs to be addressed right now, and this is a key solution.

Um with this funding, there's also been other pieces of the infrastructure put in place.

So, for example, a lawyer to support cases that was new with this funding, as well as someone making sure employers know their responsibilities.

That's all part of making sure workers have their access to their rights, and if this grant is eliminated, all of those pieces of the kind of trifecta of worker organizing, employer information, and the lawyer will be eliminated.

And I'll just close by saying that the cuts to the FTEs, the FTEs, the full-time employees at the OAG is really disturbing to us as the OAG is a key voice for workers in DC, and so we hope to see those cuts reversed too.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And thank you for all that you have done to stand up this important program.

Thank you.

Um, so I have listed next to Alex Samuels.

Um if you could just say your name and uh position for the records we have it.

I'm Elizabeth Falcon.

I'm the executive director of DC Jobs with Justice.

And um I'm coming to you without um submitted written testimony because again, we just learned yesterday that the workplace rights and domestic worker outreach grants were being fully eliminated in this budget, and so it's important for me to come myself, and we will be providing extensive written documentation of the value of the program um in the coming days.

So, yes, we are very disappointed that the mayor cut this um highly effective agency in addition to the workplace rights outreach grants and the domestic worker outreach grants.

For 10 years, I've served as the executive director of DC jobs of justice, ensuring DC residents have full access to the law, including laws that protect workers' basic rights to be paid and the right to live in safe, dignified housing.

Our stalwart partner in these efforts is the attorney general.

Our tenant organizers are currently in conversation with the OAG about slum conditions and lack of respect for housing laws.

And every month or so, the OAG announces another case settled against a company that's broken the law and exploited workers.

In 2026, this includes restaurant workers, janitors, and construction workers.

These are all pattern and practice cases, which are demonstrated to improve industry standards beyond a single business, and each of the cases is in a target industry where wage theft is disproportionately high.

The OAG is also using the full extent of the law, including RICO charges against notorious slumlords, Sam as Julian.

This is not the type of agency where we should be cutting their ability to do their job.

Within these cuts proposed by the mayor are the two cuts to eliminate the outreach grants program, which I also appreciate you raising in your opening remarks, Councilmember.

Together these programs cost only about a million dollars, but have a huge impact.

And to date, we've distributed over 6,000 pieces of physical material, over 10,000 pieces of digital material, held a hundred trainings, offered these trainings in English and Spanish.

And just this month, my staff has done things as diverse as given out flyers at the Emancipation Day events on Sunday, and trained 300 people in one training on DC sick days laws.

DC Jobs of Justice and our partner also partners also refer cases to the Attorney General and respond to the evolving landscape and help our partner organizations in the field bring cases to the AG and understand their role.

These two outreach programs must be restored.

DC Java Justice has been a recipient of this grant for since its inception.

We've also been able to subgrant to other organizations and the organizations that we're subgranting to are also continuing to bring cases to the Attorney General's office, even without the funding existing to them anymore.

So it really has this like circular benefit within our community.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Rosemary Turico, a member of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, DC chapter.

I'm very proud to be one of the many domestic workers who since 2018 have engaged with this council through numerous visits, actions, visuals, all to ensure the domestic workers' bill of rights.

And I want to speak today about the impact a little bit of how we've worked to do that.

In the law, there is a goal and objective to make sure that domestic workers are educated about their rights.

And in this way we went out to the streets to help other domestic workers know about the law.

And with doing outreach, I had the chance to speak with many, many domestic workers.

And many of them, a large percentage did not know their rights.

And there's over 9,000 domestic workers currently in DC, and not more than a thousand of them know their rights.

They've told me that they're too scared to ask for a contract.

We know all of our council members.

You know us.

We are essential.

We are essential in the homes of even people here who work on the council.

So what's gonna happen now if you get rid of these funds?

These funds make possible for that more domestic workers can be trained.

And finally, domestic workers make possible the work of this.

We are essential.

And we we make everything possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

Michael Messina, public witness.

And if you could turn your mic, there we go.

Good morning, Sherperson Pinto.

My name is Michael Massina.

I'm a DC homeowner residing at 653 A Street Northeast in Ward 6.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to express my profound support for continuing funding of the Office of Attorney General's consumer tenant response program.

The owner of a Capitol Estate Sales who was running the sale claimed it was a painting by Eduardo Cordozo, an award-winning Uruguayan artist who represented his country at the 2024 Venice Viennale.

She included a photo of the painting along with Cardoso's name and her marketing materials for the sale.

I contacted the owner of the estate sale company two times to tell her what I had discovered, provided her with photographs, and asked for an explanation.

She ignored both texts.

Fortunately, taking advantage of the OAG's commitment to advocacy on behalf of DC consumers subjected to deceptive business practices.

I submitted a complaint with its Office of Consumer Protection on February 16 of this year.

The very next day, I received an email from a member of the CRT program, wanted to arrange a telephone call to more fully understand my complaint.

We talked and he told me he intended to send a letter the following day to the owner of Capital Estate Sales.

And guess what?

She called me a week later.

The painting is now back with the seller, and my money has been returned.

I was powerless on my own.

The rightful and positive outcome would not have been possible without the CRT program.

The only reason the owner of the estate sale company finally contacted me was probably because she received the letter from the OAG's office.

And I believe she was so anxious about the matter, she contacted the OAG's office to say my complaint had been resolved before I had.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge the council to continue funding the CTR program so other DC residents who are similarly disadvantaged by deceptive business practices can achieve redress the way I did.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

And I'm glad to hear that that was righted.

Thank you for sharing that story.

Uh, and thank you all for being here and the important work that you do.

Appreciate it.

Okay, we're gonna call our next panel.

Mary Dell Bull Vu, Daryl Turner.

Aaron Ask you.

Aaron Askew.

Tircia Smith.

Laura Brown.

Hi.

And if you wouldn't mind, would you mind sitting in this chair?

Thank you so much.

Oops.

Okay.

Meridel Bullvoo, Legal Aid D.C.

Good morning, Chairperson.

Sorry if you could turn your microphone on.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Is it on?

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Do you want me to start over?

Okay.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding OAG's budget.

My name is Meridel Bulivou.

I'm a Ward 3 resident and the managing attorney of Legal Aid DC's domestic violence and family law practice, where I've represented parents in child support matters for the last 15 years.

I'm here today to urge the Council to include the Child Support Improvement Amendment Act in the Budget Support Act and to prioritize appropriation of approximately $300,000 to OAG to reprogram DSIS to implement the next increase in the pass-through in fiscal year 28.

Our current child support system fails the tens of thousands of DC children whose families are so poor that they currently or formerly needed to rely on TANF welfare benefits to survive.

Money paid by parents that should go towards lifting these children out of poverty instead is largely kept by the government.

The Child Support Improvement Amendment Act fixes this by taking advantage of federal incentives to pass through every dollar of support to families at the rate of 50 cents on the dollar for some of the money passed through.

Doing so will improve long-term child well-being, family dynamics, and racial justice.

Even if we wanted to, and we do, we couldn't effectuate this critical reform overnight.

Redirecting collections requires reprogramming the computers that do much of the work behind the scene.

The upside is that the only requested fiscal year 27 cost is the $300,000 to make the short-term changes to the legacy DECIS system that will allow DC to take the next step towards a full pass-through in fiscal year 28, continuing the reform that this council started with last year's pass-through increase from 150 to 200.

DC's low-income families will bear the brunt of many of the cuts in the mayor's proposed budget.

That is all the more reason to set aside $300,000 now so that next year, when child support is paid after it's due, at least a portion of that money can be passed through to families too.

To get to the real goal of ensuring that every dollar of child support goes to support children, we asked the council to provide OAG with the capital costs needed to continue DCS modernization as efficiently as possible.

That appropriation will be a down payment on the full promise of the Child Support Improvement Amendment Act.

Beyond the pass-through, we urge the council to restore funding for OAG's core public lawyering functions.

OAG uses its power to go after bad actors who prey on our community, particularly those most vulnerable and least able to fight back.

If cuts proceed as proposed, more landlords will escape accountability for substandard housing, more corporations will exploit DC consumers, and more survivors will face repeated harm from their abusive partners.

At this moment in DC's history, a properly funded OAG is more important than ever.

We thank A.

G.

Schwab for his leadership on child support reform, and we thank the council for considering our request to pass and fund the Child Support Improvement Amendment Act within this year's budget and BSA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Daryl Turner, Public Witness.

Yes, ma'am.

My name is Daryl Turner.

I'm here in support of the OAG office for the um program that they're helping with the fathers, fathering courts.

And I just want to say they did a wonderful job of the high impact of services that they provided for the fathers and the mothers as well, because I never communicated with my children's mother during that time.

It was horrible.

She, you know, we just couldn't talk.

You know, I got with the OAG and met all of the staff.

And it was just great because I've never when once they talked to her and communicated what I wanted to just say to her, I don't know, in their words, and found out that it made sense.

And then when she said got back to me, and it made sense.

I guess she was agreeable on we communicate now.

We never did that.

And they it's a very high impact, all that they have provided for us.

And I'm sure every father in the group is well and have they all seem happy about you know the help and the services that they provide.

And if anything I could say or anything we can do to keep this um going like this will be well appreciated, I would hate to see these guys go.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for sharing your story.

Tertia Smith, public witness.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto.

Um, my name is Tiasha Mursa Smith, and I'm a lifelong district resident.

Um I was raised in the heart of Southeast and attended DC public schools with that man say I have seen my share of young people make life altering decisions and how that can change the trajectory of their lives.

But I never thought that I will have to go through something like that.

I have six children, all born and raised in DC as well.

One of my children made a really bad decision, which ultimately led to our involved in our involvement with the judicial system.

As I stand here today, I can say that the Office of Attorney General's their program, the um restorative justice program.

Help my child grow from a child that didn't make good decisions.

It was headed down the wrong path in life to a young adult who makes conscious choices and cares about his future.

I watched my child go from isolated and withdrawn to someone who learned to communicate effectively.

Restorative justice helped to advocate for my child's education, get him placed in another school when he faced danger and didn't want to go back to his original school because he was scared.

Without without restorative justice, that situation could have turned out totally different.

But he was able to make a good decision and remove himself from danger without taking things into his own hands.

And I can say that the Restorative Justice Program was that village to my family in one of the screens times of our lives.

I am grateful and thankful that restorative justice was able to help my family and change the trajectory of my child's life in a positive way.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much.

And thank you for sharing that story with us.

Um this very important program.

Thank you.

Laura Brown, executive director, First Shift Justice Project.

Good morning, Chair Pinto.

My name is Laura Brown, and I'm the executive director of First Shift Justice Project.

Kendrick Musa was working as a registered nurse at a DC hospital for two years when his older sister, who had been a mother to him, took ill.

He requested eight weeks of family medical leave to go back to Cameroon and take care of her.

He was approved, but unfortunately, no one at the hospital informed Mr.

Musa of his right to apply for DC paid leave benefits to recover his wages for the time he to cover his wages for the time he was not working.

He went without pay for the entire period of his leave.

While in Cameroon, he was unexpectedly hospitalized for several days with malaria and salmon salmonella.

Mr.

Musa emailed the hospital where he worked and told them he was not well enough to fly back to the States to resume work as scheduled and that he'd need a few more weeks of leave.

He received no response, and a few days later the hospital fired him in violation of the DC Family Medical Leave Act.

A first shift lawyer has been representing Mr.

Musa for the last year and is currently finalizing a settlement with the hospital for $50,000.

This work is funded by the Office of the Attorney General workplace rights grant program, which, as you are aware, was zeroed out in the mayor's FY27 budget.

The OAG's workplace rights grant program funds legal education, advice, and representation to DC workers and medical providers regarding pregnancy accommodations, family medical leave, and DC's paid family medical leave program.

The grant is a small amount of money relative to most line items in DC's budget, but the money we receive is over a third of our budget.

In FY25, First Shift Advisor represented over 193 clients, DC clients, most with an annual income of less than 44,000 a year, and every single one of them was a breadwinner for their family.

Fort clients received over 276,000 worth of paid leave benefits, and 11 received almost 240,000 in back pay and other damages.

First If also works to make DC's domestic worker bill of rights meaningful by providing representation to DC domestic workers, primarily regarding wage theft.

First Shift ensures that workers can actually benefit from the laws of the DC Council has passed.

First Shift and our fellow grant recipients represent effective collaborations between government and community-based organizations, and it's how government should work.

And or a great deal.

So please restore our funding.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for the work that you do and for being here today.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

I see you too, Camara.

We have to be moved to Zoom, I don't know if that's possible.

Okay.

Angela Lewis.

Hi.

Sorry, what is her name?

Go ahead, Angela Lewis.

Sean Coleman.

He's coming.

Okay.

Sean Coleman.

Antonio Forston.

Sorry if you wouldn't mind sitting in the second chair.

Is that all right?

Okay.

Um Rush Rashid Murphy.

Todd Holmes.

Todd Holmes.

Christopher Sims.

Great.

Okay.

We will begin with Angela Lewis.

Public Fitness.

So full sunrise, my name is Angela Lewis.

And I want to thank you for this opportunity.

And I stand here before you today, not only as a co-parent who pays child support, but also someone who has whose life has been positively shaped by the services provided through the ASC program.

The ASC is more than just a government initiative, it is a lifeline.

It provides guidance, structure, and support to co-parents navigating the responsibilities of adulthood and parenting.

Often during some of the most challenging times in their lives.

It helps us understand that child support is not only a financial obligation, but a commitment to the well-being and the future of our children.

When many of us first enter into child support agreements, there can be feeling feelings of resentment and misunderstanding.

Some may believe that the system is personal or that the co-parent is taking more than their share because AS more than their share.

But because ASC changes the perspective, it teaches it, it teaches us that supporting our children financially and emotionally is not about conflict, but about responsibility.

Through my experience, I have seen firsthand how the ASC empowers individuals.

Individuals.

Oh, sorry, and strengthens families to build stronger communities.

I am living proof.

And so are many others.

I ask you to fund it, expand it, and protect it.

Because when you invest in parents, you invest in children, and when you invest in children, you invest in the future of this city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for being here, and thanks for sharing that powerful story.

Um and we are now turning to our ones, public witnesses for joining us in person today.

Um we'll begin with Sean Coleman.

Good morning.

My name is Sean Coleman, and I'm a support specialist with Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

I work daily in Pave Ways program.

Re-entry isn't just a second chance.

And life itself.

To re rewrite a story that wants seemed design for tragedy.

I've made mistakes.

Re-entry remains the chance to show myself, family, friends in the community, that I'm not the sum of my worst decisions.

Pave Ways is giving me the opportunity to come on board and to help me with my transition and has also helped me build confidence within myself.

Believe in me when I couldn't believe 100% of myself, family friends, mentors, therapists, outreach specialists, case managers, deputy director, and a director.

They remind me that I still have value, that's still capable of contributing to the community and to the world.

And this is my way of honoring their belief in me.

I can't erase my past, but pathways is assisting me with living with a purpose to transform my mistakes into something meaningful.

It's giving me a platform to offer support to others on similar paths to create a ripple effect of hope and redemption.

Reentry means dignity.

It means proving that every life includes mine is worthy of a hashtag fresh start.

That's what Pathways is offering me.

And more than anything, it means finally becoming the person that are always destined to be.

With an annual budget of 10 million, the program is able to reliably support four groups of 25 ambassadors, totaling 100 individuals each year.

By offering staffing, training, and crucial support services.

Moreover, an additional 2 million is required for emergency housing.

A significant number of participants experience housing insecurity will severely impact their chances of success.

By offering safe, temporary housing, we can provide stability necessary for them to remain engaged and progress in their endeavors.

This fund serves in it as an investment in prevention, stability, and creation of safe communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Todd Holmes, Public Fitness.

Not Todd Holmes.

Tell me your name again, I'm sorry.

Forson.

Yes.

Good morning.

My name is Antonio Forson.

I am a YDR, youth development representative with the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Service.

Everything I am today, I owe the pathways.

Pathways was the way.

That program didn't just help save my life.

It changed my mindset, my direction, and it taught me discipline.

I hire courage myself every day.

Because of that, I'm here today.

Because of that, I'm now the mentor and a role model to others who come from the same background that I came from, that went through the same thing that I was going through in life.

I made a mistake, but I capitalized on my mistake.

My loss, it was never a loss, it was a lesson.

And going through pathways, it just changed everything.

It made change real and possible.

It gave me hope.

Now that I'm able to give back to inspire the youth and support my family the right way.

Out of that 10 million, 2 million should go towards housing and stable living situations because without stable ability, real change is hard to maintain.

I'm a living proof that pathways really works.

Without pathways, I wouldn't be here today sitting in front of y'all.

Without pathways, I don't know where my life would be at right now.

Pathways save my life.

Pathways have, if you have four cohorts that serve 25 ambassadors, that's 100 people, that's 100 a year.

We're talking about lives changing our community.

100 people a year, 300 in three years.

That's 300 lives you didn't change going through the Pathways program.

And I'm here today to testify for Pathways that it really helps.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

And I agree, it is an extremely important program that we need to continue investing in.

So thank you.

Christopher Sims.

Good morning.

Morning, Chairman, good morning, everyone.

I want to say thank you for having us here.

And um, I want to, you know, express some things.

My name is Christopher Sims.

I am currently a community support worker, a CSW for a health solution and corporation, and former DC government employee of DYRS Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services.

The Pathway Program has been a road to redemption for myself.

Being a person who has numerous, who has had numerous interactions with law enforcement and the judicial system growing up, I am proud and appreciative for the opportunity to have had been an ambassador for Pathways.

I allowed myself to be a part of a so-called lifestyle that honestly has no loyalty, honesty, integrity, trust, love, or respect.

I knew I wanted better and more out of this life, not only for myself, but for my family and loved ones.

I also wanted to be a part of solution going forward.

Meeting staff, case managers, and facilitators down their pathways and staying consistent and committed, show me and my family that's with the supportive team, the sky's the limit.

I'm proud to say that Pathways has highlighted the mass of my success.

And I am certain that with Pathways, many more people like myself can dig into their NSLs and bring out their successful entrepreneur, employee, or the best version of self.

The Pathways program proposes that Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement be allocated an annual budget of 10 million to effectively expand its impact and reach.

Of this funding, 2 million will be dedicated to emergency housing support, ensuring that participants have access to stable and safe living conditions, an essential foundation for long-term success.

The program will operate through four cohorts per year, each serving 25 ambassadors, allowing for a total of 100 individuals to be supported annually.

By implementing this structure, the program can provide consistent focused engagement while maintaining a manageable caseload, ultimately increasing participant stability, risking reducing risk factors, and improving overall community outcomes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you all very much.

We're going to do everything we can in this budget to make sure this important programs are sustained.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tyrell Holcomb.

Daniel Webster.

Daniel Webster, are you here?

Okay.

Scott Borger.

Samantha Leach.

Scott Borger, Samantha Leach.

Okay.

Marcus Ellis.

Aaron Benton.

Aaron Benton.

Rachel Feinstein.

Deborah Belleck.

Natalia Otero.

Jennifer Swilling.

Zachary Ragoni.

Caroline Pryor.

Eli Burney.

Devon Montgomery.

Okay.

Is there anyone else who's here who signed up to testify in person as a public witness for any of our three agencies today?

What is your name?

Bonita Alley.

Okay.

I don't have you on this list.

Did you sign up before?

Okay.

Which agency are you here to testify for?

Okay.

Okay, you can come up.

Great.

Thank you, everybody.

All right, we will begin with Marcus Ellis.

Hi, welcome.

Mike Check.

All right.

Um good afternoon.

Thomas.

Good afternoon, Councilmember.

Um, I'm here today to testify on behalf of the One's Pathways Program.

Um I'm here to support the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, as we all know, established in 2018 under the NEAR Act.

Ones was tasked with engaging individuals at high risk of involvement in community gun violence.

During my tenure as chief of staff under Director Dale McFadden, leadership of John Mean, we developed a Pathways program based on national-based best practices.

This evidence-based strategy focused on intervention and mentorship for those most likely to use or be victims of firearms.

To ensure the program's success, we partnered with Tony Lewis Jr.

and C.

Sosa for recruitment.

We obtained Waris Majid for programming and later engaged Dr.

Halen Williams and Community Wellness Venture for culturally competent mental health and substance abuse services.

Along with Sharice Matheson, Cameron Shields, Marvin Gaye, Carmen Barry, and Mike Doxon, who served as case managers, we started the program.

Our force cohort of men entered our building, and magic began to happen as the new office with the budget so small that it required us to borrow paper from other agencies started to make miracles.

With the support of then city administrator Rashad Young, we prioritized these participants across district government to ensure that all in government approach was achieved.

The results of the program, built on a foundation of love and accountability, speak for themselves.

Our near our early cohorts achieved a 804% completion rate, 82% job placement, and a 6% re-arrest rate.

We saw men transition from being homeless to employment, witnessed individuals from rival neighborhoods coexist peacefully for 14 weeks.

The first pathways cohort would be the only one we will recruit for.

The program's approach began to spread through the hallways of woodland terrorists, the front steps of Kennedy Street, and the alleys of King Greenleaf.

Cohort two had a waiting list which clearly spoke to desire for change.

While the reduction of violent crime in D.C.

is often attributed to MPD data, sustainable programs like Pathways are essential to breaking the cycle of trauma in the lives of those who are the participants and who do not traditionally trust government.

While we know that the community violence in DC has shifted over the past three to five years, while there's still neighborhood conflicts that exist from historical beefs, most of our violence has become more person-based.

Person-based violence prevention models focused on individual level risk factors, protective factors, and behavioral change to reduce the likelihood of violence.

These approaches are often integrated into broader social, ecological frameworks that also address relationship, community, society levels as stated by the CDC.

Prevention strategies at the individual level aim to change attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, such as through cognitive behavior therapy, anger management, and conflict resolutions to reduce violence risks.

This is what Pathways is when fully implemented and fully funded.

I want to be clear that with respect to other DC government programs, such as Project Empowerment, Pathways is different.

It was designed to be, and are you hearing this directly from one of those who designed the program?

In the words of Dale McFadden, we don't label people, we label boxes.

Salute to every pathways participant and all the staff members that have helped to give these men not a second chance, but a fair first chance.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Aaron Benton, Public Witness.

Good morning.

My name is Aaron Benton, and I'm a technic at DGS and I disciple in the Pathways program with second edition of my career by placing me in the workforce position for 90 days.

It was my responsibility to maintain the position.

And as I see the resource they provided their commitment to helping us secure employee, and it truly made a difference.

It really did, though.

It's definitely changed the way I go to work and the way that I put the job first and my responsibility to come with it too.

So, you know, um I encourage the counselor to support the Warren's program by equipment with the necessary tools to keep the young men that's coming home and they get in these programs and they make they they the people that work there, they like they were above all for them to keep them like get on their back like they filed post to them.

I was supposed to, uh they truly it really worked though.

Um support they can support their family, and I suppose the ones to be granted an additional budget of one uh 10 million, which include 2 million for emergency housing for cohorts to serve 25 bisigners and to assist 100 and individual years, just funds will make a significant impact on our community and help us achieve our goal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh Deborah Billock, Chief Executive Officer of the Georgetown Business Improvement District.

Good morning, uh Councilwoman.

Thank you very much for your time.

My name is Deb Kirsten Billick, and I'm the CEO of the Georgetown Business Improvement District, one of the largest bids in DC.

Our mission is to keep Georgetown clean, safe, accessible, and economically strong.

As a result of our work, Georgetown is the most visited neighborhood in DC with more than 13 million visitors last year alone.

A key way we keep Georgetown safe is through a direct investment in our safety, which has been afforded to us through the Safe Commercial Corridors Program, a program you know well, and also a line item that disappointingly no longer appears in the mayor's budget.

I'm here today to advocate for adding that program back into the budget at the fiscal year 26 funding levels.

It's both cost effective and delivers measurable safety improvements at a fraction of the cost of traditional investments.

As a result of funding we've received for the past two years through this program, the Georgetown bid has created a proactive and coordinated public safety strategy for the neighborhood, which has elevated our safety posture and allowed the bid to serve as an important extension of city services.

We hired our first full-time public safety coordinator who has succeeded in building trust among our many local businesses, including building owners and MPD.

We actively deliver education campaigns and coordinate directly with MPD, resulting in a 69% reduction in burglaries since 2024, all while visitation to Georgetown has increased.

We've installed 15 cameras with 54 separate viewpoints throughout our bid boundaries.

This enhances our situational awareness, exponentially grows our eyes on the street, and strengthens our connection to MPD through connecting with the real-time crime center.

Furthermore, our camera program and its infrastructure have directly supported police investigations.

Some metrics for your consideration.

Finally, this year, with help from this funding, this grant, we launched the Safety Ambassador Program.

The ambassadors serve as visible deterrence, engage with visitors, and assist with incidents in the bid.

In the past six weeks alone, in addition to addressing quality of life concerns such as trespassing, vandalism and pedestrian hazards, our ambassadors have supported 910 visitor interactions, conducted 410 business safety checks, and provided five escort services when needed.

Ultimately, the Safety Ambassador program has decreased crime in the bid by 62 and a half percent during their shift hours as compared with the same period last year.

Further, several of our retail partners report an overall reduction in inventory loss between 10 and 17 percent.

And that's anecdotal, but we're excited about it.

I share these metrics with you to show the impact of this funding.

The line item is relatively small, but it yields an outsized return on investment.

I hope you will preserve the funding in the coming year, and I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, everyone.

Um thank you for the opportunity to um speak.

My name is Benita Ali, and I'm sitting in front of you to give the testimony of how important the vision has been to me along with my family.

I lost my only son and the youngest of four to gun violence on November the 19th, 2025.

If it wasn't for me being introduced to Tayvon Johnson, me and my family would be walking in the darkness because it was a new situation that was one that we did not see coming forth, so we didn't know how to prepare or things to do at that particular time.

As I was um introduced to Tavon Johnson, um, he was able to sit with me and my family and give us um questions and um meet our needs with um the limited resources that he had, some of the resources he actually had to go outside of the agency in order to buffet um the needs that we have for my family because of some a some um cuts in the budget on was done that um was out of his control, but he was still trying to help me and my family.

During the most painful situation, we needed information about everything like counseling for adults and children because of my son left behind a 10-year-old daughter, which he was actually taking care of his own.

With the with patiently waiting to hear of any organizations, um, survival group, um, me and my daughters, we actually um attend a group that um is um up under the um the leadership of the program as well.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

To have the um this information and these resources available to families that actually is going through that situation off on top of it being such a traumatic and a painful resources is very important.

Because uh I wasn't umborn in DC, but I've been here for some years.

So for me not to know a way I can go and get the resources is very important.

And at that time, when you um lose someone, tragically, everything is cloudy.

So the more information to be able to get you from day to day is very important.

So I sit here and I strongly suggest that if possible that the resources continue, the funding don't get cut because of the situation have not changed.

As long as we have people losing their lives on the streets of DC, we're going to need someone to be able to take the family to the side and just be able to give them debitability and that information that they would need at that time.

I appreciate the opportunity of speaking.

Thank you.

Well, thank you so much.

And thanks for your courage and being here today.

I'm so sorry about the loss of your son.

It's just never something anyone can prepare for.

Um, and as you mentioned, so so important to make sure we have the resources to continue following up and getting the families the support that they need.

So thank you for sharing.

Um thank you for all of you for the important work that you do as well.

Um there are clear clearly a lot of work we need to do on the budget.

Um so appreciate you all being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have been rejoined by some of our in-person witnesses.

Um we're gonna return to that list.

Um Zachary Ragoni.

Rashid Murphy.

Rashid Murphy.

You Rashid Murphy?

Okay, great.

You can come.

Uh Leroy Croirles.

Marcellus Queen.

Okay, yeah, if you could sit in the second seat, and then we'll have Zachary sit in the first seat.

It's all right, thank you.

I'll just keep us in order here.

Great, thank you.

Okay.

Um Zachary Ragoni.

Please go ahead whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Uh Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Zach Regoni, and I'm a policy professional with over a decade of experience across federal government and nonprofit work, including recent focus here in the district on re-entry, workforce development, and public safety systems.

I'm here today to speak on the FY27 budget for the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, with a focus on the role that office plays in aligning systems to produce durable public safety outcomes.

The Deputy Mayor's office sits in a uniquely difficult position.

It must coordinate across agencies while balancing immediate public safety concerns, long-term outcomes, community expectations, and fiscal constraints.

There are no easy answers.

Success is measured by whether outcomes are credible, sustainable, and actually work over time.

That's why it's important to be clear about what this office does.

Its value is in alignment.

It brings agencies together and functions as a force multiplier within the public safety system.

When coordination is strong, programs reinforce each other.

You can see what that looks like in practice at the DOC's Ready Center.

The Ready Center serves as a transition point for individuals coming home from custody.

It connects them to case management through MORCA and a services delivered by community-based organizations, many supported through OVSJG.

It also links into workforce pathways, behavioral health, and housing supports.

It's not one program, it's a system.

And it only works when that system is aligned.

When people leaving custody are connected to stable supports, they are less likely to re-offend.

That leads to fewer repeat incidents, fewer repeat arrests, and less system charm.

Over time, that creates space, allowing MPD and the OUC to focus more on serious issues instead of repeated cycles.

That's a public safety win.

It also shapes public perception.

When communities see fewer repeat disruptions and more consistent results, confidence in the system improves.

Looking at the FY27 budget, two things can be true at the same time.

Allowing one-time funding to expire is fiscally responsible.

But the additional reductions to ongoing coordination and initiative capacity raises real concerns.

Because when you reduce this office's capacity, you increase the risk of fragmentation across the system.

And that's where outcomes begin to break down.

So it offer three brief rec uh considerations.

First, maintaining the proposed FTE levels is the right call.

Stability matters in a coordinating role like this.

Second, the council should take a closer look at the reductions to contractual and public safety initiatives capacity.

That's where much of the coordination and partnership work happens.

And third, this office should be viewed not as overhead, but as infrastructure, because its ability to align agencies directly affects how well every other public safety dollar performs.

The district has made real progress, but progress is not completion.

The question is whether we sustain the systems that produce those results or begin to scale them back.

The coordination this office provides is essential to that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Richard Murphy.

First, I would like to thank Ms.

Brooke Pinto and the council for having this meeting.

Hi, my name is Rasheed Murphy, and I'm a 30-year-old Washingtonian that just came home from doing a seven-year census.

Today makes my 1,000 six 1,161st day being home.

And I like to share how pathways change the trajectory of my life.

Coming home, I already knew that I would face barriers and hurdles.

I found a I want to say I had interest in IT.

So I went down to Minnesota Avenue, being referred to project empowerment, completed all the necessary steps and stuff, and then was denied at the last week due to a background check with no explaining.

So in the midst of that, I was referred to a good friend, a violence interrupted to the pathways.

And from day one, they challenge and help shape my mindset and positively help me build work ethics, job development, work readiness.

And through them, I landed a job that builds and promotes me.

They they challenge me to want to do better to help break my mindset in my old ways.

With an annual funding of 10 million dollars, the program effectively sustains four teams, 25 ambassador is amounting to 100 individuals a year by providing essential staffing and training.

But more importantly, an extra two million dollars is needed for emergency housing, which is critical because if a person doesn't have a safe foundation, then they truly can't branch out and learn.

Many people face barriers as far as housing and figuring out the next step where they can't even think about what's further five steps further ahead of them because at home, there is no home.

So I just came to speak today as a testament to showing what the ones can really do for somebody.

Well, thank you so much and welcome home and thank you for sharing your story.

Thank you.

Marcellus Queen.

Hello.

Um, my name is Marcellus Quinn.

I want to speak from the beginning.

I was a uh a ones uh I took part of ones a couple years ago, and one's kind of started my life off.

So I'm uh I currently work, I've been working at DYRS for two years currently, and also um have partnerships with different programs.

I've created like four programs in the District of Columbia for the Congress Park community.

And I've been heavily really deeply rooted in community.

Um I've been deeply in uh rooted in community ever since I left Pathways, so this is probably me in the community for four years.

So I want to start off by saying like what I see and why I think ones is so helpful.

I refer to ones that as the command center, right?

When you look at all the other budgets you have this the ones to me is the only place where it rebuilds men, right?

Not from just an aspect from jobs, like uh there's people that actually work in the ones as Ms.

Quelly or Marcus Ellis, these are people that I can call when I was at my most times of being lost, confused.

It's more like a family setting that I needed to persevere, right?

But also, I wanted to say this to I know a lot of this is about numbers, right?

So when you change one man, you could change the whole family.

When you look at the African American community, it's millions that has to go to DPS DBH just for the mental health of what happened to African Americans, right?

Millions have to go to DY REST because then there's so many single family households that you know I feel like kids are just kind of all over the place without men in a household, right?

So you're saving more money actually investing in men for real.

Are you investing in a man coming back into the community and changing the community?

So when I look at all these other agencies, this is the only agency that actually transforms what you it can bring people back into the community to change their families.

Everything else is kind of like uh something it helps, but it it is it it doesn't help all the way because it is momentarily because you still have the program, you still have to pay for the programs for the kids in the UI rest.

You still have to pay for um, you still have to pay for the funeral rules.

You still have to pay for for TANF for when they leave their families.

Once a man goes into prison, you still have to pay the daycare.

You still have to pay the TANF, you still have to pay the food stamps.

You still have to pay when you when you could just pay to rebuild a man and rebuild his family so he can sustain to take care of his own family by himself.

So, you know.

I feel like if anything, the ones needs more money to help sustain it, so we you don't have to sustain the whole District of Columbia by ours.

So that's the way I look at it.

But that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Leroy Quarles.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and members of the council.

My name is Leroy Quarrels, and I'm a graduate of the Pathways program under the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

Before Pathways, I faced challenges that many in our communities experience, limited opportunities, instability, and exposure to violence.

This program gave me structure, mentorship, and a real path forward, and not only changed my life, but also influenced those around me to make better choices and pursue growth.

Wands plays a vital role in public safety by addressing the root causes of violence.

Instead of reacting after harm is done and invest in prevention, supporting individuals most at risk and helping them build stable, productive lives.

Funding is critical.

We asked for a $10 million annual budget that ensures the program can consistently serve full cohorts of 25 ambassadors, 100 individuals each year through staff and training and essential support services.

Additionally, $2 million for emergency housing is necessary.

Many participants face housing instability, which directly affects their ability to succeed.

Providing safe temporary housing creates the stability needed to stay engaged and move forward.

This is an investment in prevention, stability, and safer communities.

I am living proof of what this program can do with continued support, many more lives can be changed.

I respectfully urge you to support the $10 million annual and $2 million for emergency housing.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you all very much for testimony.

Okay.

We're going to call our next panel who've rejoined us.

Um Dr.

Daniel Webster, Rachel Feinstein, Jennifer Zwelling.

And anyone else who is here in person who signed up to testify that I called earlier that you like recording.

Yes.

Eli Byrne, okay.

Yes, if you could sit in the order that I called you.

So we'll start with Dr.

Webster.

Okay.

Okay, great.

Um we will begin with uh Dr.

Daniel Abster.

Uh thank you very much.

Good morning, uh Chairperson Pinto, and thanks for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Daniel Webster.

I'm a professor at Johns Hopkins.

Um studied uh violence prevention efforts for 30 years, but I want to be clear that what I'll say today is no formal position of my university.

It's just my professional opinion.

My colleague, Dr.

Joseph Richardson, uh, you'll hear from later virtually.

We've been studying uh the two principal CBI programs uh in Washington, D.C.

Uh that have been in place since 2018, Cure the Streets that used to be under OAG and the Violence Intervention Initiative, which I'm just gonna refer to as VII.

Um we've studied program effects on gun violence.

Uh the study was just published online in American Journal of Epidemiology.

Unfortunately, we found no evidence that these programs were reducing gun violence in the neighborhoods that they serve.

We even found some evidence of backfire effects that may indicate elevated rates of homicide associated with VII implementation.

It's important to understand that these estimates are based on many years of program outcomes.

We did find evidence of improvement in outcomes in 2024, coinciding when Director Smeeds was appointed over ones.

We've been trying to study program implementation.

However, implementation data have been sparse, and many organizations receiving funding for CBI have not accepted our invitation to share their experiences and perspectives about the programs and their work.

What we've learned is that for many years there were minimal there was minimal structure, minimal staffing levels related and related resources for combating gun violence, minimal salaries and supports for frontline workers, contracts of no more than 9 to 12 months provided minimal job stability.

To be an effective outreach worker or violence interrupter, you have to be trusted and be able to deliver assistance.

This isn't possible with high worker turnover and workers outs uh coming from outside their community.

Until recently, there seemed to be minimal accountability measures for CBI performance after council cut uh CBI budget in half last year, one to spread these resources even more thinly by asking violence in ruptors used to cover neighborhoods to respond to events across entire wards.

We should be disappointed but not shocked to find that the programs did not reduce gun violence as designed and implemented.

The field of CVI has matured significantly with professional standards.

Um these start with the ability to continuously identify those at highest risk for shooting or being shot.

In addition to basic conflict mediations to address immediate risk, high-risk individuals need a set of services and supports that include cognitive, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um that include cognitive behavioral change interventions, help getting housing, food, transportation, employment, and someone to help to navigate these systems.

Those in immediate danger of being shot should uh receive help locating to a safer location.

Programs with these elements have been shown to reduce violent offending by program participants.

Many of the elements can be found in separate ones programs, the VII, family survivor supports, and pathways, but these programs have not always worked in collaboration.

Funds for the programs in the mayor's budget are grossly insufficient to effectively address the problem.

I urge council to preserve funding for the family survivor supports pathways and the VII, including adequate funds to relocate individuals whose life is in immediate danger.

To improve program impacts and provide a way to evaluate outcomes, council should require greater focus on high-risk individuals and only in specific areas of need and with a system of coordinated and accountable performance.

You can't be everywhere for everybody with the available resources.

They need to be sufficient to move the dial where they are in place.

We're studying a large initiative in Chicago now that meets the these requirements, and I'm very optimistic about the outcomes we're seeing.

The cost of gun violence to families, communities, and cities in the city is staggering.

I know that there are budget constraints, but jurisdictions have raised funds for CVI systems from taxes on alcohol, marijuana, or special levity levies.

Uh, designed and implemented well, comprehensive CVI does save lives with a significant return on investment.

Thank you for allowing me the time to go over a little bit.

Thank you very much.

Uh Rachel Feinstein.

Go ahead.

There we go.

Good morning, Chair Pinto staff, fellow panelists.

I'm a Word Six resident and director of DC government and community relations with the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington.

We work with over 100 Jewish organizations in our region, including nearly 20 in the district alone, to advocate on many issues such as increasing funding for the pay equity fund, advocating for funding for increased access to affordable housing, legal representation for those most vulnerable in our communities, immigrants and refugees.

But today I'm here to advocate for one million dollars for a program that has had a deep impact on our local Jewish community and other communities at risk of hate crimes, the Safe and Secure DC grant program.

Created by this committee for FY25, the program provided critical funding to nonprofits at risk of hate crimes to bolster their security and pay for security personnel, especially.

Over the last two years, the program has dispersed 1.25 million dollars in funds to cover the cost of security cameras, bullet resistant glass film, security doors, cybersecurity training, and of course, security personnel.

Last year, the council recognized the dire need for these funds.

Thank you for that.

And in the wake of an anti-Semitic double murder at the Capitol Jewish Museum, the council approved $750,000 for FY26.

The need for these security funds continues and has increased dramatically for DC nonprofits.

After the attack on Temple Israel in Michigan, which was later identified to be motivated by Hezbollah's militant ideology, DMPSJ, with the approval of Mayor Bowser dispersed 10,000 to safe and secure DC grants, who indicated there is a need for funds to cover the additional expense of hiring more security personnel on such short notice.

Many grantees indicated that this would be enough to cover security costs for at least two to three weeks of the latest surge in hate motivated threats and violence.

The need for this program continues.

It's not only filling a gap left by the federal program, which has limited cost limited cost coverage for security personnel.

The program is providing vital funds for security for nonprofits who are concerned with new terms and conditions set by the federal grant program.

As of April last year, anyone who accepts a federal grant from DHS must agree to eliminate their DEI and DEIA programming and any quote unquote discriminatory equity ideology.

There are also different interpretations regarding whether grantees would be required to fully cooperate with federal immigration officials.

For many in the DC Jewish community, these terms are unacceptable, as is the risk associated with federal enforcement if found to be in violation of these terms.

As you've done in the past, a request on behalf of the DC Jewish community and with all nonprofits at risk of hate crimes in mind to reinstate the safe and secure DC grant program and increase funds to one million.

Thank you for your consideration of this request at such a difficult time for the district to ensure the community can continue to live fully Jewishly and with pride.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jennifer Zwilling, CEO at Lavich Jewish Community Center.

Good morning, uh Count Chair Pinto staff.

Jennifer Zwilling, I'm the proud CEO of the Edlovich DC JCC and a resident of Ward, which is in Ward 2 and a resident of Ward 4.

As Rachel said, and as you know, it has not been an easy time for the Jewish community with the significant rise in anti-Semitism across the country.

Statistics showed that 70% of hate crimes target Jews, and over 90% of Jews report feeling unsafe in the community.

With the increase of threats and act of violence acts of violence here in the city and across the country, our security costs at the JCC have ballooned over the recent years to over $380,000 annually.

Over the past several years, we have benefited greatly from the DC Safe and Secure Nonprofit Fund helping with our security needs in this changing climate.

Not only day-to-day for the preschool students who come through our doors every day to attend our preschool program and the local DC public school children from Ross and Garrison Elementary School who come every day to the JCC, but also for large and high hour profile events such as the Jewish Film and Music Festival that will happen just a few weeks from now, where thousands of people will come through our doors.

The Edlovich DCJCC is a vital part of our communal and cultural landscape in this city and a prominent institution in our DC landscape.

We are 100 years old this year, our building, and it is etched with the words Jewish Community Center right on the front for all to see.

While we are a home for the Jewish community, we serve not only the Jewish community, but all residents of the district.

After recognizing yourself how vital these resources are to our community to see the support withdrawn.

Our security is a precondition for ensuring that we can continue to fulfill our mission and the financial cost of securing our organization should not be ours to bear alone.

I request that you do reinstate in your budget the DC Safe and Secure Nonprofit Fund and that you do so with a million dollars to ensure that the Jewish community and all faith communities are secure to serve the residents we care about so much in the city we love.

So thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Eli Byrne Thank you, Chair Pinto, for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Eli Byrne, and I'm the State Director for the Jewish Federations of North America, the national umbrella organization representing 141 Jewish federations and communities across North America, including right here in the District of Columbia.

I submit this testimony both in my professional capacity and to someone who lives and worships right here in Washington, D.C.

I'm here to strongly encourage the DC Council to renew and expand funding for the Safe and Secure DC nonprofit security grant program to at least a million dollars in the FY27 budget.

Jewish Federation strongly supports this targeted life-saving initiative modeled after similar nonprofit security grant programs at the Federal and State levels to help at-risk organizations secure their facilities and protect the people who rely upon them.

However, demand for this program has continued to far exceed valuable or available funding in prior years requests significantly outpaced allocated resources, leaving many vulnerable institutions without the support they urgently need.

We continue to see a troubling rise in anti-Semitism and targeted violence against Jewish institutions and individuals.

Recent incidents here in Washington and across the country underscore the reality that Jewish communities and other at-risk groups remain under threat.

Attacks on synagogues in West Bloomfield, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi in recent months further demonstrate that no community is immune, regardless of size or location.

Increased security is not optional, it is essential.

Failing to renew or adequately fund this program would send the wrong message at the wrong time when vigilance and support are most needed.

Through my work at the local at through my work with local Jewish federations nationwide, I have seen firsthand how even modest grants can transform an organization's ability to safeguard its community.

A grant can fund high definition security cameras, reinforced entryways, and critical emergency preparedness training.

Importantly, the program also, and is unique a really good thing about the DC program, enables organizations to hire trained security personnel, now a baseline requirement for many communal gatherings.

These are not enhancements, these are necessities.

At the same time, the financial burden of security on Jewish institutions is substantial.

The Jewish community in North America spends approximately $150 million annually on security each year.

Funds that could and should be used on core services and community support.

Programs like Safe and Secure DC are essential to helping offset these costs and ensure that organizations can continue to serve their communities.

I recognize the fiscal pressures facing the district.

However, this program represents a high impact investment that delivers measurable improvements to public safety.

Supporting vulnerable nonprofits and houses of worship aligns directly with the city's broader public safety goals.

Safe and secure DC should remain a core component of that strategy.

My request, my request is straightforward that the Safe and Secure DC nonprofit security grant program be renewed and funded at no less than a million dollars in the FY27 budget.

Security is the foundation upon which all community life is built.

Without it, individuals cannot worship safely, gather, or serve.

Continued investment in this program is an investment in the safety, resilience, and security of the district.

Thank you, Chair Pinto, for your leadership and for your commitment to ensuring that Washington, D.C.

remains a place where all people, including Jewish Americans, can live, gather, and worship without fear.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I do want to ask you, Dr.

Webster, some of the results of your study that were published last year or several months ago that compare the results of VI in the district when we had two separate programs.

Have you done any updated analysis now that VI is merged within ones?

Excuse me.

No, the um what we've analyzed thus far, I believe, has data through July of 2025.

We can do an additional update.

That was only a short period of time, you know, when when the programs were merged.

What's also complicating is frankly our study design because before merging uh there was greater focus on very distinct areas that we knew we could sort of count as treated.

Um that started to get really blurry with the with the new design.

Um we can and will do additional analyses.

We will have caveats in what we can conclude based up because of those constraints.

But I will note that as I noted in my um testimony, uh we did start to see some improvements and outcomes in 2024.

Um I want to underscore that the findings reflect everything since 2018.

Um my belief is that there were many years when things were not functioning well at all.

Um that that's clearly, I think reflected in our in our outcomes.

Um I would love to see a strategy employed in DC that is focused enough to both get the outcomes and also allow appropriate evaluation to of study impacts.

When you sort of spread resources across a lot of different places, uh it's it gets a little muddy to sort of ascertain exactly what the full impact is.

Um and that's commonly what is done when there are scarce resources, and we clearly have scarce resources.

Uh I think now is the time to learn the best we can from the best approaches, and the way we can learn is again, I would underscore just a much more concentrated approach so we can look at the individuals and communities with the full complement of resources and then demonstrate what the what the return on that investment is.

Right now that's really hard to do.

We we will do our best under those circumstances.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

No, I appreciate that.

I I just one of the things that really stood out to me was the ways in which we could actually be undermining our goal from having the two competing programs.

And so I think that updated information now that it's streamlined under one house will be especially important moving forward.

If I may one additional point on your point, I think, is uh when we see sort of the what I consider the the best design programs in cities, they are integrated.

You know, violence uh community violence is such that you can't draw little boxes and just say, okay, we just have people right here.

Um you have to connect those resources and individuals based upon the the nature of the problem.

That's what Chicago is doing right now, very ambitious effort.

But uh I think it it is definitely preferable if you're gonna have a violence intervention program that it be one, that it be one that could communicate readily across people and places.

So that's very important.

I'm glad to see that.

Um but again, I think that the the both the resources and focus are are not quite where they need to be to be able to demonstrate the return on investment and life-saving abilities.

Okay, and as you've evaluated other cities' programs, like with your work in Chicago right now, for instance.

What are you finding in the effective follow-ups?

Not just the identification of individuals who are at risk, but then the grief support, the pathway support to employment.

One of the things I'm really worried about in this budget is the cuts to other elements of the ones budget like family supports and pathways.

And so as we try to rectify that, what lessons can we learn from these other jurisdictions about why that piece is equally as important to the initial interruption of violence?

So that's a great question, and I'll be honest that we're not quite there to answer it in the way that I would as a scientist want to uh be able to do that.

Uh but I will say with real veterans doing this work for a very long time and being responsive to understanding how violence is changing and what we're learning from evaluations.

Um that is why they put together their their initiative the way that it is, that it had to have those core supports because you're gonna too many people are going to go be lost through the cracks.

And what's what I found very interesting in some of the early evaluations of the work in Chicago is offending went down substantially among the people they were able to truly reach with the with the resources and keep engaged.

Their victimization of those individuals was not impacted in the same way, in part because I think too many other people were being lost.

So to me, there is a connection between how intensive the supports are and what the ultimate outcomes are.

I mean, um, you know, a couple of the trials in Chicago showed um offending on shootings and homicides down by like 65%, which is just mind-blowing, honestly.

Um but it was with uh great deal of intensity and intention that they got those outcomes.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um and one of the things that we talked about last year as it relates to the safe and secure grants was the speed with which the money needs to get out the door.

Have you seen an improvement in this year's disbursement of the grants from application to actually securing those funds, especially for things that an organization might not have at the front end to ensure that they have the security that they need?

I can speak to feedback that I've received, and then perhaps Jen can speak to her organization's experience.

Uh from what I've heard in the the second year of the program, now that like the behind the scenes process has been set up, from what I can tell, the disbursement of funding has reached uh like an expected timeline of when funding will be dispersed and received, etc.

on the I think it's a is it a quarterly, quarterly basis?

Uh but Jen could speak more to her direct experience.

But I I I haven't heard many complaints, so I think that's indicative of a positive process.

I would I would agree with that.

I think that's also true.

We were just meeting with other Jewish leaders this morning.

I will say there was somebody in the room representing a much smaller Jewish organization that perhaps doesn't have all of the um administrative infrastructure, and I think for some of them, it maybe that even permits them to apply.

I don't have enough detail on it.

I don't know if you heard that question.

Um, that I think they're still a barrier for some of the smallest Jewish organizations who are also secure concerned about security to be able to um do what is needed through the process to successfully um receive grants.

But for the JCC, it's been terrific.

So I believe the question that we've received this morning was about the the paperwork process for the grant program.

And I think it's more the paperwork process that is used for the grant program and the different requirements, like business licenses and insurance and things is a requirement for all DC grants.

It's not unique to this grant program, and it's just uh a process.

I think this the DC grant process requires much more of applicants than even some federal grant programs.

Interesting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we are going to turn to our virtual witnesses today.

Michaela Deming, Andrea De Paz, and please, as a reminder to accept your invitation to join as a panelist.

Salase Avalim, Cheryl Clark, Jennifer Caulfield, Kate Walker, Maura McDonough, Maya Hambrick, Max Frankl, Linda Long, Rachel Shelborn, Aaron Johannes, Catherine Harper.

You all a moment to join.

Okay, we'll keep going with some of our virtual witnesses in case anyone's here.

Meredith Sandler, Paola Henriquez, Nancy Leon.

William Shelton, Joseph Richardson, Sharon Williams, Scott Goldstein, Kristen Barden, Kylie Hogan, Tamira Benitez, Paula Thompson, Hilary Caxer, Asia Tu Camara.

Cheryl Clark.

Yes, I'm here.

Oh, great.

All right.

Please go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you for having me.

I am a senior DC resident, and it's my honor to give testimony on the very necessary and important work of the OAG Office of Consumer Protection Mediation Program.

I my personal experience has been wonderful.

I hired our company to remove my personal data from data brokers on websites.

And one particular website refused to remove my personal data.

Um, say it which I didn't give them.

They must have gotten it from a data breach.

And so I decided to reach out to them directly myself, trying to get this data removed.

And they rebuffed me as well, telling me that my jurisdiction didn't have consumer privacy laws that apply to the data, and so that they would not process my request to remove it.

So I reached out to the OAG mediation team trying to get my data removed because other seniors here have had really bad experiences with theft and fraudulent activities.

So they they got written approval from me, reached out to the website, and within a week, all of my data was removed.

I was just amazed, and I'm so grateful because it's it's it's not just seniors, but I think all of the DC residents should be able to get their personal information removed from these websites if they request it to reduce the potential of fraud.

And so I'm really grateful, and that's why I am here giving my testimony to the very necessary, in my opinion, work of the A the OAG uh consumer protection mediation team.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

And I'm sorry to hear that happen to you.

I'm glad that was reconciled.

Thank you.

But we can turn to Caroline Pryor, who's here in person.

That's okay.

Welcome.

Um, go ahead whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chairman, Chairwoman Pinto, and staff.

My name is Caroline Pryor, and I'm the director of policy and power building at Empowered.

Today, while my colleagues testify at the DCPS and PCSB hearing, I'm here today to discuss educator concerns and ideas regarding community safety.

During performance oversight, I focus my comments on the disturbing federal collaboration we continue to see Deputy Mayor Appeal defend.

I expect that if I bring those concerns here, I'll be told it's not a budgetary concern because we have neither jurisdiction nor funding input over federal agencies.

Never mind the black hole of MPD funding, which supplements federal actions thanks to our refusal to hold a firewall.

So today I'll speak on the programs around which over which the Deputy Mayor's Office and Council do have direct oversight.

First safe passage.

Our educators have long advocated for a vision of safe passage that unites restorative justice in the school with violence interruption programming in the neighborhood.

In their proposal, Safe Passage Ambassadors spend arrival and dismissal periods in the neighborhood as known interested specialists who are empowered by last year's training enhancements, as well as genuine bona fide violence interruption praxis.

Then during the day, they would transition into schools as restorative non-punitive support staff, building relationships with students.

For this to happen, though, teachers have been clear.

It cannot remain under DMPSJ's purview.

It doesn't belong with that office.

It loses community trust by affiliation with an agency that readily collaborates with federal occupation.

And we ask instead for Safe Passage to move to the OAG or Aussie, where it can better implement school facing and VI programming.

If council relocates Safe Passage to one of these offices, we ask that it be restructured as a CBO grant cohort program.

Safe passage funding remains unclear in the mayor's budget, but if and only if it is relocated, we ask for a $4 million enhancement to support that restructuring work.

I also want to speak to the deputy mayor's dogged support for over policing our youth.

In her social media comments, she's repeatedly peddled harmful language about our young people and their parents and her support of juvenile curfew.

Like this committee, you ignore young people's comments about the pain and degradation they faced as its result.

In her performance oversight comments, she revealed far more about the juvenile investigative response unit to the public than that unit ever has, including but not limited to its seemingly new mission, us, quote relentless follow-up credible messenger style, end quote, creation of success plans for children in collaboration with schools to an unknown degree.

We're asking the public to foot the bill for this unit when their mission, operation, scope, and collaboration remain shadowy beyond fake infographics.

It's not acceptable.

And we ask both deputy and mayor PIA provide a full and complete list of their methods and actions to date, and that council reinvests this funding in proactive, holistic uh support for students instead.

Thank you for your time.

And also I'll note that one of our teachers was supposed to testify in person and is now virtual.

Okay, who is that?

Devon Montgomery.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Joseph, Dr.

Joseph Richardson.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Um good morning, Chairperson Pinto, and Council members.

I am Dr.

Joseph Richardson, professor at the University of Maryland and principal investigator on the evaluation of the DC violence intervention initiative with my colleague, Dr.

Daniel Webster.

I lead the qualitative research component for the study.

The qualitative team has conducted a series of site visits and focus groups with frontline staff, which are violence and ruptors, outreach workers, and site directors, program managers, and one-on-one interviews with executive directors of CBI organizations formerly under Cure the Streets.

Qualitative research team is also engaged in field observations with canvassing community cure the streets workers as well.

What we have learned is that this work is not easy, as you know, Councilperson Pinto, and context matters and is critical to understand the nuances and layers of doing this challenging work, which often numbers cannot capture or accurately explain.

And I want to emphasize that in this work.

And as we know, there are there are cases of a few bad apples of CBI leadership and frontline workers who are engaged in egregious acts that violate the code of ethics of this work.

And in many instances, these cases have made local and sometimes national headlines.

Those few should not tarnish the work of the many individuals we have interviewed who have committed their lives to the safety of communities, families, and individuals in the district.

Comparatively, the poor decisions made by corrupt law enforcement officers is not a sound rationale to defund or rid the city of the MPD, nor should it be.

We must apply the same measures for CBI in the district.

I'm not going to discuss all of the findings that we have, but I would say just for the record, as Dr.

Webster mentioned, we have not been able to frame the context of CBI and DC with the one sites, and it's been pretty challenging to get those sites to engage in the study.

Recently, we decided uh John Cheek, which is the attorney for the ones reached out to those sites to reignite the possibility of engaging these sites in the work, and we're still waiting for the response.

But I do want to uplift some of the one sites who have expressed support.

I know that Mr.

Shelton is on this call and he's one of the sites that expressed support for engaging in this study, but I must emphasize again that context matters.

We need to understand the very nuanced layers of doing this work, which only qualitative research can drill down to.

And if we don't, only half the story is left to the statistical analysis, which Dr.

Webster presented.

And so I would emphasize that if we don't engage in collecting those narratives, we only have half the story from what CVI looks like in DC.

I would also say that I've witnessed over the course of time that I've engaged in and led the qualitative research for this study.

Many of the CVI sites that we started with and workers have been eliminated and have essentially worked themselves out of a job.

And if we take heed to what has happened in 2012 when we had 88 homicides in the district, and we decided to take our foot off the gas with reducing funding, that gun violence gradually rose in terms of our homicides and nonfatal injuries.

And I support that we should continue to invest in CBI in the district, but I also think that it's critically important that we have the narratives from the people on the ground who are the domain and subject experts who do the work that can best inform how we should move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for all of your important research and I hear that on the importance of looking at both and those stories.

So thank you.

Linda Long.

And sorry, Ms.

Long, before you go ahead, as a reminder to anybody who's on this panel, if you can accept your invitation to join as a witness, that would be great.

Linda Long, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chairperson Pentel, representatives of the Office of Attorney General, and all other distinguished guests.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the potential impact of cuts to the Office of Attorney General's OAG attend program.

My name is Mrs.

Linda Long, and I am the manager of attendance data and strategy at Paul Public Charter School, serving grades 5 through 12.

I am deeply concerned about what reductions to the attend program would mean, not only for Paul Public Charter School, but for schools across the district that re the district that rely on this critical partnership to address truancy and chronic absenteeism.

Schools are mandated to refer families to community resources to combat truancy.

When services are reduced or eliminated, our ability to connect students and families to the support they need is significantly limited.

Without strong, consistent interventions like the ATEN program, schools are left with fewer effective options to address the root causes of attendance challenges.

Currently, the Attend program supports our fifth and sixth grade students who are identified as free truant.

While this support has been invaluable, the need extends beyond these grade levels.

Addition is necessary, not only to sustain services for our fifth and sixth grade population, but also to expand support to students in other grades who are experiencing attendance challenges.

The attendance program provides comprehensive hands-on support that truly makes a difference for our students and families.

This includes summer enrichment meetings, participation in our back to school night where they host tables and speak directly to families about attendance expectations and hosting an upcoming event such as Ties for Success, which both teaches students new skills and reinforces the importance of attendance.

In addition, the attend representatives for our school attend weekly attendance meetings to review attendance data, upcoming mediations, resources needed, and other supports.

The program also includes regular check-ins with students and families as well as a diet as well as direct resource support tailored to family needs.

For example, they have provided alarm clocks to a few students in the program struggling with tardiness to help ensure students arrive at school on time, along with other resources that address specific barriers to attendance.

One of the most impactful services offered is mediation.

These meetings facilitated by neutral mediator, bring together the school and families to address attendance concerns collaboratively.

Beyond mediation, attend program staff provide ongoing case management and connect families with critical resources.

This holistic approach helps remove barriers and creates sustainable improvements in student attendance.

Reed, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and her team from the Attend program have made a positive impact in reducing truancy at Paul Public Charter School.

In my experience, when families are working with the OAG's attempts program, there is a clear sense of urgency and accountability.

The involvement of the OAG encouraged greater parent engagement and responsiveness, which directly benefits student outcomes.

I would also like to acknowledge Ms.

May's, the case manager, and Miss Lewis program support specialists who have been exceptional in their support of our scholars and families.

Their dedication, responsiveness, and commitment have made a meaningful impact with our school community.

Thank you, Miss Long.

Thank you very much.

You're pretty over time.

If I could ask if you can submit the testimony, and if I can ask all of our witnesses to help me stay on track a little bit, everyone has three minutes to present your testimony.

I always feel badly interrupting folks.

Um, but if you can help me, appreciate it.

But thank you very much, Ms.

Long.

Paola Henriquez.

Hello.

Um, good morning, uh, Chair Pinto and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Um, my name is Paula Enriquez, and I am the DC organizer for hand in hand, the Domestic Employers Network.

Um, we're a national nonprofit organization that supports employers of nannies, house cleaners, home caregivers, and other domestic workers to create dignified workplaces for domestic workers.

In DC, hand in hand has worked for several years to support employers, and our impact is deeply felt here.

We frequently have conversations with people who share how supportive hand in hand, hand in hands resources would have been when they were hiring decades ago, and people today who are grateful for the resources we currently provide.

In 2022, this council voted unanimously in favor of passing the domestic worker employment rights amendment act of 2022.

Um creating our domestic workers' employment rights program under the office of the attorney general.

However, we know that implementation is impossible without adequate funding for employer outreach and education, let alone no funding at all.

We request that the budget for the domestic workers' employment rights program be immediately reinstated at a recurring amount of 260,000, as it is as it has been uh the previous budget cycles.

This grant has already increased hand in hand's reach over 30% in the past year.

We have trained over 80 employers and reached over 10,000 people through marketing and advertising.

Our program is entirely unique given our uh coalition's collaboration with uh DC agencies, particularly the OAG, and we're deeply grateful uh to the OAG for years of dedicated partnership, and we're eager to continue building alongside them.

We're also working in step with the National Domestic Workers Alliance and First Shift Justice Project, who provide resources to domestic workers and who work uh to reach the 9,000 domestic workers in the city.

Hand in hand has worked uh to reach professionals in different sectors, like lawyers who are often busy parents and have a high need for uh specialized care that nannies can provide.

We also continue to reach queer uh parents who are partnership with Rainbow Families.

Uh, we're also reaching recently or seemed to be retired DC residents who are worried and preparing for their ability to age in place.

Um, these are people who are not only vulnerable but who needed information and resources regarding their options.

It's everyday people who are um it's everyday people with the resounding questions of who is going to take care of my kids and or who is going to take care of me when I'm older.

I don't doubt that these are the very same questions you and I have about our our own very lives, our very own lives.

Um, thank you for the time to testify, and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Jennifer Caulfield.

Yes, yeah, I'm here.

Hi, um to everyone.

Um, and thank you for allowing to speak on my experience with the Office of the Attorney General's Consumer Intendant Response Program.

Uh, words cannot begin to express my thankfulness for this organization, not only for the services that they offer, but because that they were offered for free.

Um, back in 2020, I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to intern on Capitol Hill.

And during my stay, I was instructed to pay for my housing through a third-party site known as RoomSe.

And then a few months later, when I went to extend my stay, a glitch in the site caused my charge to my card to be triple charged for rent.

When I reached out to Roomsey support, I was gaslit, lied to, and then endlessly redirected without a solid answer.

They fabricated accounts and numbers to swimble swindle more money out of me and then eventually stopped responding to me altogether and blocked me across all platforms.

I was totally stonewalled.

I had spent years looking for a service like OAG's CTR program.

As a recent graduate, I've been struggling financially, and a lawyer was out of the question.

I spent years trying to contact or reach Roomsey through other services through other sources, such as the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Tax Commission, Small Claims Court, and countless other low-income legal service legal assistance programs, but was turned away for one reason or another.

Even with damning evidence confirming the triple charge and receipts of every exchange made with Roomsey, making it an easy case.

Finally, about a month ago, I was redirected to the OAG CTR program by another program and I submitted a form that night.

By the next day, I was surprisingly shocked to be in direct contact with the person who was helping to recover the almost $1,500 I am owed.

After almost six years of struggling and fighting with a dishonest corporation, I'm so thankful for the staff at the Attorney General's office who not only got Roomsey to agree to refund me, but restored my peace of mind and faith in humanity.

It took them less than a month to accomplish what I had tried in vain to do for six years, and that was all because of the funding that allows them to help people like me.

I'd given up all hope thinking it was an essentially a lost cause and losing battle, and the CTR program provided me everything I could have possibly asked for.

As a graduate with degrees in both political science and psychology, I can say with complete certainty that if providing these types of programs is not one of the most fundamental purposes of our government and our tax dollars, then our government should reconsider its goals.

Funding these kinds of services is the exact purpose of our government, and fund undercutting their budget would serve as nothing but an undercut to democracy.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Kate Walker Good morning.

But perhaps one big difference is that I am joining you today from Vienna in the Republic of Austria.

And since I'm based in Europe, you might reasonably wonder what I am doing here at a DC budget hearing.

But I'm also joining this hearing today to share my experience with the Office of the Attorney General's Consumer Intention Response Program and to add my voice in support of their ongoing funding.

So let me turn to what happened.

Last February, I visited Washington, DC to attend a conference, which I had self-funded.

And during my trip, I stayed at Global Luxury Suites at Capitol Hill.

And whilst I was there, there were very significant disturbances and security issues, which I reported on site as well as electronically.

The provider acknowledged the failure of service in writing and promised me a refund.

However, for the subsequent 11 months, the refund was withheld.

And I tried very hard to solve and resolve this matter from abroad, including whilst I was on a military deployment in Asia.

But the company kept defaulting on its promise.

They missed multiple scheduled Zoom meetings, which they insisted upon, despite a at one point a 12-hour time difference.

And eventually they just stopped communicating with me.

So as the company is based in DC, but I am based in Europe, I didn't have a viable path to resolution without some local help.

And that's where the consumer and tenant response program came in.

I completed the fairly straightforward online form on the website, and I was contacted very swiftly by an intern, Sherry Wu, who was really terrific from the get-go.

She was very efficient and professional.

And indeed, the contrast between the providers' delay tactics and the OEG's response and their process was really very stark.

Ms.

Wu and I had a streamlined exchange of emails in a brief teams meeting, and she was able to secure the refund from the third-party booking platform on my behalf.

And this was a very positive outcome that was achieved very quickly.

And she managed to resolve a deadlock that from in my case had lasted nearly a year.

So my experience has left me with a very high regard for the program.

And I think for international visitors, be the tourists or coming for business purposes, the OEG provides a really critical layer of consumer protection.

So I'd like to end by just strongly supporting the continued funding of this program to ensure that all consumers, regardless of where they are based, have access to justice when dealing with district-based companies.

So thank you for the opportunity to give the feedback.

Thank you very much.

Maura McDonough.

Hello.

Good morning.

My name is Mar McDonough.

I am a DC resident, had been a resident for eight cumulative years, and had been in the D area for 12 years.

In February 2026, I submitted a complaint to LAG Consumer and Tenant Response.

In November 2025, I ordered items from Adidas's online store.

When they arrived and didn't fit, I returned them following Adidas instructions.

Despite having proof of return, Adidas would only refund me for one of three items, leaving me owed 150 dollars.

I followed every instruction, had a tracking receipt, confirming return, and still spent a week being passed back and forth between Adidas and FedEx with no resolution, including a denied credit card dispute.

What made this particularly frustrating is that Adidas wasn't contesting whether I returned the items or not.

They simply review to verify whether they had the items in their possession, which they did.

I was being stonewalled like so many others were by two major corporations.

They're no fault of my own.

I reached out to OAG CTR for help.

Mark Davis, a paralegal specialist of CTR, responded within a week.

We had a phone call where I explained the situation and sent him all the relevant documents.

By the end of March, we got a response from Adidas conceding that the mistake was with FedEx, and I received my full refund.

I didn't share any additional information that I hadn't already shared with the data.

They were just unresponsive to me as an individual until CTR advocated for me.

I had asked Adidas to communicate with their partner, FedEx, and they refused until CTR intervened.

As corporations continue to grow and consolidate power, there needs to be a guardrail to prevent them from steamrolling consumers.

And I wish more people knew about CTR as an option.

While my situation is relatively small safe, I am someone who has resources and previously worked in corporate communication.

If I can't navigate the system without support, I can't imagine how other folks would be disadvantaged without CTR.

I truly appreciate what CTR has done for me, and this is why I support, I strongly support continued funding for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Maya Hambrick Thank you, Chairperson Pinto and other committee members for allowing me to testify today.

My name is Maya Hambrick, and I am the program manager for the MORCA Georgetown Paralegal Program at the Georgetown University Prisons and Justice Initiative, or PJI.

I'm appearing today on behalf of PJI and in support of the OAG Consumer and Tenant Response Program and in support of continued and increased funding for the OAG and PJI employment partnership.

Our relationship with OAG dates back to the launch of this program when Morca partnered with us to create a re-entry program for DC residents interested in the legal field.

The program aims to address barriers to employment as fellows pursue full-time legal careers upon graduation.

Since launching the MOCA Georgetown Paralegal Program in 2018, OAG has hired paralegals from each cohort, making them our most consistent employer partner.

Over the past six cohorts, we've graduated a total of 70 returning citizens.

16 graduates have been hired full-time at OAG, and five graduates are currently employed there now.

The OEG provides supportive and meaningful employment for our graduates.

They have created a comprehensive training and onboarding process, which allow our graduates to excel both in their position at OAG and afterwards.

Our graduates who have worked for OEG report great satisfaction in their employment as well as a welcoming and supportive environment.

Our partners at OEG also report positive outcomes from their perspective and the perspective of the DC residents whom they serve and some stories you've heard today.

Their work has helped resolve disputes early, secure financial relief, hold organizations accountable, and has helped return approximately 1.3 million dollars to consumers and tenants in 2025 alone.

Their work has often resulted in dismissed cases, for given debts, and money returned or saved.

They've been also recognized by OAG staff for their professionalism and care and the residents who have shared positive and personal thanks to the fellows who have provided support that they've received.

So given all the demonstrated positive outcomes for this program for returning citizens in the district, from the Morkad Georgetown Paralegal Program, from the DC OAG, and the district residents at large, I wish to express my ongoing and enthusiastic support for the OAG Consumer and Tenant Response Program and their partnership with our paralegal program.

We strive to create additional paralegal positions at OAG to sustain and build upon this future successful partnership.

And so on behalf of PJI and Georgetown University, we hope to see continued and increased support for this partnership moving forward.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Max Frankel.

Good morning, German Pinto and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Max Frankel, and I am a DC resident.

I'm here to share a brief experience I had with the Office of the Attorney General's Consumer and Tenant Response Unit, and why I believe this office is a strong example of government working effectively and deserves full sustained funding.

Last fall, I had an issue with a rental car booking company with rental car booking through the company Churro.

When I arrived to pick up the vehicle, it wasn't actually available where it was supposed to be.

And I was forced to book a last-minute replacement through a traditional rental card company at a significantly higher cost.

Turo agreed to reimburse me the difference, about 320 dollars.

But despite months of follow-up, I never received the refund.

I emailed repeatedly, resubmitted receipts multiple times, and was told different things by different representatives.

By early 2026, after nearly five months, I still hadn't received the money or a genuine response to my inquiry, and it was clear that the company was not operating in good faith.

At that point, I filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General.

Within days, I was contacted by a staff member in the consumer and tenant response unit.

They scheduled a call, gathered documentation, and most importantly, took ownership of the issue.

Shortly after, they sent a formal inquiry letter to the company on my behalf, requesting a response within a defined timeline.

Within about two weeks of that intervention, I received my refund.

What stood out to me was not just the outcome but the process.

The communication was clear, the expectations were transparent, and the office was effective in a way that I had not been able to be on my own for several months.

This experience reinforced reinforced something important.

Consumer protection only works if there is a credible, responsive public entity that companies take seriously.

The OAG provides that credibility.

For me, this wasn't just about $320.

It was about fairness and accountability.

As an individual consumer, I didn't have leverage.

But with the support of the OAG, the system worked the way it should.

I'm here today to say this is a function of good government that is working well.

It is delivering real results for residents, often in situations where they have few other options.

Because of that, I request and strongly support continued funding for this office and for the consumer and tenant response work.

Thank you for your time and for your leadership on these issues.

Thank you, Mr.

Frankel.

Meredith Sandler.

Meredith Sandler, are you here still?

Okay.

Nancy Leon.

Uh good morning, Chair Pinto.

My name is Nancy Leon.

I'm the director of advocacy at Many Languages One Voice.

I'm here today to testify in support of reinstating the 260,000 in funding for the domestic workers' rights program within the office of the attorney general during the next budget fiscal year.

A significant portion of our MLO members are domestic workers, nannies, house cleaners, and home care workers, and are essential to the functioning of the city.

Every day these workers share stories of wage theft, unsafe working conditions, lack of written contracts, and language barriers that prevent them from accessing justice.

Domestic workers are predominantly immigrant women and women of color and are too often excluded from traditional labor protections.

Through our partnership with the Office of the Attorney General, community-based organizations like MLO provide culturally competent outreach and language accessible education.

And at a time when many workers feel hesitant to engage or report violations within the government due to fear, distrust, or immigration-related concerns, these relationships are currently essential.

Through our program with the OAG, MLEV has been able to run three cohorts of our domestic workers' ambassadors program to train more than 40 women on their domestic workers' rights.

And through our program's exit survey, we've learned that more than 90% of our participants were not aware of the protections under the domestic workers' bill of rights before joining our program.

So this shows that clearly the work is not done and more outreach and education is urgently needed.

To highlight the impact of our program, I'll share the story of one of our workers who has lived in DC for over 20 years and is originally from Mexico.

She shared that this program helped her realize her worth.

She had been earning $10 an hour in 2025 as a nanny, was rarely able to afford her home and was facing possible eviction.

Through our support, she recognized that she did not have to accept exploitation.

She found a better employer and secured stable housing.

She also completed a digital literacy course throughout program, strengthening her work skills and broadening her work opportunities.

Cutting the office of the Attorney General Domestic Workers Program would eliminate a central education support and the trust that is built with this workforce.

More than that, it would eliminate a community of support, which for domestic workers is essential given that their work is often isolating work.

So reinstating this 260,000 investment will ensure the continued outreach to hard to reach communities and stronger enforcement support.

Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Kristen Barden.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the fiscal year 2027 budget for the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, DMPSJ.

I'm writing to urge the restoration of funding for the Safe Commercial Corridors Grant Program, approved investment in community safety, economic vitality, and community trust.

The Safe Commercial Corridors program plays a critical role in supporting our Adams Morgan safety ambassadors who serve as visible, approachable, and effective stewards of neighborhood well-being.

These ambassadors are not law enforcement, but they fill a vital gap, providing de-escalation, assisting residents and visitors, supporting local businesses, and serving as extra eyes and ears on the street.

The impact of safety ambassadors in Adams Morgan offers clear real world examples of the program's value.

Late night de-escalation.

During peak weekend hours along 18th Street, safety ambassadors have successful has have successfully intervened in disputes between patrons outside bars and restaurants, calming situations before they escalated into fights.

Business owners report that these interventions have reduced the need for police calls and prevented potential injuries.

Supporting vulnerable individuals, intoxicated and also those experiencing homelessness.

Ambassadors routinely assist intoxicated patrons by helping them locate rideshare services, reconnect with friends, or safely exited crowded areas.

In multiple instances, ambassadors have stayed with individuals until safe transportation arrived, preventing risky situations and reducing emergency service calls.

They also support people experiencing homelessness by connecting them to public health services and shelter or just coordinating with outreach staff from Merriam's Kitchen.

Coordinating with businesses.

Safety ambassadors maintain active communication with bar and restaurant staff, sharing information in real time about emerging issues such as overcrowding, line disputes, or individuals exhibiting concerning behavior.

This coordination has helped businesses proactively manage crowds and avoid escalation.

Responding to quality of life concerns.

Ambassadors regularly address non-emergency issues such as noise complaints, loitering, and public disturbances.

Their presence allows for immediate low conflict intervention that improves neighborhood conditions without requiring law enforcement involvement.

Enhancing community trust and perception of safety.

Residents have noted that the consistent presence of familiar ambassadors who often know business owners and patrons by name has improved the overall sense of safety and approachability in the corridor.

This is especially important in nightlife district where tensions can rise quickly.

In addition to improving public safety outcomes, the safe the Safe Commercial Corridors program is also an important workforce development tool.

Safety ambassador positions provide accessible entry point employment opportunities for district residents.

Through this program, ambassadors gain valuable transferable skills, such as conflict resolution, customer service, communication, situational awareness, and crisis intervention.

Safety ambassadors receive structured training and advancement pathways, helping participants build careers in public safety, hospitality, and community services.

I'm out of time, but um I'll also note that the safety ambassadors in Adams Morgan have also been recognized by several awards.

Um the MPD in 2023 gave them um uh an award when they helped identify a suspect and alerted MPD to their location, which resulted in his arrest.

So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

I really hope that restoring um this the funding for the Safe Commercial Corridors grant program um is possible because it's a practical, evidence-based um uh program, and we're really appreciative.

Thank you so much.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Hillary Coxer.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you so much.

Um good day, Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety Chairperson Ward 2 Councilmember Brooke Pinto, committee council members, and exceptionally helpful committee staff.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony to you.

Testifying about the deputy mayor for public safety and justice.

I'm Hillary Coxer, lifelong DC resident, product of DC public schools and longtime district advocate.

Hoarding disorder, a behavioral health diagnosis, although easily dismissed as not serious, HD is in fact a matter of life and death.

A person with hoarding disorder in an apartment with so many possessions that are blocking the ventilation system can cause carbon monoxide to build up in other units, making tenants get sick or even die.

DC fire and emergency medical services know only too well both the human cost and the dollar cost of untreated hoarding disorder.

The serious community-wide public health problem of hoarding disorder affects all of us, and it is a public safety concern.

Unfortunately, we don't talk about it, but but we need to shine light into the clutter closet in order to stop the shame stigma and judgment which prevent help.

Many people live in the district with untreated hoarding disorder, including children, being cared for by people with this unaddressed behavioral health diagnosis.

DC need to focus on early intervention and harm reduction.

The deputy mayor for public safety and justice must take a role as the executive branch of DC government to coordinate an interagency to approach to this problem, which costs such inordinate resources in the District of Columbia due to the egregious service gap and severe unmet need in the Department of Behavioral Health.

FEMS know the cost, but FEMS know that they are not behavioral health care providers.

So the deputy mayor has to step in and hopefully this committee can encourage that to get this interagency uh coordination going.

Region wide hoarding is being addressed openly, which is better than here.

Uh multiple examples exist of other just jurisdiction work to address this challenge.

The Fairfax Hoarding Committee, Gaitersburg, Maryland Hoarding Code violation uh assistance program.

There's many doc much documentation that I'll include in the written testimony, but there's a Washington Post article.

Hoarding is a serious disorder and it's only getting worse.

WTOP reports of fires.

Um Metropolitan Washington Council of Government Hoarding a Dangerous Secret.

You will save tax dollars if you can make a small investment.

I have no personal interest in what is done, just that something is done, but there is a pilot program that would cost 10,000.

There's a DC therapist that specializes in hoarding disorders.

She could say work with three residents at risk of losing housing, which is also adding a cost to district taxpayers.

I would welcome any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Meredith Sandler Thank you, Chairperson Pinto and staff.

Uh my name is Meredith Joy Sandler.

I'm a retired 30-year DC resident.

I strongly support continued funding at current levels for OEG's consumer and tenant response program.

On January 25th of this year, I purchased two very expensive single tickets from Vivid Seats, an online ticket reseller to the mid-March World Baseball Classic semi-final one game and to its championship game, both in Miami.

To summarize my complaint, I did not receive the tickets that I purchased from Vivid Seats.

I'll call them Vivid.

As it got closer to the game states, I made many calls, sent many emails to Vivid CEO and customer support.

They at first blamed me for not being able to access the tickets.

Then Vivid was unable to get the tickets from the seller who my research revealed had transferred them to someone else nine days after I purchased them.

After my making more calls and sending more emails, Vivit took no action to implement its fire guarantee to offer comparable seats.

As of the evening of March 9th, just days before the games, Vivid in the cellar had my 11,212, a sizable amount that I'd worked very hard to save up to purchase the tickets.

But I had no tickets, nor any hope I would get them.

Vivid showed a complete lack of urgency and concern for my situation, nor did they acknowledge their responsibility for it.

And bottom line, they were unconcerned about getting me comparable seats when they were still available before the games and hadn't sold out.

The issue would not have been resolved if OAG's consumer and tenant response program had not gotten involved with uncommon responsiveness and canny effectiveness.

Overnight, Mr.

David Robinson and his colleagues responded to my contacting them by sending a mediation letter to Vivid.

Less than three hours after receiving it, a vivid senior staffer called me to resolve the problem and work out an agreement.

Why I had asked, I asked had he contacted me after all this time?

He responded the letter from the attorney general of the District of Columbia convinced Vivid they better resolve my problem.

A few days later, while trying to use the replacement ticket I'd been provided to get into the semifinal game.

So to get into the game, I had to buy another ticket just minutes before game start.

After the games, Vivid then worked in intently with me, giving me no runaround to compensate me for that last minute ticket I had to buy.

Why no runaround?

I asked.

It was only because of the attorney general's letter and his interest in my case.

These outcomes make clear how essential this program is to consumers like me who have been defrauded, have no power, nor do know do not know where to turn.

OAG's consumer intended response program is truly an action team and is invaluable.

I strongly support its continued funding at current levels.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Okay.

My name is Asse Tzu, and I am a domestic worker and a member of National Domestic Walker Alliance.

I have worked for more than 10 years as a nanny.

I participate in the power program leadership of fall of 2025.

Found to the OG grant, the domestic worker employment rights grant program.

This program empowered me to advocate for language access, which is essential for immigrant domestic worker.

Through my leadership power, I advocate for a French language flyer to have French speaking domestic worker understand the right has a result of my participation in the program.

I help bring the five walker to the program to know your right training and help connect many other information about this law.

This program work because it's recognized that impact worker know what the community needs by funding community organization and walker leader, the city and show that information of rich people in the right language and trust spaces.

The dining we get in this program is a transformational and it's being impact on not just me, but the entire community.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you very much, Sia too.

And I want to ask you as we think about the importance of these grants for education.

Where was it that you found out about the work going on to ensure that domestic workers had their rights and were educated around this?

Where was this information presented to you initially?

It was um by the organization from National Domestic Alliance, a walker alliance.

And did that come through some event in person or online?

Where did you find that?

In person.

In person, I'm sorry, I'm just like in person at a community event, you're already going to be able to do that.

Yeah, couple minutes.

Yes.

If you want to get four minutes, then I will.

Got it.

Okay.

Great.

Well, thank you very much.

Thanks for being here tonight.

Thanks so much.

Um, Kylie Hogan, yes, Annie.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chairson Venture and members of the committee.

Um I'm Kylie Hooken, uh lady.

And sorry, Ms.

Hogan.

Um, Ms.

Kamara, if you can put yourself on mute.

Is that what I I do that and like so cute, but I can have it from the why.

Like we have to do that.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead, Kylie.

Thank you.

Um I'm here testifying on behalf of DC Safe, the district's only 24-7 crisis intervention agency for domestic violence related to the Deputy American Public Safety and Justice.

DC Safe sits at the intersection of victim services, law enforcement, and the proper community safety system.

Every day we work alongside with the OBSJG, MPB, DHF, and our criminal justice partners to respond to some of the highest risk situations in the district.

We're not adjacent to public safety.

We are part of its core infrastructure.

And right now we feel that that infrastructure is under strain.

As we once again approach the budget process from the face of scarcity, it is essential that the focus move beyond whether we are spending enough on public safety to instead think about whether or not we are spending it in the right places.

We must ask if increased spending on the police has made us safe, or if it's investments in alternatives and community-based response, or maybe a combination of approaches that have driven the city's reduction of crime.

Because while the districts have had a declining crime rates overall, um, and rightfully so, those outcomes did not happen by accident.

They were the result of meaningful and sustained investment, including investment outside of the traditional criminal justice system.

At the same time, we are seeing domestic violence become more severe, more high-risk cases, serious injuries, and more homicides.

And we need to be clear about what's driving this increase.

What we see every day is that as social safety nets erode, violence becomes more severe.

For every reduction in public services, every signal that the district will not fully support its most vulnerable residents, people become just that more vulnerable, vulnerable to instability to harm, and ultimately vulnerable to violence.

That is not separate from public safety, it is central to it.

As the district continues to refine its approach to domestic violence, we know survivors must be centered in that work, and victim services are a critical bridge between crisis and safety for survivors for families and the city as a whole.

Our executive director, Natalia Sarah, will highlight the specific needs of DC Safe and the this victim services community more in depth.

But equally we want to uplift the need for appropriate resourcing for the social safety net and innovations across the public safety cluster.

We deeply appreciate the district's effort to reexamine and better coordinate its approach to domestic violence, but coordination without resources is fragmentation.

So in the title constrained resources, this is the moment that we want to learn from our successes and work smarter, not harder.

Investing in data analysis to better understand high risk cases, innovations to meet the unique needs of this group and a focus on re focus of resources on the small number of offenders driving the greatest on, we think creates a focused and efficient approach with substantial impact.

In this time of scarcity, it's more important than ever to maximize the impact of city funds.

And as we make difficult budget decisions, we ask you to consider not only what you are funding more costly, but also the direct impact of costs and their downstream consequences.

Because when the support system seekers, the cost does show up elsewhere and too awful in lives loss.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to the questions.

Thank you very much.

Scott Goldstein.

Good afternoon.

I do the work I do because I feel a deep injustice and unfairness between the way I was able to experience childhood compared to the way young people have been treated in my adopted city where I've now lived most of my life.

Washington DC is full of amazing young people.

I had the incredible privilege to teach so many of them for a decade and maintain relationships with them since in the past year.

It's been especially heartbreaking uh to hear the way young people are talked about faced with efforts to control them rather than empower them to hold them accountable without ever having provided them what they need to thrive.

We owe the residents of DC real safety and justice.

We do not have real safety when our plan for creating safety is banning people from a space.

We do not have safety if instead of creating the conditions for peace, working with parents, creating the needed programming, and working with community institutions with real trust with young people.

We simply make it illegal to be in a group at a reasonable hour like 8 p.m.

We do not have real community safety when our mayor and council members ignore overwhelming evidence that curfews exacerbate youth violence, but pass them anyway for political convenience.

And we do not have real safety and justice when we dramatically cut dramatically increase the police budget by 90 million, but cut behavioral health in schools, cut community schools' programs, and cut the safety net.

This is a budget hearing.

So this is what DMPSJ budget would look like if it prioritized real safety and justice.

It would work with the education cluster to prioritize a deep investment in conflict resolution.

Two years ago, we brought a budget proposal for 250,000 and incredibly effective conflict resolution curriculum and teacher training to the council.

There wasn't money for that, but there's plenty for police signing bonuses and overtime.

Transferring safe passage to an agency that is not tied to MPD in a time of federal interference and real fear in our community.

We cannot have this program under DMPSJ, and it should be run by a trusted community organization with violence interruption experience.

Work with the executive to increase the safe passage budget so that some safe passage workers can also go into schools full-time during the day, build relationships, and integrate into the school's restorative justice work.

Fund the mentorship bill authored by Councilmember Robert White that passed and never received funding to support young people with positive adult role models.

Work with DPR to dramatically expand programming both after school and late night, move funding from MPD signing bonuses, which have been ineffective budget policy, and prioritize pay for proactive justice staff from safe passage workers to educators and power professionals and reinvest much of that money into CBOs that actually have working relationships with young people and give them a sense of identity and togetherness.

They need to be safe and joyful in our city.

Our vision for public safety and justice can't be the absence of children in our streets.

It must be the presence of real peace, opportunity, and joy.

Your budget can make it so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Devon Montgomery.

In the police department.

Safe passage, DPR programming, mentorship programming, and school-based behavioral health services are far more effective ways to approach public safety than implementing a juvenile purview.

Keeping DC residents safe should involve investing in social safety nets, not enforcing harder consequences through law enforcement.

As a dean of students, I understand the importance of scholars having a safe stress-feed trip to and from school.

I've heard young people in countless forms across the district advocate for more safe passage, specifically in its violence interruption capacity.

And we are advocating for it to move to ASI or the OEG, where it could be further away from law enforcement.

We ask that four million dollars be invested in a drastic restructuring of the program to connect it with the restorative practices happening in schools already, prov and to support professional development for violence interruption practices and adequate CBO grants.

The possible extension of the juvenile careful continues to speak to the need to invest in safe and engaging activities for our youth.

I applaud DPR's efforts to listen to youth ass for engaging spaces where they could be free to be in fellowship with their peers.

DPR's recent programming during current cur during curfew zone implementation has shown that more funding is needed to be able to serve more youth effectively.

DPR cannot afford to have any funding cut at this time.

I urge this committee to provide DPR with funding to provide more programming in all wards.

The council passed the youth mentorship through community engagement act as passionate without funding.

I urge this committee to fully fund this program at 2.1 million.

This year, members of our school community support staff team have called champs on several occasions and been advised to call 9-1-1, involving law enforcement to support scholars in mental health crises because they could not dispatch anyone to our school until late in the evening.

As a result, officers had been dispatched to our school to support elementary scholars.

This is unacceptable.

I have to I've had to field questions and wipe tears from elementary scholars surrounding the fear that their classmate was being arrested because they needed support.

Champ's contract is being completely eliminated from DBH for next year with plans of bringing the work in-house.

This program is crucial to safety providing services for our scholars and families and should not be eliminated.

I urge the council to support not moving the program in-house, restore the contract to 1.2 million, and support better implementation of crisis response to ensure that children are reached quickly during a time of crisis.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my testimony.

Please review my testimony for further elaboration.

Thank you, Mr.

Montgomery.

Samantha Leach.

Okay, Natalia Otero.

Good afternoon, Chairman Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Natya Otero, and I'm here on behalf of DC Safe.

Um, my colleague Kylie just spoke about our services, so I would skip that part of my testimony.

Um, I am here today because survivors depend on DC Safe, being open, responsive, and fully staffed every hour of every day, just like our partners under the public safety cluster.

We are facing considerable budget cuts to crucial infrastructure.

These cuts do not operate in isolation.

They compound, creating gaps, delays, and real risk for survivors.

This year, DC Safe lost over 1 million dollars of city funding.

As a result, we are down six direct service positions, more than 15% of our frontline workforce.

We reduced our emergency financial assistance by 76%.

These are not just abstract gaps.

They are the advocates answering the crisis line at 2 a.m.

in the morning.

Uh, they are the dollars that help survivors secure bus tickets and replace IDs and take their first step towards safety.

Without restoring funding, we are now facing impossible choices between staffing our hotline, maintaining access to our emergency funds, and keeping our shelter fully operational.

And this is happening in the context of broader system reductions.

OBSJG is facing a 33.3 million dollar cut, nearly 30 percent, including reductions in victim service grants, and access to justice.

DHS is also seeing significant reductions, including a 21% cut to domestic violence services.

Looking ahead to FY27, DC Safe needs 2.5 million dollars in restored and additional funding from additional funding to rebuild what has been lost, to bring staff back, replenish emergency financial assistance, and sustain a 24-7 shelter operation.

When agencies like ours are under-resourced, systems like the public safety cluster become overused and overburdened by the weight of responding to gaps in care, delays in responses, and increased risk.

And frankly, they are not always, nor should they be equipped to do so.

If we are serious about reducing and preventing domestic violence crime in the district, every part of the system must be adequately adequately resourced and accountable for its own particular role.

As a grantee, DC Safe tracks every dollar of public funding with care and precision.

Survivors deserve the same level of accountability across the system.

I would like to close by underscoring the importance of the shelter and transitional housing for victims of domestic violence fund, DC Code 4-521.

It is an existing ready vehicle to direct and protect resources for critical interventions, particularly shelter.

Fully resourcing this fund is a clear signal that the district is committed to protecting both survivors and the infrastructure infrastructure that supports them.

We ask that you restore what was lost and invest in what survivors really need to be safe.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Samantha Leach.

Good morning, Chairwoman Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Samantha Leach, and I am the CEO and founder of Flint LLC, a district-based certified business enterprise.

I am also a proud member of the DC Chamber of Commerce, and for more than 20 years, I have provided workforce development and wraparound services to residents across the District of Columbia.

I appear for before you today as a consultant and contractor supporting the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement Pathways Program.

I am here to speak plainly.

Over the past several months, budget cuts have made it increasingly difficult to execute programming at the level our ambassador our ambassadors deserve.

But the people in this program cannot be reduced to line items on a spreadsheet.

They are fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, neighbors, and residents with tremendous potential who deserve real opportunity and real investment.

When I was previously contracted, my scope of work included mock interviews, digital literacy, and resume building.

Those services were important, but once I began working directly with the ambassadors, I saw a greater need.

I recognized that preparation alone was not enough if there were no real opportunities waiting on the other side.

So I immediately got to work building employer relationships and securing pathways to employment.

As a result, I was able to connect several ambassadors from prior cohorts to opportunities with WAMATA, Blue Eagle Security, the downtown D.C.

BID, and other employers.

Seeing what was possible led me to make a promise that I could do everything that I would do everything in my power to create those same opportunities for the current cohort, despite the funding cuts we are facing today.

When resources became uncertain, I made a decision.

I had given my word to the team and the previous cohort that I would continue delivering job placement, training, recruitment, and ongoing support.

I chose to keep that promise.

As a result, I have continued providing services several times a week without compensation, because broken promises are something too many of our ambassadors have already experienced.

That work has included daily communication with ambassadors, regular in-person meetings, job readiness support, employer engagement, strategic partnership development, direct placement efforts designed to create pathways to lasting employment and continue professional development opportunities.

Later this month, I also plan to provide social capital training to those ambassadors to strengthen their networks, build meaningful relationships, and better understand how connections and community support can open doors to long-term success.

And the results matter.

For the current cohort, I mean, to date, every ambassador who has received a job offer through Flint LLC has been successfully placed into employment.

For the current cohort, a partnership between Flint and downtown DC bid has resulted in a commitment to hire four ambassadors full-time upon successful completion of the program.

Those four ambassadors will also participate in training two evenings each week to strengthen workplace readiness, accountability, and long-term retention.

Additionally, may I continue?

Additionally, through our partnership with Events DC, seven ambassadors have been accepted into the Events DC Hospitality Academy's second cohort, where they will receive training and a direct path to employment upon completion.

These opportunities did not happen by accident.

They required months of planning, relationship building, advocacy, coordination meetings, curriculum alignment, employer trust building, participant participation, and ongoing case management.

They required someone to sit at the table and ensure that our ambassadors were not seen for their past circumstances, but for their future potential.

And all of this has been done without dedicated funding.

Despite continuing this work, the lack of funding has a real impact on Flint.

As a small district-based business, like many community-based providers, we still carry operational responsibilities, staff time, transportation, planning, communications, recruitment, employer engagement, administrative support, and the countless hours required to properly serve participants.

When that work goes unfunded, those costs do not disappear.

They are absorbed by the business.

That means resources that could be used to grow the company, hire additional staff, expand services, and build long-term capacity are instead being redirected simply to sustain critical services for the community.

We have continued to continue because we believe in the mission and because our ambassadors deserve consistency, but goodwill should never be the funding model for violence prevention and workforce development.

Last night was orientation for the Events DC Hospitality Academy.

Watching the joy on the ambassadors' faces as they realized that new possibilities were opening up before them is difficult to fully describe.

It was hope.

It was dignity.

It was what happens when systems work the way they are supposed to work.

These opportunities also create structure, accountability, and safety.

The ambassadors are engaged in purposeful activity throughout the week.

Monday through Friday, they are participating in programming and development at once, headquarters, two evenings each week.

They will report to train with either the downtown DC bid or Events DC.

On weekends, most, if not all participants will be working with the downtown DC bid on city installations and related assignments, often 10 to 12 hours 10 to 12 hour shifts.

This was designed strategically during the spring and summer months when violence historically rises in and around our cities to ensure ambassadors are spending their time in safe, productive environments, earning income, building skills, strengthening discipline, and contributing positively to the district instead of being exposed to unsafe behaviors or placed in harm's way.

Ms.

Leach, I am going to have to ask you to wrap up.

Okay.

I have about one paragraph.

Is that good?

Okay.

Your final witness, but uh go ahead.

Okay.

We have also partnered with the downtown DC bid to provide ambassadors with weekend work opportunities throughout the summer as part of their development.

This means they can earn while they learn.

I urge the council to understand that programs like pathways are not expensive, they are investments.

The cost of failing to support people at the highest risk of violence is far greater than the cost of helping them succeed.

Every life stabilized, every person employed, every family strengthened, and every act of violence prevented creates immeasurable value to this city.

I ask you to protect and strengthen funding for the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement and the Pathways Program.

So this work can continue with the consistency, dignity, and scale our residents deserve.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Great.

Well, thank you so much, and thank you for the extremely important work that you both do.

And you know, part of the discussion several months ago around pathways was if we have to choose, should we be expanding the individuals in the cohorts, or should we be expanding the number of weeks that people are in the program?

And now unfortunately, we're seeing both cut, the number of people able to be served and the number of weeks.

And so, you know, we're going to do everything we can to try to reverse that.

As you think about the needs of the folks that you have worked with, have those needs shifted at all over the last year in the environment that we find ourselves in, or are you finding that they're pretty consistent as you've done this work?

I would say they're pretty consistent.

What I recognize, though, is that the extension of the weeks in the program gives us a lot more time with the individuals and creates another level of trust for them.

When you have somebody for just a few weeks, you know, building trust is very difficult.

But the longer they're with you, the more they trust you, the more invested they are in the process, and the more you really get out of them.

It's like a return on investment, honestly.

Um, I would say housing still ranks highest as a concern and child care.

Um and seeing these men uh step up in these roles as fathers and have to leave work.

I had that gentleman who had to leave work early on Saturday cut his hours in half because he had to go get his child so that the mother could go to work.

That was very honorable.

But if he had a child care voucher or some other alternative, that could have been an opportunity for him to earn for his family.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you both.

Thank you.

Um thank you to all of our public witnesses today.

Really appreciate all of your testimony and hear you loud and clear that we have some more work to do with this budget to make sure that the important services that folks are accustomed to receiving and the important work going on in the community and at these agencies can continue.

Um we are going to turn now to our Attorney General, Brian Schwab.

Um, as we continue our conversation for the Office of the Attorney General.

Welcome.

Um anyone joining you at the table, if you can state your name and position for the record as well.

Um we can start with you, Aaron.

Good afternoon, Aaron Cullen, First Deputy Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Sarifa Cloaksum, Chief Administrative Officer.

Good afternoon, Natalie Mayors, agency fiscal officer.

Seth Rosenthal, Chief Deputy Attorney General And and Brian Schwab, our Attorney General.

Please go ahead for any opening statement you may have.

Thank you, uh Chairwoman Pinto.

Good afternoon, members of the committee, DC residents, um, Attorney General Brian Schwab.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the Office of Attorney General's fiscal year 2027 budget.

Um let me start with the obvious.

Um we are well aware that the district is facing budgetary challenges this year, and that every district agency, including my office, must help to meet those challenges.

However, the cuts to OAG's budget that the mayor has proposed are neither reasonable nor sustainable.

They would eliminate 58 locally funded positions, 56 of which are currently filled.

That proposed staffing reduction amounts to a massive 11.6 percent cut.

And it would directly and immediately undermine the legal work OAG is doing to preserve public safety and pursue justice for victims of crime, defend district agencies and litigation, and enforce the laws the council has passed to advance the public interest.

As this committee knows, as you know, Chairwoman Pinto, based on our recent performance oversight hearing.

Every day, the lawyers and staff at OAG deliver the highest quality legal services to the district.

We prosecute crime, we protect children from abuse and neglect, we ensure single parents are receiving the financial support they need.

We go after slumlords, we stand up for tenants, we combat the financial exploitation of seniors, we protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and monopolistic trade practices.

We are protecting our natural resources, happy Earth Day, and we are ensuring workers get the wages and benefits they have earned.

This work is essential in ensuring a level playing field for fair competition of businesses who come to the district to compete.

We are the district's last line of defense against the tax on the rule of law and home rule.

By severely depleting our most valuable asset, our human talent, the mayor's proposed cuts would diminish our capabilities and compromise the quantity and quality of the work we do.

Importantly, as you know, the proposed cuts would also end up costing far more than they would save.

They would weaken our capacity to defend the district against civil lawsuits that annually seek hundreds of millions of dollars, and at the same time undermine our ability to generate tens of millions of dollars through affirmative enforcement litigation.

OAG, as you have seen over the last three plus years, is a net payer.

Last year we delivered six times more in savings and revenue than we spent, more than a 600 percent return on investment.

The proposed cuts would jeopardize our ability to continue doing that.

We have submitted with our written testimony to the committee our performance oversight testimony and incorporate by reference the extensive answers we provided to this committee about our year-over-year performance.

A little bit of background.

The Office of Attorney General, as you know, is the only independent agency in the city with an elected as opposed to an appointed leader.

Under Section 106 of the Attorney General Act of 2010, we are required to submit our proposed budget to the mayor, and the mayor is required to submit that budget to the council along with her proposed district-wide budget.

This year, contrary to what's been suggested, we followed the statutorily required process and submitted our budget to the mayor on March 6th.

That submission is also attached to our written testimony.

Apparently, the mayor's team did not submit our budget to the council.

As compared to our current actual fiscal year 26 budget, the budget we submitted for fiscal year 27 is a flat budget of approximately 106 million dollars local funding.

Our submission included no increases in staffing.

It included no added goods or services, modest cost adjustments that reflect rising year-over-year prices for essentials like rent, software subscriptions, and IT services.

We took a hard look at the minimum we need to operate, and we submitted a budget that provides just that and nothing more.

Indeed, over this current year, we have voluntarily cut wherever we can.

For this current year, as you will recall, we eliminated 12 full-time positions, and that was after cutting nearly $2 million mid-year in a prior budget cycle.

We have been careful stewards of the money the council has allocated.

And we are at a point where we do not believe we can go further without substantially harming our operations.

Notwithstanding our carefully prepared budget submission, the mayor submitted a budget for OAG that would reduce locally funded positions by 11.6 percent from 499 to 441.

All 58 positions targeted for elimination are paralegals and legal assistance.

And the irony should not be lost that I'm giving you this testimony on administrative professional day.

The mayor proposes to eliminate all locally funded paralegal and legal assistant positions in our civil litigation division, our Office of Solicitor General, the Public Safety Division, and the Public Advocacy Division.

Every one, as well as several additional paralegal and legal assistant positions in our commercial division and our immediate office.

The chart we submitted with our written testimony shows the 58 professional staff positions the mayor proposes to eliminate.

In addition to these proposed staffing cuts, as you have heard, the mayor also proposes to remove over a million dollars for the domestic workers and workers' rights grants that the Office of Attorney General has distributed and administered over the past several years.

The mayor also sets a vacancy savings number at $3 million.

In total, the mayor has proposed $11 million in cuts to the local OAG budget that we submitted, reflecting an unprecedented overall reduction of 10.5%.

I want this to be clear.

In contrast, the fiscal year 27 budget we submitted reflects our true and actual operating costs and reflects a flat year-over-year budget of approximately $106 million.

No law office can operate without professional support.

Yet under the mayor's proposed cuts, OAG would be expected to prosecute crime, defend the district, bring affirmative enforcement actions without paralegals and legal assistance.

Professional support staff who perform crucial functions so attorneys can stay on task.

It would be like cutting all of a hospital's nursing and support staff and expecting the hospital to provide an acceptable level of patient care.

Eliminating paralegal and legal assistant positions wholesale would devastate OAG's work and do serious harm to the district's bottom line.

Paralegals and legal assistants, as you know, Chairwoman Pinto, do not play peripheral roles.

They are integral to every criminal and juvenile case we prosecute, every lawsuit we defend, every enforcement action we bring, every investigation we conduct.

If these crucial positions are eliminated, the work these professionals perform does not magically disappear.

To the contrary, our attorneys will have to absorb it, leaving them less time to devote to the lawyering work OAG and the district depend on them to do.

The unavoidable result will be serious harm to OAG's prosecution, enforcement, and defensive functions with corresponding serious risk to public safety, the public interest, and the district's financial condition.

I want to explain a couple of examples as to why this is the case.

Let's start with public safety.

The mayor's proposed budget eliminates every single locally funded administrative staff member, 18 positions in total from our public safety division.

That's the division responsible for prosecuting juvenile crimes and some adult misdemeanors.

This is critical work that makes district residents safer.

Last year alone, our public safety division prosecuted $1,0140 juvenile cases and nearly 4,000 adult misdemeanors.

We charge every serious offense when we have the evidence to prove it in court.

We don't shy away from hard cases.

We make sure people face consequences for their actions, and that victims of crime get justice.

In doing this work, our public safety division paralegals and legal assistants take on critical mission tasks.

They screen incoming cases, obtain evidence to support prosecutions, sift through hours of body-worn camera footage, and compile and help produce timely discovery.

Without their assistance, the quantity and quality of our prosecutions would suffer.

Eliminating the 18 positions the mayor has targeted would mean discovery might not get offered in time.

Filing dead minds might get missed, and cases might not even get charged in the first place, because at every stage from investigation to disposition, attorneys might not have the capacity to sift through and identify critical information in a timely manner, given the competing lawyering and legal support obligations they'd be forced to take on.

Equally problematic.

In short, the mayor's proposed cuts to essential public safety division personnel would hamper our ability to prosecute criminal and juvenile cases, resulting in serious risk to public safety.

The council should not allow that to happen.

Let's talk about the civil litigation division.

As you know, our civil litigative litigation division is responsible for defending the district when it is sued.

By reducing the district's exposure to liability, civil litigation division saves the district hundreds of millions of dollars every year, $348 million last year alone, and the workload of CLD is only increasing.

CLD attorneys handled $432 new defensive cases in fiscal year 2025, which was a 17% increase from the previous year.

We now have over 1,000 open civil cases.

Cases continue to pour in.

Currently, our CLD lawyers are each carrying between 25 and 30 complex cases.

These are very heavy, challenging dockets.

The mayor's proposed budget would eliminate every single paralegal and legal assistant position from CLD, 24 in total.

This is untenable.

CLD's professional staff prepare requests for expert witnesses, court reporters, transcripts and trial resources.

They prepare discovery requests and responses.

They help review and prepare outgoing discovery.

They help review incoming discovery, and they play essential supporting roles in preparing and presenting cases at trial.

If CLD's professional staff positions are eliminated, CLD attorneys would have to assume all these responsibilities themselves, in addition to doing all the lawyering on their already heavy expanding caseloads.

The administrative work added to their load would shrink their capacity to handle the volume of cases they currently are handling, inevitably diminishing the quality and quantity of their work.

The district would win fewer cases, pay more in settlements, pay more in judgments, ultimately costing the district significantly more money than the targeted staff positions do.

Worse yet, the outsized burdens the proposed staffing cuts would impose on CLD attorneys could result in noncompliance with court rules and deadlines, which could trigger onerous sanctions from monetary penalties up to adverse judgments and legal fee awards.

That is precisely what happened when CLD was short-staffed and under-resourced in the past.

We cannot go back to that time.

How about the public advocacy division?

As you know, the public advocacy division upholds the public interest by fighting for district residents against bad actors in all eight wards.

PAD enforces district laws passed by the council that protect tenants, workers, consumers, seniors, victims of discrimination, nonprofits, and the environment.

The elimination of all locally funded paralegal and legal assistant positions in PAD, 11 in total, would severely impair this work.

These employees are PAD's operational backbone.

You have heard from the public testimony today about our consumer and tenant response hotline.

These paralegals and legal assistants in PAD are the operational backbone of our CTR program.

They serve as the first point of contact for public tips and complaints involving consumer, fraud, housing violations, civil rights abuses, elder exploitation, and workers' rights violations.

They coordinate community outreach and public education.

They also provide indispensable litigation support, including case file management, witness prep, and exhibit prep.

Legal assistance are similarly essential.

They manage PED's day-to-day administrative needs, including expense requests for experts, court reporters, transcripts and trial resources, timekeeping, coordinating restitution payments to victims, and complaint intake.

Without paralegals and legal assistance, our PAT attorneys would be forced to assume all of these responsibilities themselves.

That would reduce their capacity to focus on the enforcement of the laws.

The council has enacted to protect the rights of district residents.

At a time when DC residents are struggling to afford their lives, and depending more on more on OAG to hold predatory actors accountable, the council cannot and should not allow the functioning of our public advocacy division to be compromised in this way.

In sum, the mayor's proposed cuts to OAG's fiscal year 27 budget would interfere with OAG's ability to perform its work and deliver results for the district and its residents at a time when DC and DC residents need OAG more than ever.

In addition to creating serious long-term financial risk for the district, the mayor's proposed budget puts the health and safety of district residents at risk.

Notwithstanding these difficult financial challenges, my team and I are committed to working with you and your colleagues to develop a sound, rational fiscal year 27 budget for OAG, one that enables us to continue to use the law to make the district safer, stronger, and more affordable for every DC resident.

And we are ready to engage in a conversation with you and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Well, thank you very much, Attorney General Schwab and team.

And I'd like to swear you all in.

If you could all turn your microphones on.

Do you swear or affirm under test under penalty of law that the testimony you are about to provide before this committee and the council of the District of Columbia is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And thank you.

And I want to thank you and your entire team at OAG for all you do every day throughout the year to protect district residents and to protect the District of Columbia itself.

I want to first give you a chance to kind of clarify some statements that have been made over the last day or so around the budget process.

How this year, from your perspective, may have differed from previous years and kind of what OAG's involvement was in the in the formulation of the budget.

Sure.

And I think that to the extent there have been suggestions that somehow OAG did not participate in the budget process this year as required by law, that those types of suggestions are misplaced.

As I cited in my testimony, the statute that creates the Attorney General created the office is very clear about the way the budget process is supposed to work.

It recognizes that unlike every other agency in the city that is subordinate to the mayor, unlike every other independent agency in which the head of that agency is subordinate to the mayor or appointed by the mayor, the Office of Attorney General is the only independent agency led by an elected leader who is accountable to the people, not subordinate to the mayor.

And the law reflects the fact that to meet the operational needs of the office every year, the office is to submit to the mayor its budget.

And the mayor, under the law, is required to submit that budget, along with whatever recommendation she makes for the whole city to the council, so that when you and your colleagues look at the budget overall, you have the independent elected attorney general's assessment of what is necessary to operate our office.

In previous years, there had been more of a collaborative process of trying to reach a recommended and agreed upon budget.

That did not happen this year for a variety of reasons, without casting aspersions as to why it didn't.

So consistent with the law, we submitted to the mayor on May 6th our budget.

The communications with the city administration, city administrator and the mayor, were very clear.

My understanding is that they would both be submitted to the council for the council to consider.

You said May 6th.

I meant March 6th, I'm sorry.

Sorry, March 6th.

Yeah.

So the law anticipates that the council has the benefit of the proposed budget to run the independent Attorney General's office before it, as well as the mayor's comprehensive budget.

And we are now at a stage where the proposed budget that we submitted to the mayor was not accepted and in fact very severely cut from what our actual operating costs are.

And I suppose, while I'm disappointed that that's where we are with this, the democratic process in the law reflects the fact that that's okay.

That's the way the positions of the independent office are presented to the council, and now we're engaging in the budget process with the appropriator of the budget, the council.

Is it your understanding that every year that we have had an independent attorney general's office that the budget proposal submitted to the mayor is the one that was ultimately submitted to the council?

I don't I can only speak to the years that I have been the attorney general.

And prior to this year, the what was submitted to the council was reached, and there was an agreement reached with the mayor's office and our office, I believe, before the council received the overall budget.

Or if there were disagreements, there was an understanding that the disagreements would be vetted in the process of appropriation.

This year the differences were way too severe, and apparently either not a willingness or capacity to work with us to try to narrow down the different the operational differences.

And I think that's evident from the fact that you know the mayor's proposed budget is just a wholesale cut.

There's nothing surgical, there's no scalpel being involved here.

She's looking across categories and saying we're going to run the Office of Attorney General, one of the finest public law firms in the country without any paralegals or legal assistance.

It was like last year when we're having a conversation that we're going to run the office without an access to a database that was essential to running our office.

So that's why there needs to be a little more refined surgical looking at how you're going to operate in this climate, given the unique needs of an office like ours.

Okay.

Thank you.

And one of the pieces that you mentioned in your testimony was that the baseline was based off of the approved budget as opposed to the actual spend.

When there is a delta, as I assume there is each year between the approved budget and the actual budget, where is that money coming from?

So I'm going to let um maybe some members of my team get into the weeds on this, but I can give you kind of an overview of what happened.

There are was a collective bargaining agreement that was signed into effect.

It came into effect after the approved budget for fiscal year 26 was passed, but nonetheless imposed upon the city and our office a legal obligation to pay people consistent with the collective bargaining agreement.

That, along with the associated fringe benefit increases, the cost of living increases that come with that increased from the approved budget to the actual budget, approximately $5 million right off the bat.

There was also a discussion last year about making sure that our fiscal year 27 budget had the relativity database in it as a local expense going forward.

That was not included in the approved budget, but nonetheless was an obligation for 97.

So there were dollar deltas between the approved 96 number and what our actual operating costs are that just were not reflected in that approved number, but in the consultation with the mayor and the process, and I think even this year there may have been in the system an increase to our actual budget for fiscal year 26 to reflect that the collective bargaining agreement, those COLA adjustments are now being paid and are part of our approved budget moving forward.

So I think if you looked at our budget today for not for fiscal year 26, you would see it's already higher than the approved fiscal year 26 budget.

We already know the actual fiscal year 26 budget is going to be higher than what was approved.

Do you have uh in detail you want to add to that?

I would just everything that the Attorney General said, and this is a very uncharacteristic year and a large driver of it, as the Attorney General said, were the COLAS.

We have not ever had a situation where we've been starting a budget cycle with three years of no COLIS, so that number was significant.

In the instances where there's been maybe a little bit of a gap, you ask where does the money come from?

Historically, we have made that request and it's been added to the next year's budget.

So it may not have been reflected in the budget book because it was not approved at that time, but the um city has found a way to move those funds into OAG's budget is not been something that the agency has been expected to absorb.

Okay, so when you say it found a way, it becomes part of the next year's fiscal year budget that is approved.

But then how are you spending it in the current?

The money is no, we get the money transferred to us.

So it may not be in the budget book, but during the course of the year, there may be some sort of a reprogramming or some sort of a supplemental that actually allows us to have the funds in our budget that year for spent expenditure that that year.

The next year's budget book would reflect the actual cost, sort of the revised budget.

I see.

Okay.

So have you had the necessary reprogramming allocations for FY26 already made?

Yes.

Okay.

And how much was that for?

I'll have to ask Natalie the precise amount for it.

So the city administrator authorized five million dollars of transfers from the workforce investment agency in March to OEG's budget.

So OHG's budget as it stands today for 2026 is 102 million dollars.

Um we discount from that, just to be clear, there was about a million dollars in attorney bonuses in that number, which would not carry forward in 27, but $4 million in our budget for 2026 would roll over into 2020 automatically.

Okay.

But the AG just said that there's over $5 million for the coal increases.

So has the relativity cost been paid for yet?

So relativity in 2026 is paid exclusively out of the litigation support fund.

In 2027, council authorized um 1.3 million dollars for relativity in the financial plan in 27, 28, 29, and going forward.

Okay.

So anything that was not reprogrammed is coming from the litigation support fund?

So in terms of the reallocation for staff costs, that is 100 percent local dollars in 2026.

In 20 the uh the relativity agreement is 100 percent funded, 4.9 million dollars in litigation support fund in 2026.

So I'm sorry, just so 4.9 million is just for relativity.

Correct.

Not for the pay increases.

No.

Okay.

It's a separate issue.

Okay.

And what is the LSF cap this year?

Eight this year in 2026 is $18.7 million that's been authorized in terms of budget.

Okay.

Okay.

So you've gone over in your testimony some of the deep and unacceptable impacts that these cuts would have kind of on each division.

As we think about both the need to restore these jobs that are so vital, and also the reality that we find ourselves in this budget.

Are there any other places within OAG's budget that you think we can look to, or that it you would look to to shift some things around to make sure that the vital support services are restored in an environment that it's going to be very hard to find money in.

So I think that the reality is that as a team, over the course of the year, we have been scrupulously looking at our costs and cutting where we can.

I mentioned in my testimony last year, voluntarily we cut 12 positions.

We didn't fill positions and then we move them off the books.

We have been looking to where we can be more efficient.

When we've had vacancies when people have left at a higher grade level, we have looked to try to fill those vacancies at a less expensive lower level, recognizing that sometimes a younger lawyer is going to grow into a role over time, but we're able to be prudent with the budget we have.

It's a little bit frustrating when you hold we hold ourselves accountable to operating with fiscal transparency and are trying to do our best to meet that faith that you, your colleagues and the taxpayers have in us being good stewards.

We didn't give you a budget to negotiate from.

So to hold us to a baseline number that doesn't reflect the fact that the council knows, the mayor knows, the collective bargaining agreement negotiated over a long period of time, finally signed, finally funded after a long time, our people finally got pay to that they were due, and that wasn't in the baseline amount.

So also the Legal Services Act, which is an obligation as a matter of law that there be parity between the lawyers working in the Office of Attorney General and their federal counterparts.

We need to make sure we're in compliance with the law.

So the answer is we've provided you the budget that we in good faith are telling you we need to maintain the performance, the responsiveness, and the quality of the work that we're doing.

Any cut that's made is going to have an adverse impact on that.

And that's what I really want to be very clear with you about, clear with the public about.

That's the consequence.

My pitch is that it's this is not the place where we want to cut, given the moment and given that we demonstrate each year that for every dollar you give, we generate more.

And maybe there are opportunities for us to talk about LSF and other places where we can try to find ways to continue that commitment.

But for a high performing agency, all you heard from the public today was people having confidence in the Office of Attorney General and the Office of Attorney General responding when they call to say, okay, but we're going to take money away from an agency like that, in my view, is not prudent.

So we will work with you and your committee, absolutely.

Well, I appreciate that.

And you know, I have the utmost faith in the Office of Attorney General.

I think it is a you know vitally important to all of district residents and to the district itself.

Um I also, as I look at this entire budget, every agency has been proposed to be cut, right?

And so to your words earlier, that the this was not a scalpel or this was not surgical, it was just wholesale cut.

I'm trying to get a sense on if there would be any surgical areas that would be more responsible to look at so that we don't have the elimination of 58 people's jobs who are you know doing really important work in in furtherance of your mission.

Well, I mean, I think the reality of this to carry on the scalpel, you know, versus sledgehammer analogy, which is not, you know, particularly pleasant, is um, you know, you say, look, AG, um, you want me to can can you live without your arm, or can you give me a couple of fingers?

You know, if you take off a couple of fingers, you're gonna impact DC residents.

There's gonna be, I can't tell you that you can take off a couple fingers and you're not gonna have to explain the consequences to somebody who's impacted by that.

Um we are not, there's not a lot of fat, uh, separate and apart from your attorney general who has a little bit of fat that wouldn't mind.

The agency is doing as best we can with uh cutback on what we're doing.

So let's talk about vacancy savings a little bit, because this proposal has three million dollars in vacancy savings.

Can you talk about what the impact of that cut would be on your operations and your ability to fill positions and um move a pipeline of qualified excellent people through your office?

You the the vac the vacancy savings is a um is a budget item that's sort of a creation of DC budgeting that reflects the fact that um when you're fully budgeted for personnel as a particularly an organization like the Office of Attorney General, you're likely to have moments of time where positions are unfilled.

People leave, it takes a time to recruit for somebody else, and so there's a gap in that position and the where the government is paying out money to fund a position.

Um we know from experience over the course of operating the Office of Attorney General that we will have gaps in time and we try to work towards what that number will be over time.

It's a management tool we have when we meet monthly with Natalie and Tarifa about kind of how we're doing over the years to guide are we bumping up against our vacancy savings.

The fact is, though, that as a as a personnel-driven agency, um, our goal is to have our positions filled and to have our positions filled as quickly as we can because the positions are there to deliver services for DC.

And having long periods of vacancies where we're not getting positions filled isn't the purpose of you know, coming to the council and asking for budget to to put people in seats to do the work.

So I'm proud of the work we've done, our human our human resources team under uh Marta Parvano's leadership and as our chief operating officer and Freddie DeTanyo, we are doing much better in terms of how we're recruiting to fill positions.

Um, one way of managing that over time is slowing the hiring process down, right?

Or having hiring freezes over time.

Um those are measures that don't require us to get rid of existing people, but it doesn't deliver on the promise to the residents in the district when you don't have the budgeted positions filled with people ready to do the work.

So that's how we think about the vacancy savings.

Um I think that um you know, both Natalie and Tarifa might be able to talk more about the specific accounting and how it's used and how that number ends up being used.

But when you as I understand it, if you have a uh budget of let's say um a hundred million dollars to um have people fill but a three million dollar vacancy, you've got a hundred million of personnel um that you can fill, but you're expecting over the course of the year that you're only gonna end up paying 97 million to keep that 100 million slots on the books, because there'll be some time to fill them.

It's a tool we can use to make sure we get the right people hired and in the seats as quickly as possible.

Do you want to add anything to that?

That was perfect.

Okay.

I don't have any questions for this panel.

Um but didn't want to I've been sticking my head in in this hearing uh because I feel like this is a very uh vital part to our city.

Uh thank uh our attorney general Variswal for his leadership and his uh ability to keep this going in house with what he's doing.

Um and I'm concerned about the cuts made and the unintended consequences uh of the work across the city of that we've been working hard to do uh probably since 2000 and 1615, um even before I was a council member, um, because I've seen what happens when funding is not there and the city goes into uproar and the crime ticks up, and then we try to figure out how to do it all over again.

I even seen in the out years in the 2028 budget that some of the items have been completely wiped out, not just uh defunded, but also completely wiped out.

And I think that historically there has been a divestment in youth and young adult services.

Um, and I believe it was Frederick Douglass, he said it's easier to raise boys than it is to prepare broken men.

Um so the younger we are to help people create bridges to having a healthy available lifestyle of you know, all the things that they see, because what we see what I've seen growing up is already uh weighs on me in the fact I got therapy today at two o'clock.

Um but what the young people are saying nowadays through social media and in their personal lives is is need some additional support, visit therapy, wraparound services, interventions, as we see playing out in other avenues of their lives, uh all the um young men, but also our young ladies as well.

So I don't want to uh leave them out, but just across the board, I want to uh thank uh you for hosting this camera, it's a very important thing.

I was listening in early on, but I didn't have this link, so thank you.

And your staff was sending me this link.

I'm just here in the listing of the capacity.

I did not hear the whole testimony of uh this panel, but listening in.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much, Councilmember, and we're gonna turn to Director Sneed afterwards.

Um, so if you'd like to join us for that too, it would be great to have you.

Um, so uh General Schwab, in performance oversight, you talked about the dedicated paralegal that you have to support the enforcement of the STEAR Act.

Can you talk about the impact that these cuts would have on your ability to bring forward those cases?

I think that um that's a great example of how our office is leveraging our professionals, our paralegal staff to allow us to increase the amount of work we're doing.

We have been building out our steer enforcement work.

We're being able to screen more cases.

We have a uh protocol now with Central Collections and Department of Motor Vehicles to make sure we're screening the right kind of cases, formulating those cases for filing.

The paralegal plays an essential role in being able to enhance that.

I believe that when we talked about funding that, there was a question of how many lawyers we would need to really lean into the council's STEAR Act mandate.

Um, and what we recommended was give us the money to hire two lawyers, but give us some money to hire a paralegal too to make those lawyers more productive.

And that's exactly what's playing out.

So as we're growing that work, the paralegals are doing more of the formulating work.

I talked about it in my testimony.

This is the screening of the facts, the interactions with central collections, reviewing the records, compiling the background information, screening whether it meets the criteria of cases that we want to bring.

We're looking for uh drivers who have a large number of unpaid tickets that arise from motor vehicle moving violations, not not parking violations, significant moving violations way above the speed limit.

Uh, and we're looking really to hold drivers that have their cars registered in Maryland and Virginia accountable.

We have an ability to hold DC drivers accountable.

And so that requires the administrative work, the paralegal work to bring those cases together.

You get rid of that paralegal support, as the mayor's budget would propose to do, it doesn't allow us to do that work, which I know was very important to the council in responding to the residents who wanted to see the district do everything we could to make streets safer.

Last year was the first year that we actually finally saw a downturn in traffic fatalities in our city.

I'm not saying it's only because of the steer act enforcement, but the council should feel good about it, and the Office of Attorney General certainly feels like we're leaning into this and we're making a difference.

And I know it seems wonky and and nitty-gritty, but you pull the paralegal support out of that, the program doesn't work the way it's been able to work.

It's counterproductive as opposed to being cost-saving.

AG, can I ask that please?

Yeah.

So I appreciate the focus on the paralegals in our civil enforcement section in the civil litigation division that help with steer act enforcement and other types of civil enforcement as well.

But if you take a look at the positions that the proposed budget targets for elimination in the civil litigation overall, which is 24 positions, that's going to have a cascading effect potentially on steer act enforcement, other civil enforcement.

Because the reality is that we don't have a choice but to defend the district when it gets sued.

We can, if necessary, make a choice not to enforce the Steer Act and not to chase and collect fines that have been imposed on reckless drivers.

And if push comes to shove, and our lawyers in the civil litigation division have to now take on all the work of the 24 support staff positions that are going to be eliminated, like the reality is they're going to have to spread themselves more thinly, and we may have to deploy the lawyers who are doing STEAR Act Enforcement, affirmative civil enforcement on the defensive side of things, right?

And so that means that if you cut all of those positions as has been proposed in civil litigation, it could really have a detrimental effect on STEAR Act Enforcement as well as other types of civil enforcement that civil litigation division does, including helping MPD and ABCA go after illegal cannabis shops or liquor establishments that are operating beyond the beyond beyond their permits.

But that's the kind of work that our civil enforcement section in civil litigation does every day that could be severely adversely impacted by the broad budget cuts that the proposed budget contemplates.

Thank you for that.

That's a really important point.

And similarly, I have a lot of concerns around the cuts to the domestic workers' grants.

This proposal cuts over $1 million for the domestic worker and workers' rights grants that OAG has been instrumental in in dispersing.

Can you talk about how many grants were issued last year and kind of from your perspective, why you think those grants are so important to support immigrants, to support social services?

I'm going to ask somebody if somebody on the team knows the exact number of grants.

Ms.

Cullen, do you?

I believe that's five.

I will I'll get you that.

I should have said I it is five.

Um I but that wasn't meant to be a gospel question.

I more just spent you know, if you could speak about the the amounts of those grants and kind of the work that is important to be carried forward.

Sure.

So for First Shift Justice Project, which is a domestic worker education outreach program, um we funded 45,000 in change, hand in hand, which does employer education and outreach.

We funded at a little over 49,000.

The National Domestic Workers Alliance, which also does education and outreach at 100,000.

And for many languages, one voice, which is capacity building, 45,000.

Hand in hand, we gave two grants too.

So a second one for 20,000, which was also capacity building.

My team can correct me if I misread this chart.

So that's the domestic workers grant, which totaled 260,000.

There were uh it looks like five grantees, actually, four grantees hand in hand received two grants.

Uh the workers' rights, there were three different uh grants that were given to three recipients, um, totaling 750,000.

Um I think you heard the testimony from the public witnesses, it's certainly consistent with my understanding and experience that these are critically important education and capacity building grants that help some of the most critical workers in our economy and sometimes those that are most vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

We have, I think, a you know, very synergistic relationship with our workers' rights work that we're doing in in recognizing that we are going to protect workers in the district who are critical, who are the backbone to our economy.

And oftentimes it's the domestic workers, the home health care workers who are being ripped off.

And when they're not getting paid what they're legally entitled to, that makes them paying the bills for their families all the much harder in a time where things get more and more expensive.

So it's central to our mission to use the law to try to make sure district residents are able to afford their lives to try to protect those who need voice and to and need the law to protect them, and who are sometimes not in the best position for whatever reason to defend themselves.

The organizations that we've been supporting are enhancing the capacity to protect these critical workers.

And so this is an administrative role that we play.

We are passing through these dollars.

We're administering the grants.

Um this is, I think, a funding decision, again, for the council to recognize with if the funds are going to be allocated to the very important things.

We are happy, we want to consider containing continuing to be the administrative role in this.

Um we don't add you know overhead on top of this to do these grants, we we administer it because it's consistent with our mission.

And I think you heard from the public witnesses that it's having an impact.

Thank you.

You know, as we see trends for different types of violence come down across categories in our city, I'm very worried that we're not seeing those same trends for domestic violence and we're seeing them in fact go up.

Um and this proposal cuts the domestic violence and special victims section by six FTEs.

Can you talk about the impact that would have on the DV work of OAG?

Sure.

And I'm gonna um pass this to first assistant Cullen to talk a little bit about it, because that's situated in our public safety division.

Sure.

So I think if I could just back up for a staff second and also note that there are six sections in our public safety division.

So looking at the decisions that we're gonna be faced with in the future in terms of whatever the council is or is not able to be restored.

I could talk for a considerable amount of time for every single section as to what the deep impact would be.

Specifically for domestic violence at the moment, we currently have a vacancy that we have not filled for a few months.

And that person handled partially a lot of our adult protective service cases.

And so for example, we get some 40 cases a month that are re referred to us that we have had to have assistance in other sections handle.

I think at any moment in time, the DV section is already incredibly small.

And so when you have caseloads of 40 each at the moment, um is what we're dealing with.

Just think about the capacity that you have to handle these very complex situations where you need to be in touch with the victim on a regular basis and you need to be preparing to support them in court, out of court, work through monitoring the stay aways, the compliance, filing for contempt.

I think it's just something we have to be incredibly vigilant about and to not have full capacity in that section would have a direct impact on some of the most vulnerable residents in the District of Columbia.

Thank you.

And thank you for mentioning the other sections in public safety.

The AG talked about some of that in his testimony.

But I'm tracking that is all uh very concerning too and can't be sustained.

Um what is the breakdown in the domestic violence caseload between OAG versus U.S.

Attorney's Office?

I don't have that information in front of me.

I could get you that.

Obviously, we are in regular communication with them.

Um I could if you give me a moment, I could get you more clarity, but in particular on the contempt is something that we handle a lot, and I think that's incredibly important when you focus on the contempt because you have to make sure that you are monitoring the conditions you have already put in the order and what the continuous impact is on um the victim as well as if there's children in the family.

I think that is something that we cannot take our eyes off of.

And so working in tandem with them, either in terms of the sentence that they are recommending, the charge that they're able to prove, and then the contempt that we're able to monitor is incredibly important to ensuring safety.

Okay.

And that's a helpful example, but can you zooming up even higher?

Like which cases go through the for DV in particular, go through the U.S.

attorney tract versus which types of cases does OAG handle.

I am going to ask you for a moment on that.

And I can give you a lot of people.

I was just saying we I don't need the numbers of cases, but just the kind of framework of what we're doing.

So you you could think about the fact that under our laws, given current where we are, we don't have the ability to prosecute a uh adult for a domestic violence felony.

That would be the U.S.

attorney's office prosecuting those cases.

But we do the civil side of it, the protective orders, and then when there's a contempt of a protective order, because there's a civil order from a court in place that says stay away, don't do certain things when those are violated, the lawyers in our office are then effectively prosecuting those contempt cases in which are civil in nature.

That's how if you wanted to kind of think through how the legal work gets divided between the U.S.

Attorney's Office and our office on DV cases.

Thank you very much.

Um Council Member just confirm.

Um it is just the contempt side.

USAO handles all other offenses as the AG just mentioned.

Okay.

And so in just the contempt side, you're seeing 40 cases come in a month.

Um, sorry, the 40 cases a month is on the APS, but they also have a number.

So the oh, adult.

They also, yes, sorry, and they also have an average caseload on the non-EPS cases of 40 each.

So they carry a regular caseload of 40, and then every month, 40 cases come in on the APS, which is also handled by that section that we have a vacancy in.

Okay.

And what are those cases, the APS cases?

Those are the adult protective services when you think a senior citizen is a victim of abuse, and we support the social worker in filing a petition and intervening on behalf of that vulnerable adult.

But that's all under the same section.

Correct.

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

I want to give you a chance to share any feedback you have on any of the proposed BSA subtitles from the mayor or any additional subtitles that you would like the committee to move.

I confess that I'm not prepared to answer that question.

Happy to chat with you after this hearing.

Really been laser focused on the budget question.

Are there any particular BSA questions that are on your mind?

And I can make sure I'm ready to give you a better informed response.

There was a small TANF transfer in the proposal that we should just look at and make sure it works for you all and make sense.

You bet.

Okay.

Great.

So lastly, as we think about efficiency and also making sure that the resources are going to our most vulnerable residents.

Has your office explored any other AI functionality that has been helpful that we should know about that you want to share?

So I I can't see her out of the corner of my eyes, but I'm assuming Marta Paravano has some smile on her face because we've been talking.

Yeah.

Because I have been talking regularly with my chief operating officer.

We have now an office policy in place for the agency about generative AA AI.

There are obviously risks, very serious risks to using generative I generative AI in the practice of law.

But we are also looking for specific use cases to start exploring how we can drive efficiencies using AI within the construct of our office order.

And my hope is that we will be able to talk with the council and with you about successes.

The short um headline on this is over the long haul, I believe the use of AI in our office will be driving efficiencies.

It is expensive at the front end.

There's no free lunch.

So if we were going to go and move certain functions into AI, there's a very substantial upfront cost associated with doing that.

Over time, we may get to the place where the machines can do things that some humans are doing right now, but it's not the kind of thing that we could transfer right now and then, assuming we knew exactly what it will want, and it would be free.

And so I know our head of technology, Thomas Harrelson is here.

He and I have been talking about this.

I know Marta is got her team thinking hard about it, and we're moving in that direction.

Um it's a difficult thing.

I will also say that you know, in the National Association of AGs where we're meeting regularly, bipartisan group of AGs, there is a lot of knowledge and experience being generated in that community that we'll continue to um lean on and try to learn from.

Well, thank you for that.

And I I think as we explore other uses, I think the government has a really interesting role to play in demonstrating how we can use AI not to replace jobs, but to enhance people's jobs now so that our teams can still do what they do in serving the public, but that AI can help them do it better or more efficiently as opposed to using AI to replace jobs.

And I think if the government gets that right and can demonstrate how that can be so effective, um we can set the right example.

I agree with you.

Um, as always, I want to give you a chance if you have anything else you want to close with uh today.

Well, look, I just want to say that as I started the conversation.

I know that this is not an easy time.

There's not an easy budget, um, but we still um we still have a commitment, a shared commitment to the people we serve to deliver uh for them.

And I think that I'm proud of the work that my office is doing to meet that moment, and we've talked about all the different challenges that come at the city, and it's not an either-or proposition.

It hasn't been an either-or proposition for us at the Office of Attorney General.

It has been a both and everything has come at us.

We have gotten ready to meet the moment, and I'm proud of how we have done that.

And I'm very appreciative of your leadership and the work that this committee has done.

I appreciated your comments when the hearing opened up about recognizing that the council as a whole and your committee as a whole has been a partner in making sure that we have the resources to deliver.

You have held us to task in performance oversight and budget to see where the money is going.

I hope you found that our team is extremely responsive and transparent to the operational questions you and the committee ask.

We are good stewards of the money.

We are a good return on investment.

And in a tough year, I am really hoping we will continue that partnership that we have had in the past to make sure that the residents in the district have the law firm they deserve.

Thanks.

Well, thank you.

And thank you again.

General Schwab and entire team for all that you do.

And we're we share your deep concern about these cuts, and so look forward to collaborating and figure out how we can reverse them.

So thank you all very much.

We are now going to turn to the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

We have Director Quelly Sneeding.

Welcome to you all.

Nice to see you.

And Director Sneed, for those joining you, if I can ask that you turn your microphone on and state your name and position for the record, as well.

We've got yours, but you can go ahead if you'd like.

Just for the record, uh Quelly Sneed, Executive Director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

Happy wellness Wednesday.

My name is Julia Irving.

I have the honor of serving as the Deputy Director of Government and Community Affairs at the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

Good afternoon, Portia Mills.

I'm pleasured to serve as the interim chief operating officer for the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

And if you could all turn your microphones on, I'm a swear everyone in, and then we'll hear testimony.

You all can turn your microphones on.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Okay.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony you are about to provide before this committee and the council of the District of Columbia is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

And Director Sneed, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto, members and staff of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.

I am Quelly Sneed, and I have the privilege of serving as the executive director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

Affectionately call at once.

I am here today with our interim chief operating officer, Portia Mills, Agency Fiscal Officer Anthony Ewoby to discuss Mayor Muriel Bowser's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and how our priorities reflect the realities of today's public safety landscape and the needs of district residents.

I want to also thank members of my executive leadership team that are joining me today, Deputy Director Julia Irving, Strategic Planning and Performance Officer Heather McGowan, General Counsel John Cheek, and resource allocation specialist Patricia Roth Kane.

Mayor Bowser's proposed FY27 budget grow DC was formulated with three key considerations in mind.

How to drive growth in our economy to fund the services and programs residents count on, how to keep families in D.C.

We are navigating a pivotal moment that demands a more deliberate approach to growth.

The federal dollars that once expanded our program is unprecedented ways have now been exhausted, and federal workforce reductions have introduced new pressures on our economy and commercial corridors.

That being said, it is important to be clear DC is still growing.

Revenues have slowed, but the city maintains a strong financial foundation on which we can build by making the kinds of strategic and targeted decisions that will allow DC to continue growing while delivering the high quality services our residents depend on.

The mission of ONES is to build partnerships and implement strategies that reduce gun related violence in the district.

ONES fulfills this mission by coordinating the district's gun violence prevention and intervention initiatives using both public health and public safety tools, and by focusing on identifying and engaging with those likely to be involved in gun violence, providing them with an alternative to crime.

The mayor proposes a FY27 One's budget of 20.1 million dollars, which supports our core violence prevention portfolio and positions the agency to sustain results while responding to changing needs across the district.

Specifically, the budget includes funding for 46 FTEs to support the work in our mission, critical programs, and 12 million for our violence intervention grant programs, enabling continuity, performance management, and targeted expansion where data indicates the greatest need.

The district, like cities nationwide, continues to grapple with gun violence as a public safety and public health challenge with significant economic costs from emergency, medical care, law enforcement response, criminal justice expenses to lost productivity and long-term trauma.

Violence prevention saves lives and dollars.

Strategic evidence-based violence intervention yields positive results, particularly when resources are focused, where risk is highest, and services are integrated.

We have seen the effects of sustained investment in community-based violence intervention.

Violent crime and homicides have shown significant year over year declines.

This year alone, homicides have decreased by 55% in the district.

We are also experiencing nearly 34% reduction in gun violence year to date.

These reductions reflect the value of outreach and engagement, trusted relationships, and coordinated community level strategies.

This year we are focusing on our core services to ensure we are aligned with current realities and position for long-term impact.

In FY27, we are concentrating on services for individuals at highest risk of violence and victimization.

As I detailed during the performance oversight hearing in February, starting at the beginning of the year, ONES implemented the agreement for success of the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement.

To align with the goals of the agreement, we adopted a group-based violence reduction strategy, a place-based and people-centered approach designed to reduce serious violence through consistent outreach, coordinated service delivery, and relentless engagement.

Let me share a few highlights from the early implementation of the agreement for success of ones.

Data analysis to support decision making, resource allocation and VI deployment, structured case management, incorporating cognitive behavioral interventions, real-time conflict mediation and post-incident engagement, and data-driven performance management and continuous improvement.

These core elements create the conditions for real progress and offer communities renewed hope for lasting safety.

Violence interrupters are trusted individuals embedded in our neighborhoods, de-escalating in real time, mediating conflicts and connecting individuals to services.

Where community violence intervention programs operate, research has documented reductions in shootings, and we know we are only part of the solution, underscoring the value of trusted outreach and timely intervention.

Our pathways program, a behavior modification program engages with high-risk individuals, providing cognitive behavior therapy, job readiness, and supportive services.

We help participants build decision making, conflict resolution and coping skills.

Ones provides crisis response, trauma-informed counseling, and stabilization services for survivors.

Families who have lost loved ones and community members affected by gun violence.

We collaborate closely with community partners, including hospital-based violence intervention programs, temporary housing providers, and mental health agencies to deliver early, coordinated support after incidents and help prevent further harm.

When we compare the full cost of violent incidents to the cost of prevention, intervention and stabilization, the conclusion is clear.

Effective community-based violence interruption and supportive services is the right choice.

We continue to deepen our collaboration with district agencies and align efforts with local and national partners to leverage best practices.

Together, we are building a responsive network that meets residents where they are and sustains long-term progress.

We are engaging with residents, businesses, and partners in the community through a range of initiatives, including our first ever capacity building seminar is scheduled for Friday, April 24th, and is designed to connect our team and providers with critical community resources.

A new VR readiness boot camp pilot offering 40 hours of intensive skill building and experiential learning for violence interrupters and outreach workers.

A public awareness campaign with WMATA highlighting National Gun Violence Awareness Month and the importance of community-based violence intervention.

Our third annual Healing Community Symposium, sorry, this summer will bring together residents for shared engagement, reflection, and healing.

And this year's many grant funding opportunities supporting local community-based organizations working in prevention, trauma-informed care, and youth development are the key pillars in advancing our mission.

Before I close, I want to take a moment to reflect on a milestone that speaks to the heart of our work.

Since September 2018, nearly 450 ambassadors have completed our Pathways program, each one a testament to what is possible when determination is met with opportunity and community support.

We are already seeing its promise continue with the launch of our extended program in Cohort 22.

A new class of 20 young men from the district who are embracing their potential committing to the future.

We look forward to celebrating their accomplishments, dedication, and their transformation at graduation this June.

As One's approaches is 10-year anniversary this fall, I want to honor the many people who have carried us to this moment, those who embody our values of trust, healing, equity, and collaboration.

Their unwavering commitment, especially in the most challenging moments, remind us that change is not only possible, it is happening every day.

As OneS enters its next decade, we remain grounded in our mission and energized by what lies ahead.

To the ONES team, thank you for your diligence and unwavering commitment.

Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to testify today.

I welcome any questions you may have.

Councilmember, I was hoping that, if you don't mind, is it possible for me to correct one of the something that was on the record said earlier?

I know that our chapter in the budget book is often confusing.

And so I know that we've all struggled with reading the FTE count.

And so I wanted to kind of walk through the FTEs for this current, so we as we have a conversation about going into FY27.

So at the start of FY26, we were approved for 88 FTEs, of which 24 were unfunded, which left us with 64 funded positions.

We have received a proposed reduction of 18 positions, which will leave us in FY27 with 46 FTEs.

What's the distinction between approval and funding?

Thank you for the question.

I will uh rely on our AFL Tony Aw to address.

Good afternoon, Councilman Pinto.

However, um, when we formulated the 26th.

Sometime in January, February of 2035.

There was a decision made by executive office of the mail.

Because the agency had about three million positions.

The decision was to think booze vacancy service and applied.

Applied to 26.

So that's how and I immediately, when I got the older, I immediately allowed the agency that definitely on fund some of the positions in 26.

And that was what happened.

Council, of course, uh fully aware of authorized the eight.

Between 64, we are actually funded.

And they have a testament in FY26 agency chapter 2.

Um if you compare 25 approved with 26 approved, that definitely a reduction of 2.0 million there.

That unfunded the 24 positions coming into 26.

When in the year did that happen?

26.

It happened last year.

But when in the year?

At what point in the year?

Uh during uh the mark the markup uh no prior to the markup.

It was uh when we were still with the mayor during formulation.

Because my recollection is that when the budget went through the council last year that we approved 88 positions.

Yes, you did.

All right, so that was passed in July of 25 to become effective October 1.

So when in the year were those other 24 positions removed?

It happened on, I believe in March of 2025.

When between performance hearing and the budget oversight hearing for 26, that was when the reduction was taken.

I guess I'm still not following how the council could have approved 88 positions in July.

But you're saying those positions were taken in March.

The positions were not taken.

The funding was taken.

So you couldn't have seen it.

I see.

So when the decision came down to OCA for we immediately, of course, most of those positions were vacant positions.

So that could be the reason why the council didn't look at it thoroughly.

So we thought we were funding positions that were never there to be funded.

The positions were there.

However, the executive made the decision to use some of the savings from the vacant positions to balance 26.

Is that something that often happens in the budget?

Um I can't speak to that.

I can only speak to this particular incident.

Had you ever seen that happen before?

Um that I'm aware of.

It sounds pretty unusual to me.

In order to balance the budget, so it has to come from somewhere.

So I can speak to the executive decision.

Well, I'm all understanding that it has to come from somewhere, but we wouldn't have funded.

We wouldn't have approved funding for 88 positions if 24 of them were never intended to go there in the first place.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, thank you for the honesty.

Um that is something we've got to work very closely together on this budget to make sure that that does not happen again.

Um moving forward in 27 uh, like the director spoke to a few minutes ago, um, there were some further reductions too.

There are some further reductions.

Yes, in FTE count.

What were the how many FTE reductions were there?

Uh by approximately 18.

Oh, that's for 27.

Yes.

Yeah, and 18 if you're going off of the 64 number.

That's correct.

Right.

But that's why I go back to it from our perspective, we funded 88 positions.

And I have that number so stuck in my head because we pulled an all-nighter in order to reconstitute the budget of ones to ensure that those 88 positions were funded.

So that no one mentioned to us, actually, 24 of these positions have already been whatever language you want to use taken removed, feels uh shocking.

Uh nobody reached out to me from your office as to what really happened.

But uh excuse me, the agency was aware of it.

Okay.

Well, I can speak to the direct deputy mayor about that.

Um, because she and the budget office and the mayor's team were very involved in all of those conversations.

Um then going into 27, we couldn't have requested for unfunded positions.

So that's why you see 64.

I see.

Okay.

So let's turn to 27 then.

Um there's a proposed cut in the executive administration department.

Can you talk about what that what impacts that would have?

So the executive um administration houses uh many of the um it's the response to audits, the committee requests in terms of bringing functionality back in-house.

Um historically, a lot of these functions have were outsourced in previous fiscal years.

So we built built the capacity within the household areas that fall under this from a personnel or a from a programmatic uh perspective are uh your risk, your human resources, your administrative services, um, the budgeting and operations, compliance, your data, uh, your data programming.

That's those are the and and I'm sorry, and your general counsel, your legal functions as well.

And so the functions that have been brought in house, would you be able to carry forward that work with these proposed cuts?

So the reductions, they're not abolishing the functions.

What it is is forcing us to really look at and see where we have duplicates duplicative efforts and being able to streamline our processes and reduce them down.

Um so these functions will still be in place.

Um is the scaling down of the responsibility of just ensuring that one it's being covered because again, for the past two years, we have been building capacity training to kind of streamline our processes, so the functions still remain.

It's just now looking to see where we can scale down into duplications of effort.

So was that one of the areas that you would recommend to reduce?

In terms of um as we grow and as we're more trained in the areas, I mean, there is probably a little more uh beef in that particular area versus uh maybe any others.

Okay.

Um so I'm very concerned about the proposed cuts for the pathways program.

And I know you have been an incredible champion and shepherd of this program.

And one of the things that we were talking about last budget was the trade-offs of expanding the number of weeks or months that an individual is in the program versus the need to expand the number of individuals in that we can serve in the cohorts.

And so now this proposal you know cuts significantly both the number of people served and the number of weeks.

Um this proposal suggests a 2.6 million dollars cut to pathways.

Can you talk about how what that would mean to the services being able to be provided in terms of the number of people served and the length of the program and and in your view, having had worked on this this program for so long, were your initial recommendations from last year around extending the time that we were serving individuals in pathways?

Uh the 2.6 million uh will reshape the program in the sense that it will reduce the duration, it will reduce the um the frequency of some of the services that would be provided.

Um overall, so for instance, um in this year, this was the first year that we did an expanded 10-month program, six months of training, four months of work experience.

Uh and it gave us an opportunity to kind of address some of the programmatic needs, like specifically what we are found, we what we found historically is that uh some of the the training needing in terms of when I heard a provider speak today, and I thought she was really appointed when she was just like the building of trust in the relationship.

Um that extra time does give us time to really build community with instead of having the nine weeks and then you know we move transition into phase two, which is the work experience.

So the longer trajectory does assist with that.

But in terms of um the impacts of it, we're really are looking at specifically reducing uh participants from one cohort size of a 30 down to 15.

We're looking at uh reducing the duration of the program from 10 months to eight months, uh possibly meeting frequency going from five days to three days.

And um, in terms of service delivery of the counseling, which uh therapeutic uh uh supports uh which are currently weekly would uh move to uh biweekly or twice a month rather.

And so when you look think about um that we will also really look begin to look at how we would realign our contracts to to match the services or the service delivery model.

Sorry, I'm just it's stunning.

Um I guess let's let's think about the impact of pathways over this last year.

Um how have you been tracking efficacy, whether we're measuring that in people avoiding additional involvement in the criminal justice system or you know, other sustainable mental health you know improvements, how are you thinking about the success of the program over the last year?

Um I'm gonna ask uh deputy director to kind of read over some of our uh metrics and measures that we are tracking uh to have support the question.

Thank you, Director, and thank you for the question, council member.

So oftentimes when we come here, the number one question is how many jobs do they get?

Where are they working?

And so you notice I asked it differently than I appreciate that.

I was like, she's been listening this week.

We do so much more than just job placement, but I came prepared for that question.

And so we are really happy to report that um in our first two, well, in our cohorts that started in FY25, it took us approximately 122 days to place an individual in unsubsidized employment.

However, um, as we look at our most recent cohort, we've actually gotten that down to 98 days to place them in unsubsidized employment, with an average wage being about 22 dollars an hour.

And when you look at the various sectors that our gentlemen have been placed in, they range from hospitality to security to build and maintenance, and we even have it broken down based upon the sector as to how long those placements take.

And the reason why it was important to share with you our placement rates for employment is because the best example I can use, and Flint spoke to it earlier.

When our ambassadors are given an opportunity to go to work, yes, on Monday, one of our ambassadors arrived, and I was checking in with him, and I'm like, Are you okay?

And he's like, I'm just tired.

And I couldn't understand why he was so tired.

But he was tired because he worked 14 days on Sunday.

So what does that mean to the 14 hours on Sunday?

What does that mean to residents of the District of Columbia?

Those persons that are at the highest risk of engagement in gun violence, they're now being engaged in meaningful, purposeful, taxable work that that's a return to the city, but more importantly, their communities are safer because they're too tired to go out and do anything.

So that's why important um employment is important.

But we also are looking at our therapeutic services, and we have seen a significant uptick in the request amongst our ambassadors to access our behavioral health providers.

And so even though they have their one-on-one sessions, we have noticed that some of our ambassadors have crises moments, and we're really appreciative to CWV for coming in and adjusting their schedules to adjust that.

But more importantly, the ambassadors are requesting, and when we look at our rates of engagement with our behavioral health partners, we have a hundred percent in this cohort.

And during our intake process, many of our ambassadors, they were like, I cannot wait to speak to that therapist.

But even in addition to that, when our ambassadors are in the community as we begin to really streamline our efforts, we're really grateful to our credible messengers because we have a phenomenal outreach team within ones.

However, some of our ambassadors' concerns are during non-traditional hours, and we appreciate the Sean Colemans that are going out during non-traditional hours to engage them, but we're also appreciative of our partners, yay, me, that are able to go out there in real time, do crisis management through a CBT lens, but also connect them to resources in real time to help stabilize that crisis situation so that their whole self can come into the cohort the next day.

Thank you.

And the can you talk a little bit about what Yay Me does?

Um a lot of the cuts are personnel related, but there's also a line item for a grant to YAME 1.2 million last year and 600k this year.

Can you talk about what they do and what those cuts would impact?

So when we look at the the NPS side of the proposed uh reductions, we really are looking at our top um, we we look at the landscape of our contracts and seeing who are who are our top uh services, but also our our higher costing services for the to support the cohort.

And one of that would be the behavior health component as well as the aftercare component.

And what that program does really is when ones is traditionally a nine to five operation.

But we know that crisis and we know that things come up beyond that clock of period of time.

And so what uh the aftercare component is if a crisis or if uh ambassador is in need of support, we have a group of credible messengers that are there on call to respond in that respect to be of assistance.

So you're not necessarily waiting for the L office to uh open up, but I also want to say, even though we are traditionally nine to five, everyone traditionally works beyond those hours anyway.

And so it's the coordination, having to be able to pick up the phone and get some additional supports, being able to get to an ambassador in real time in the midst of a crisis is what Yay Me is the uh the organization that supports us heavily in that.

And they are a continuous figure in our um our day-to-day uh they show presence, they're there to build relationship throughout the the weeks of the cohort.

But this budget does not include any additional funding for in terms of in terms of the funding for YAME.

So, no, what I'm saying is that it's it's a line item of the reduction, it will require us to look at all the contracts within the organization or within our organization to see what is needs to be realigned and reconfigured to address.

And if I may, council member, what we've learned as we begin to really evaluate pathways, we have this amazing village around our ambassadors.

And when they successfully complete phase three and they begin to practice the CBT and they're going to work every day, and life begins to happen, and that village isn't meeting with them on a daily basis, that's when they need the support, and that's the role that YAME provides.

They come in as that filler because historically we would run concurrent cohorts, and so the blessing is that Yay Me would be that partner that ones is still there to support them, but Yay Me is doing that weekly check-in with that ambassador, helping them navigate their work environment, while our job coaches also help them navigate those work environments.

Once you begin to work, your family structure and demands will change.

Yay me is there in real time to coach them through that because our team, we're beginning to bring in the next cohort and provide that wraparound love that they need.

Thank you.

So speaking of wraparound love.

Family and survivor support.

I know a section very important to you that you've done a lot of work on was zeroed out completely.

So how would we fulfill the mission of ones of not just interrupting violence initially, but making sure that we're getting people on a sustainable path of peace and get them and their families the support they need operate without the family and survivor support division?

I think it would be helpful for us to kind of give the context of what FSS or Family Survivor Support, the work that they do.

Um they are a very small but mighty team.

They're really responds to real-time incidents as they occur in the community.

Um responsibility-wise, uh, they are responsible for helping to navigate and being the connector to the family to resources.

They are also the coordinator of emergency uh housing, temporary housing.

They are the coordination of trauma-informed care services, grief support for the continuum of the family from the mother, the father, the siblings to even sometimes the extended members that are in the household as well.

Um they also are the coordination with wraparound services when the HVIPs that have a client that are now being returned home, and they are the continuum to keep the continuum of those services going.

Um they also coordinate with MPD and crime victim services.

They help families navigate uh services connecting to resources that may not necessarily be uh they are available, but you know, we know that sometimes it's often to hard to navigate the landscape of where services are and how to connect to them.

Um today we had a lot of families present that were here to testify about what this how well the services have been helpful to them, especially in a most difficult time when you have lost someone or you have your your loved one is in the hospital fighting for his or her life.

And so with that the responsibilities, if proposed goes through, the responsibilities could be reviewed in terms of okay, where calls the continuum of the government do a lot of these services.

So for instance, we would definitely look in house to determine what can be absorbed by the violence intervention grant.

We would also create a have to create a process because again, all of this is centralized in one unit.

And so now the disbursement of the unit will require us to build connections, will require us to build a procedure and process to connect to other agencies and services.

What I will say will be lost, and I think in the testimony is that this team has an ability to connect with families in ways in times of grief that I that is unmatched, unmeasured.

Their skill, I definitely want to make sure I represent the workers of the small but mighty team, but their skill to connect in the most hardest time that I have seen in terms of their care, again, non-traditional hours of work, very responsive to families, any around the clock, also just a uh the connector to services and and not necessarily a part of their job specifically, but they are the they their care and concern exceeds who they are in terms of what they're responsible for, but they're still continuing to do this work all day, every day.

Um I want to make sure they are well highlighted and represented because this is it's not easy work.

One thing upon my arrival is that I in this work, I went to a house, and one thing I can tell you for certain, what you cannot unhear is the screeching sounds of uh uh a grieving mother and the loud silence of a grieving father.

And what I have seen this group to be able to do is to be able to connect to individuals in the midst of that and be able to connect, not only bring them in but bring them in a part of their family.

So I wanted to make sure I highlight them there well, but I will ask uh Deputy Director Irving to speak a little more about the data side of FSS, if we open with the data side, um I want to give a quote from Mother Quarrels.

This program may not stop every act of violence, but it helps save lives in a different way.

It helps survivors survive.

And that in a nutshell is what FSS does every day.

In their darkest hour, they come with a tiny light that gets brighter and brighter each day.

Many of our mothers will say that you all were there when no one else was there.

You were the one that followed up when no one else followed up.

And despite having a very modest budget and a very intimate team, the work that they do is so impactful.

And so there are families that when they are adjusting to their new norm, I apologize, I'm a little emotional.

When families are adjusting to their new norms, they need just a break from the community.

Because when you experience something so traumatic and you have to look outside of your window every day to see where your teenage son was murdered.

FSS is that entity that comes in and they provide that emergency temporary reprieve for that mother to just gather her wits, to be able to be a mother to her other children while at the same time taking care of herself.

FSS is that entity that when the mother is sobbing and she is on the verge of relapse because she has a whole that she cannot feel.

There is no deep, there is no provider that's coming in.

It's our case managers, it's Kenya, it's Tevon, it's Jeff that are on the phone with that mother walking her through it.

When that mother's family members are in the background and they are frustrated and the streets are telling them that so-and-so has done something, it is the intuition of our FSS case managers to ask the mother, may I speak with that individual to de escalate an incident of violence?

And that's the unspoken, the clandestine work of the superheroes and FSS that may be missed with our budget modifications.

Well, thank you so much, and thank you to everybody who does this incredibly important work.

Um we need we need them to be doing this work.

It's a big part of the mission of ones, central to the mission of ones, I would say.

But just so you know, in FY25, we had 75 families that requested emergency temporary relocation assistance.

We assisted 46 families with housing assistance.

And I really do want to shout out the FSS team because that is an area where additional supports are needed because of different rules and regulations attempting to relocate a family that lives in a subsidized unit in a city that has minimal subsidized units, because you can have a subsidy as a person or your unit can be subsidized.

And our team has to differentiate between the two and navigate those waters.

And they've done that over 46 times.

We've had families that all they wanted were flowers because all they were able to afford because they didn't have a life insurance policy because they weren't thinking they were going to lose their teenage child.

So we've been able to give floral arrangements for 11 of them.

The candlelight vigil, we've attended 39 of those.

But most importantly, is our support group.

When we first started, we might have had six families that attended our support group.

We now average 23 individuals that consistently come to our support group.

And what you see in that space is not just mothers and fathers and siblings coming together to grieve.

You see women, you see men, you see residents of the District of Columbia offering support to one another because they've been there.

They are mobilizing themselves to advocate for their essential needs, but more than anything else, you just find a place where the hole that was in their heart for those two hours is filled with all of this love from people that are in a unique position to only be able to understand what they're going through.

And thank you so much again for that work to everyone who's involved in it.

In terms of the violence interruption work, I see a drastic cut of 17 FTEs.

So can you talk about what that would mean for the program, what that would mean for grants that go out into our existing CBOs, what the plan would be?

So that's across the agency.

That's not specific to the violence intervention, unless I I misunderstood it.

Oh, okay.

So what was what's the proposed cuts for violence interruption?

So violence intervention really has a very modest and minimal impact in terms of its proposed reductions.

Overall, um it has a modest 279,000 dollar proposed reduction.

Um that could be the equivalent of, say, two positions.

Overall, for the funding of the grants, it appears that we have been maintained at a 12 million dollar mark for for grants.

So I think in the budget chapters, it it talks about a 17 FTE reduction specifically in the eye.

I'm sorry, historically, uh, you know, I found I have found the budget book to be somewhat confusing and troubling.

And so I I can say that um based off of our math and our analysis and working closely with the AFO, those 17 positions are across the agency.

Okay.

But in terms of your question in terms of violence intervention, it's a modest reduction.

But for the grants, uh the grants and subsidies, peace for which is also going into the community-based organ, it has been maintained at uh 12.8.

It has been what?

Maintained at 12.8 million dollars.

12.8 million.

Okay, so how many grants are how many CBOs are currently receiving grants for VI work?

I believe it's seven uh seven at this time.

Seven.

Yes.

Okay.

And can you just briefly walk through each of those grantees and how much they're getting?

So uh so for and so remember upon the the legislation, the mandate, we were officially able to bring Cure the Streets over into the violence intervention portfolio of for ones.

With that, we have a total of one, two, three.

We have seven ones grantees and two cure the streets grantees.

Thank you.

Okay, can you go over each of those grantees, how much they're getting, and also where they're based out of?

Sure, give me one second, please.

Thank you.

So we have uh two grantees, NARC and Father Factor for Cure the Streets.

We have a total of seven grantees for uh And sorry director, as you go through them, can you say where they're based out of like where they're working?

Okay, let me use the other document.

Thank you.

So currently in Ward 1, we have NARC that is on the Ones Violence Intervention Portfolio.

They are they've received $359,000, a little over $359,000.

Um if you want exactly I can provide that to you at the end of the day, but I'm just giving you the rounded up.

Okay.

East of the River Clergy Police Community and Partnership.

Um they I'm sorry, let me return back to Ward 1 that covers Columbia Heights and Ledroid Park.

They have a grant funding of $359,000.

I'm sorry, I'm going back to Ward 1, which is overseen by NARC at the currently moment.

NARC is our emergency coverage right now because we are resoliciting a ward one grant.

Right now they are serving in the emergency.

However, ward one was afforded $359,000 or $121.

They oversee the communities of Columbia Heights and LeJoy Park.

For Ward 2, you have East of the River Clergy Police Community Partnership.

They oversee Shaw in Chinatown, they have 374,000.

Again, a National Association for the Advancement of Returning Citizens, also known as NARC.

They are cover ward four, that is Brightwood Park, Petworth, and they were awarded $366,000.

East of the River, again, clergy, police, and community partnership.

They were awarded $551,000.

They oversee Langston Terrace, Trucks and Circus, Trucks and Circle, sorry, Edgewood and Edgewood.

Good projects, which is Ward.

I was just saying blessing.

I'm sorry.

Good projects.

Greenleaf was awarded $378,000.

Together We Rise.

They were awarded $525,439.

Our community support services, they oversee Mayfair.

Also splits includes certain metro stations within Ward 7 as well.

They were awarded $295,000.

Johnson Family Services oversees Hills Day, Hillsdale, Buena Vista Terrace, they were awarded $748,000.

What was the name of that last one?

I'm sorry.

Johnson Family Services.

And that's in which wards?

Ward 8.

For our Cure the Streets side of the house.

Okay.

NARC, Trinidad for the year.

I think it's important too that I want to make the distinction for the wards that I just went over, that that is a nine-month allocation.

Because if you recall, we did not resolicit the grant to start until January.

Okay.

So now for the NARC, that was upon the 10-1 start date and started at the beginning of the fiscal year.

And so NARC oversees Trinidad $749,000.

NARC also oversees Trenton Park, $749,000.

NARC oversees Congress Heights, a $749,000.

Father Factor oversees Ivy City, Serse and Quarter, $749,000.

Father Factor also receives Ana Costia, $749,000.

And Father Factor oversees Washington Highlands, $749,000.

Okay, thank you for that.

Super helpful.

And so all of these contracts will go until September 30th.

Correct.

All the grants.

All the grants.

Yes.

And then at what at which time will they be resolicited so as to avoid a gap?

So we're going to start that process in July.

It gives ample time for application.

It also a part of our process that ones we started doing information sessions to give opportunities.

We know that there are other organizations that also inquire about how they can come and be a part of the violence intervention portfolio.

So we also kind of uh work sessions and multiple information sessions to give ample time, where we bring in our partners of Office and Tax and Revenue to also allow organizations to know what are the business requirements in order to do business with the district.

Okay, great.

Well, thank you very much.

Director, as always, I want to give you a chance if you want to highlight anything that we didn't get a chance to talk about today.

Overall, I wanted to say this is uh has been a challenge in time uh facing the agency.

Uh we're not new to challenges, and we always meet it with grace, with response, and with integrity.

And so I want to say back to our um our employees who are who are in the office right now looking upon us uh and as we're sitting here.

Uh um I want to make sure that I represent them well and and also just the work that they are doing.

They work hard every day.

And um, I think we finally have gotten to a place where uh the culture of once has shifted.

And we are doing great work.

We are working every day to make improvements, and I believe that it's beginning to show at uh I hear community members uh what we walked into in the beginning is not the same what I feel and hear when we're out in the community today.

So I want to say thank you for all of their hard work.

I want to say thank you to you.

Um as you know, as we have been here before, we have challenges before us, but we know that uh we always meet the moment when needed.

So thank you again.

Well, thank you so much, Director Smeed, and thank you for all your leadership of the agency and to everybody who works at once, every CBO, everyone who does this work and participates in the Pathways program, shows up to these grief sessions, shows up when they're solicited, because it is a very important piece of our public safety ecosystem that we need to continue supporting.

Um and so I'm very concerned about a lot of these cuts and look forward to working together with you all over the next couple of weeks to see what we can do to uh ensure this vital and important work can continue.

So thank you all.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Um we are going to turn now to our final agency today, the deputy mayor for public safety and justice, deputy mayor Lindsay Appeah, who I think is on her way.

All right, thank you everybody.

We are going to turn to our final agency on today's agenda, the deputy mayor for public safety and justice, uh, where we will be hearing from our deputy mayor, Lindsay Apia.

Thank you very much for joining us.

And Nicole, if I can have you state your full name and record for the and title for the record as well.

Had the microphone.

Absolutely.

Nicole Peckham, Deputy Mayor Appeas Chief of Staff.

Great.

And Johnny too.

Johnitz, AFO, supporting DMPSJ.

Wonderful.

I will spur you all in now.

If you can turn your mics on.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony you're about to provide for this committee and the council of the District of Columbia is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

I do.

Thank you all.

Welcome.

And Deputy Mayor, I'd like to invite you to make any opening statement you may have.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto, members and staff of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.

I'm Lindsay Appea, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, and I'm testifying today on Mayor Muriel Bowser's proposed fiscal year 27 proposed budget, GRO DC.

Mayor Buzz Bowser's proposed FY27 budget, GRO DC was formulated with three key considerations in mind.

How to drive growth in our economy, to fund the services and programs residents count on, how to keep families in DC and attract new residents, and how to create a business environment that draws new investment and creates new jobs.

We're navigating a pivotal moment that demands a more deliberate approach to growth.

The federal dollars that once expanded our programs in unprecedented ways have been exhausted, and federal workforce reductions have introduced new pressures on our economy and commercial corridors.

That being said, it's important to be clear.

DC is still growing.

Revenues have slowed, but the city maintains a strong financial foundation on which we can build by making the kinds of strategic and targeted decisions that will allow DC to continue growing while delivering the high quality services our residents depend on.

And the work of the public safety and justice cluster is critical to ensuring that our city continues to grow and thrive, because nothing is more foundational than ensuring the safety of our residents and visitors.

Before discussing the investment that Mayor Bowser has prioritized across the PSJ cluster, I want to say thank you to the more than 10,000 hardworking district employees of the PSJ cluster agencies and the PSJ front office who show up every day committed and determined to support our mission.

I want them to know we deeply appreciate their hard work, and together we've made significant progress in making our city safer and a place where residents and visitors across all eight wards can thrive.

To date, in calendar year 2026, we've reduced violent crime by 5% and total crime by 25%.

I'm also pleased to report there's been a nearly 34% reduction in gun violence year to date.

Before I discuss our DMPSJ FY27 budget, I also want to reflect on the investments made in public safety and justice during Mayor Bowser's tenures, which includes increased pay for police, firefighters, and 911 call takers, equipped all Metropolitan Police Department officers with body-worn cam body worn cameras, upgraded the district's emergency operations center, which serves as our command center for no-notice, and planned events coordinated by DCH SEMA, opened the district's real-time crime center, launched reforms at the DC Fire and Emerging Emergency Medical Services Department to improve patient care, including the Nurse Triage line, whole blood, hands-on heart, and third-party ambulances, expanded safe passage to help students get to and from school safely, and opened the Ready Center, which is operated by the Department of Corrections to support returning residents with job training, education, and social services.

The Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement turns 10 this year.

The Office of Human Rights continues its work to eradicate discrimination, advance equal opportunity, and protect human rights through enforcement outreach and proactive compliance.

The Department of Forensic Sciences and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner are staffed by high forming scientists who work miraculously in the days after the plane crash in January 2025.

And under the mayor's leadership, we ended court oversight of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Service.

These investments have yielded significant achievements and outcomes throughout our public safety and justice ecosystem, including driving down crime to its lowest levels in decades.

The mayor has funded the installation of more than 30,000 cameras as part of our popular private security camera program managed by the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants.

She's created investments, which has FEMS, doubling cardiac survival score to 44.3%, which ties the district for the number one in the nation, and made investments in the Office of Unified Communications, which has 97% of all 911 calls being answered in 20 seconds or less.

Under Mayor Bowser's leadership and with her investments in our first responder agencies, the district's incident management capabilities and contingency planning have repeatedly demonstrated to our residents, the country, and world our ability to serve services in an emergency.

As the nature of threats, hazards, and incident response has changed during the past 12 years, the district has continuously evolved to meet the needs of our residents and visitors while maintaining critical relationships with our local, regional, and federal government partners, the private sectors, and our community partners.

In FY27, the mayor is making a number of key investments in public safety.

These investments include $350 million over six years to keep our fire trucks and ambulances modern and functional.

46 million dollars to improve youth rehabilitation facilities, including new housing units at the Department of Rehabilitation Services to expand capacity, 27 million dollars to build a new fire station as part of the RFK campus redevelopment, and 75 million dollars to support a public-private partnership to build a new DC jail.

I'll now turn to my office.

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Justice Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, provides oversight of the 12 district agencies in DC National Guard to ensure they're efficiently and effectively meeting their core critical agency missions and functions, working together across our government to advance public safety and justice priorities and coordinating with our local, regional, and federal partners to enhance the safety of our city.

DMPSJ provides operational and strategic support to agencies with our within our cluster and across government to reduce crime and increase safety, Mayor Bowser's number one priority.

We're currently offering strategic and operational support through day-to-day management of the Safe Commercial Corridors Grant Program, Safe Passages Safe Blocks, the Safe and Security C nonprofit Fund, Youth Response Team, Multi-Agency Nightlife Task Force, Multi-Agency Public Safety Task Force, Resource Pop-Ups, Peace Walks, and more.

The Mayor's proposed FY27 budget for DMPSJ is 12.5 million, which includes 27 FTEs.

A significant portion of DMPSJ's proposed FY27 budget is funding for the Safe Passages Safe Blocks program.

Safe Passage is designed to ensure that students travel to and from school safely.

A lack of safety increases absenteeism and impacts a student's overall learning.

Fiscal year 26 was DMPSJ's third year of operational management of the Safe Passage Safe Blocks Program.

My team coordinates and manages the program, including the evaluation of its effectiveness, measuring outcomes, and implementing the new training requirements in the Safe Passage Training and School Engagement Amendment Act of 2025.

Through distributed through distribution of four community grants in FY26, more than 200 safe passenger safe passage ambassadors currently serve in 12 priority areas, covering approximately 122 predetermined routes.

DMPSJ utilizes daily calls with law enforcement to address incidents in real time and unusual incidents are reported within 24 hours.

This past year, we again deployed Safe Passage Ambassadors to key posts during summer school 2025, winter break, and spring break.

As of April 20th, the Safe Passage Ambassadors reported 587 unusual incidents this school year, helping DMPSJ improve safety as our students commute to and from school.

We also held monthly meetings with school leadership to provide updates on the program.

I also want to highlight during spring break 2026, two Safe Passage community-based organizations hosted student programs, hosted student programming.

You can read more about them in the in the written testimony.

As Mayor Bowser shared during her presentation to council, there were several tough programmatic choices made to balance the FY27 budget.

For PSJ, the focus had to be on protecting and preserving core public safety and justice services in an extremely difficult budget.

Our largest and most critical asset is our people, and continued lowered staffing compliments meant the need to prioritize additional funds for sustained elevated overtime costs.

To support some of those costs with funds within the cluster, we were not able to identify continued funding in the proposed FY27 budget for the Safe Commercial Corridors Grant Program or the Safe and Secure DC nonprofit fund.

Both of these programs have been deeply impactful in helping us to increase safety in our city, and we appreciate the partnership we have with our grantees.

Before I close, I want to acknowledge the directors of the public safety and justice cluster.

The team Mayor Bowser has assembled, and I have had the honor to lead, are the best of the best in their respective fields.

They are committed to collaboration inside our cluster and amongst their agency peers, which brought us to one of the strongest years in public safety and justice.

I'm deeply grateful to them for their leadership, commitment and deep care for their teams and for the residents and visitors of the district.

And I would be remiss to not say thank you to you, Chairperson Pinto, for your partnership and collaboration over the past three years, three and a half years that we have worked together.

It has been deeply impactful and made a significant difference in the safety of our city.

And so I want to take an opportunity to say that.

Thank you for your time.

I'll answer any questions you may have.

Great.

Well, thank you so much, Deputy Mayor.

And as I'm sure you can imagine, this will not be our last time at a hearing together this year.

But I never miss an opportunity to say thank you, though.

Like you know, yes.

No, no, no, of course.

And and I I will echo my gratitude to you and your entire team and everybody who works in the TMPSJ cluster.

Um it's really amazing thinking about how much progress there has been in public safety since you became the deputy mayor, and I hope that's something you're very proud of.

Um it is something that as I look at this budget, want to make sure that we continue the investments on interventions that have been most effective.

Um so there's uh a number of areas of concern I have at the budget, but let me start with uh some of the grants that we've worked very closely together on on standing up and starting, and um you know, I have I'm worried about their their proposed cuts.

So first the safe and secure nonprofit grants funding.

Um we had a one-time enhancement of $750,000 last year.

What's the status of those funds?

And am I correct in that there's no money allocated for these grants for next year?

That's correct.

So the status of the funds for this year is we actually have um distributed 866,656.

The reason for that is that there was the original 746,656 that was granted at the start of the fiscal year.

After the events, there have been a number of events this year that have happened that we know um have been troubling the preschool in uh Michigan where we saw um a security incident at one of the Jewish institutions there, and others that um caused the mayor um to um to feel that it was important at that time to add additional funds to our grantees.

So uh I think it was just uh this month or earlier this month, um, we um gave the grantees an opportunity to get an additional 10,000 to support kind of emergency um security operations, and so kind of found it within the cluster and in the budget to add an additional 120,000 because I think essentially all of the grantees took us um up on that additional monies, and so that brought us to 866,656.

So, in terms of next year, I mean, you follow these trends closely and of course want all of our institutions to be safe.

I mean, what would the backup plan be if these grants were not available?

I mean, so let me start with this that from the beginning when we had discussions, like the goal is to maintain everything, right?

But the reality is this in PSJ, that our overtime costs are high, and that the that every tr every kind of decision is a was a trade-off this year.

There are very few places within PSJ, as you are aware, to find funds because I would say approximately 90% and maybe more of our agency, the the 13 plus independence budget goes into personnel services.

So when we're looking for any money within the cluster in order to support not only um increased overtime costs, we have increases at DYRS where we had to find money for additional placements because to get a waiting placement down, right?

Like we had to find additional money at the at DC jail, our numbers, our population increased, right?

And so costs for things like medical care and education and all of these also are going up.

There, like there are we had this discussion, I think, in one of the previous hearings that, as you know, there's very few spaces within PSJ where we can in any way self-correct.

Across, we are one of the drivers of overtime, which is something we've discussed, and our top agencies, OCFO was clear.

We have to add additional um overtime money into the budgets.

So when you look across the PSJ agencies overtime budgets, there's been significant increases in what was put in the FY27 budget.

Well, there again, there's very few places within our cluster where we're finding those funds.

So where we could find some to offset really became in the grants.

I said in here before, access to justice is one of those grants, and and all of the programs at um at um the OVSGG, like every program is important.

The the um the safe commercial corridors and safe and secure.

These are the the some of the only NPS dollars that could be located that could anyway support the cluster because the the to fund all of those overtime increases then comes from other parts of from other clusters, right?

Like and um from the budget as a whole.

So I say that because it's the plan is that we you know we want to continue to work with council.

We would love to, you know.

There are many ways we arrive at the budget.

We always want to work with OCFO to see if there's additional funds that can be freed for these type of purposes.

Um, and then we'll work with MPD and with our organizations to make sure that they're safe.

But that's really the reality is that it's that like every choice is every choice has been difficult.

But if we in PSJ could not find anything to support some of these personnel costs, then we're taking a course from other clusters as well, which we had to, quite frankly, in order to get to those increased, and it really is primarily the increases in in overtime that are driving the need for additions into PSJ.

Okay, so let's talk about the overtime a little bit then.

Are there any other avenues that you've explored for other funding from the federal government or elsewhere that can help assist in offsetting some of those overtime demands?

Yeah, so so I mean, uh, you know, I have very regular um interaction with with um the White House and Congress, and of course, um, you know, uh Chief of Staff for the Mayor Tamas Temonte has near daily or regular contact as well.

We have gone back to the federal government to ask them for additional funds.

A large place where we get those is EPSF.

And if you look at our original allocation, it was 30 million that went to 50 million.

It is now at 90 million in EPSF funding for this year, and that's through an ask that was made of this, you know, I think it was originally 50 million they'd gotten to, we're like, this just will not cover.

Um, and so we're asking for 100 million.

Um and we we made that ask.

That was based upon usually we only had get those type of funds in an inauguration year.

And so, for instance, last year I think the original allocation was 30, they got us to 50 in EPSF and then added 50 for inauguration.

But uh, you know, usually the budget proposal that Congress makes for that is about 30 million.

So we've really swung um the the budget uh pretty high by stating that DC that we recognize that part of a a large part of our responsibility is to s it's to safeguard the federal city, and there's a lot of activity that goes into that.

There's America 250, there's um you know, when there's global instability, there is a lot that is asked of the district.

So um there was an acknowledgement of that, and we continue to have those conversations to see if there are additional funds we can secure.

But most of that 90 million goes towards overtime at MPD, fire EMS, and then a little bit goes towards some like the other agencies that support some of these activities, but it's really that's the driver.

But because of the success in getting that fund to be raised so much, have we seen a correlating offset of our local overtime dollars?

Yes, in the sense that we don't have to add those additional 50 find the additional 50 million dollars within the local budget.

But the reality is that in some respects we've been underfunded for a long time in EPSF and the district has had to kind of eat some of those costs, and so we're like, we need to right size that.

The I think the other issue that's happened over the past several years is that while our you know, our staffing numbers still remain across the PSJ agencies, which are large by number um within kind of the the district portfolio, but there's it's with purpose that we run the most 24-7 operations in the government, Department of Corrections, DYRS, MPD, Fire EMS, OUC, right?

Like all of these are 24-7 operations, and we know that in public safety across the country, those numbers reduced.

So our demand has not reduced.

And in fact, in a lot of ways, the the demands on the district have increased, whether it's we have to keep crime low for a host of reasons.

One, our residents expect it, but also for our autonomy.

I've said it, right?

Like that that is there's no question that like that has to happen, that we need to make sure that it's safe at the jail.

Like, so we've got a staff no matter what, and we're doing all of these things to dry try and bring people in.

You know, we needed to keep nine, we have to keep 911 call times low.

So that means we gotta have people.

So it offsets, yes, but the demand hasn't decreased in such a way that we can you know kind of pull people off.

So some of the proposals that we've made on the BSA side are the things the mayor is saying, like we've got to do some PFL reform.

Because for public safety and justice, the 24-7 agencies, it is most acute in us that we cannot get scheduling regularity with so many different leave programs where people are using intermittent leave and this.

So we're using overtime a lot to kind of make sure that we're meeting compliments as well.

So I know this is gonna be a little challenging because it's calculated differently for each agency.

But for the agencies that are eligible for EPSF funding, how much overtime have we had in this fiscal year?

So I don't know that we John, do you know how much we've pulled off of the EPSF?

Because we do track it on an ongoing basis.

But I'm not sure that we have the breakdown.

Or maybe we could talk about it for one of our for MPD.

Yeah.

I can how much overtime is MPD done.

I have the number as of yesterday.

I think it was approximately 42 million, but I can um we can get the number for that, and that is in the first half of the fiscal year.

I would note that the second half of our fiscal year is the most active half of our fiscal year.

It is the summer.

We will have all of the America 250 events.

We have a lot of large-scale other events.

So where we are at nearly, you know, 42 million dollars already for the Metropolitan Police Department, we're about to hit, and that's just kind of all overtime, not EPSF specific, but we're about to hit the period where you will see that for them for fire EMS, for DHS, DPW, all the agencies significantly increase.

Right, right.

But what I'm trying to track specifically is where those federal dollars went to offset.

Like I hear you that the need is still there.

I'm I'm with you on that, but I need to know what where the that money went and how it offset, offset each of those agencies projected overtime.

So I think this, like one of the things that you'll see in the actual um uh overtime projections or what you see in the budget, the local budget, is never actually the amount that we spend in overtime, right?

So while we significantly increased what um is in the actual budget for overtime, it's not it's not necessarily close to what the overtime is.

So for instance, I don't I don't oh I can tell you possibly, you know, for like MPD.

Um if we increased you know what they're projected to 25, well, we spend nearly 100 million dollars in overtime, right?

So this is why OCFO is like, okay, we know that you're going to spend significantly more than what you were budgeting at, and and you know, um, and then later come back either through contingency, which is often what we do, or supplemental to cover those costs.

You must at the front end change some of those.

An example, I was speaking with Director Abbott yesterday.

DYRS had to budget, it's budgeted at 13 and we're gonna adjust it, but they spent 10 million dollars.

Their budget's been something like 2 million for several years.

But we know they're spending more than that, and so now there must be adjustments made because OCFO would not allow us, they would not certify that our costs were what is actually being budgeted.

So I would say that it's difficult to see the offset in the front end of what the proposals in the budget would be because there's still a large gap between what we are budgeting for and what we actually spend, right?

Like so that's what I would say when it comes to to that.

We can get the breakdowns for for um what we spend in on um EPSF.

I will say that it is a regular sort of negotiation.

I point to John, it's not John, okay?

Like John tracks it, but it's a regular negotiation with OCFO about what they'll even let us charge back to that.

We had to, because they determine whether or not what we're trying to charge to it is compliant with what they interpret the federal statute to allow.

So even this year, it was not automatic that they would allow us to charge back the the America 250 um activities.

And we did get to a place where they will allow us to charge EPSF to that because traditionally it's just been First Amendment activity.

Um that we are we're like it's federal, you know, like so it's a constant negotiation.

I I mean total agreement on all that, but I I will want to go through the specific numbers.

Yeah, and the agencies have that.

Like, so I think, you know, or we can provide that to like the actual EPSF breakdown, but but specifically like the two drivers in our cluster, MPD and FIRE EMS.

So in their breakdowns and overtime, they can tell you exactly how much they were able to allocate specifically to EPSF and how much we have to how much we allocated local and then had to add in the supplemental, which is a lot.

So in their breakdowns and overtime, they can tell you exactly how much they were able to allocate specifically to EPSF and how much we have to how much we allocated local and then had to add in the supplemental, which is a lot on our quarterly sort of when I get our FRPs, our quarterly looks, I mean there's a lot of that is a big one.

That is a lot of money is added to cover MPD overtime on the local side.

So but we can we can either get that for you or also the agencies specifically will have that breakdown as well.

Okay.

Yeah, because that that just again that's gonna be very very important through this budget process to understand what the actual overtime is, what we're expecting it to be.

Yeah.

And then those allocations as we all try to get more federal support for these efforts that are um by nature of being the nation's capital and so we're gonna need their support on on some of that overtime funding.

But I need to know what it is not just that it's large because I'm in an agreement of why it's important but I just I need to know what the numbers are.

Okay.

So let's talk about some of the other agencies um we just were speaking with Director Sneed and from ONES and um the entire family survivor support agency has been zeroed out of once.

And so if that budget continues on what would happen if somebody or if and when somebody is in need of those wraparound supports who the violence interrupters have identified as being at risk or in need of emergency relocation or grief counseling like where in the government would that need be accounted for yeah so we've we've spent the past year really right looking like taking a deep dive on what is actually being done versus what maybe people thought or or you know really kind of almost an inventory of what the services are that are being provided.

And I think in a well meaning way a lot of what we've done in some of our agencies is build subagencies that are doing services that are available in other parts of our government and that um while that's not the the most efficient way to do things.

And so in looking at some of those a lot of if if you look at OVSJG for instance who we've worked with a lot quite frankly on things like emergency relocation we took it out of ones specifically and put it at OVSJG because they are able to grant to reload share who is better at doing that who is better at monitoring who has contracts with hotels and otherwise because other when we do it directly it's a runaway cost that was like completely unmanaged and uncontrolled right like so that's one example grief supports.

Well again I say again with OVSJG or DBH, that's who we're actually working with.

So a lot of what they're doing is either referring to other um entities that already have the services and we're like okay we need to rel eliminate redundancies and the question becomes well and I think you raised this question at some point is some of that work are things that we really think the organization should do, right?

Like the actual violence interruption organizations themselves, some of it right and then some of it is available in other agencies.

So it's incumbent upon ones right like to make the appropriate referrals and that they do somewhat and then they do some things.

And a lot of FSS does good work they do but there's also other ways to do it more efficiently and that's really what we're looking at.

That that this is the truism across ones is that the ones we are focused on reducing shooting we really work to to try and be um faithful to that that the goal is reducing shooting so even if this is a good thing is there a way for us to utilize services that exist both within the cluster and the government generally we have grief support.

I can use last week's terrible homicide of the two young of the two children right that while ones is doing some of the work there was also outreach for DBH to provide um support because they work a lot in the grief space.

So you have kind of these duplicative and oftentimes OVSJG is like well we do all victim services and are funding trauma and grief support through WENT through these other entities but the agencies aren't accessing that because they have their own kind of thing they're doing.

And what we're saying is let's make sure that we are utilizing the services that we are funding and not duplicating or triplicating some of what we're funding because we have to be as wise and as disciplined as possible in how we're using our funds.

Okay.

What is going on with safe passage funding?

And I think we looked at kind of, you know, my office, like what can we stripped all the way down?

Um and and like make sure that we're still able to maintain services.