Good morning.

I am Ward 4 Councilmember Janice Lewis George and I'm chair of the Committee on Facilities.

It is 1045 a.m.

on Thursday, April 23rd, 2026.

And we are holding this budget oversight hearing for the Office of Disability Rights and the Department on Disability Services via a hybrid format with public witnesses testifying via Zoom and in person here in room 123 of the John A.

Wilson building and government witnesses are present and testifying in person.

The hearing is also being broadcast live on the council's website as well as uh Janice Wart4.com backslash live.

ASL interpretation and CART open captioning are available to attendees in the hearing room and participants in the Zoom webinar.

The District of Columbia Network Cable Broadcast will show the open captions, but not the ASL interpretation.

And so if you are watching the hearing on television and need ASL interpretation, please go to Janice Ward4.com backslash live or email facilities at DC Council.gov to get the link to join the Zoom webinar.

Here are some brief reminders for witnesses participating virtually.

All witnesses participating in this Zoom webinar are currently listed as attendees.

When it's your turn to testify, uh one of my staff members will promote you to be a panelist.

If you wish to activate your video while you testify, you have to uh click the button in the toolbar at the bottom of your screen that looks like a video camera.

If you are a virtual participant or an attendee and need ASL interpretation, you can pin the ASL interpreters by moving your cursor over their viewing box and clicking the three dots in the top right corner and then click pin.

Um if you need captioning, you can adjust the size, display, and location of the open captioning by clicking on the closed captioning button at the bottom of your screen and select show captions and then select caption settings.

If you have any technical issues or questions during the hearing, please notify the committee staff via the QA function of the Zoom or by sending an email to facilities at DC Council.gov.

Public witnesses from bona fide organizations will be given five minutes to testify, and uh public witnesses from those same organizations will be given three minutes.

All other public witnesses uh will be given uh three minutes.

Um, all testimony and pre-hearing documents have been submitted, uh are all available now on the council's hearing management system, and I ask witnesses to please do the following before their testimony.

First, if you are comfortable, please share your pronouns before beginning your testimony so my colleagues and I do not misidentify you.

We do want do not want to uh offend anyone.

Uh second, please begin with a brief description of yourself.

Uh for example, I am a black woman in my mid-30s with uh short black hair, wearing a tan short sleeve pantsuit and silver pearls around my neck.

Uh third, please be mindful of your pace.

Um let me remind myself that right now.

Uh please be mindful of your pace uh when delivering your testimony uh for our fantastic ASL interpreters and captioners.

Um and finally, if you've not done so already, please submit your written uh copy of your testimony for the record by either uploading it uh to the hearing management system or emailing facilities at DC Council.gov.

The record for this hearing closes at 5 p.m.

on Thursday, May 7th.

Uh with that, um, I do not see any of my colleagues present at the moment, and so uh we will be starting with the Office of Disability Rights with public and then government witnesses, uh followed by the public and then government witnesses for the Department on Disability Services.

I understand that many uh of our um disability services witnesses are actually at an amazing program at the MLK library, and so um we will uh hear from them uh during that uh after that time period.

Uh for public witnesses, uh panel one, we have uh Tisha Cockrel, who is the president of the Friends of Riggs LaSalle Recreation Center, as well as Matthew Gilbash, the Vice President of the DC Association of the Deaf.

And so Tishik, uh, I will recognize you first to give your testimony.

Good morning.

Hello.

Good morning.

Thank you, Councilmember and Chair, Janice Lewis George.

My name is Tisha Cockrail, and I'm the president of Friends of Riggs LaSalle Recreation Center.

We are partnered with the DC Park Department of Parks and Recreation, and we have worked together with several site directors and the ever-changing staff at our community Riggs LaSalle Recreation Center.

We are here today for our previous testimony since 2019 to present via the Committee on Facilities Performance and Budging Hearings.

We wish to continue our plea to receive funds and assistance with site maintenance repairs additions and new item requests.

Let me stop there.

I forgot to say that I my pronouns are she, her, and I am a African American female in her 50s with brown rim glasses, long dark hair, and a gray blazer.

So we've uh recently participated in several calls, meeting and discussions with Department of Parks and Recreation, and we still have the problem of replacing and repairing the exterior entrance door on the Nicholson Street side, northeast side.

The front door push bars broken, and this door needs to be ADA compliant and is currently not in compliance.

It needs repair and upgrade.

We've contacted several departments regarding this issue.

Now I did receive a late in the evening email from DGS that said, Good afternoon.

I'm happy to report to updates, ADA accessible doors are on order for the front entrance to Riggs LaSalle Recreation Center, and installation is scheduled for this spring, and further upgrades for the roof as well.

My question is what part of spring will we be ready with the ADA compliance of this door as spring ends in the third week of June?

And so that is my testimony for today, and I will stand by for any questions and concerns.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Matthew Gilbash.

Okay.

Matthew has let the team know he is under the weather, and so they will be submitting uh the DC Association of the Deaf will be submitting their testimony on our hearing management system, and so that will be a part of the official record, but he was under the weather and unable to testify.

At this time, are there any other witnesses who wanted to testify under the Office of Disability Rights who are online or in person that have not been recognized before we move to government witnesses?

If so, please raise your hand in the Zoom.

And if you were in person, you can come sit in front of us.

All right.

Seeing none, uh we will then move to our government witnesses today.

Uh here was us today from the Office of Disability Rights is uh Peter Stefan, the interim director of the Office of Disability Rights.

Uh Nock Trin, uh the Chief of Staff of the Office of Disability Rights, Executive Director Curry Cook of the Division of Deaf, Deaf Blind, and Hard of Hearing Office of Disability Rights, and Alison White, who is the executive director of the Developmental Disabilities Council.

Good morning, and thank you all for being here today.

Before you begin your testimonies, I am going to administer an oath to you all.

If you could please raise your right hands if able.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Chairperson Lewis George and members of the Committee on Facilities.

My name is Peter Stefan.

My pronouns are he.

I'm a middle-aged person with medium uh length wavy hair and uh gray suit and blue tie.

I am the interim director of the Office of Disability Rights, or ODR.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the agency's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget.

Mayor Bowser's proposed FY27 budget, GROW DC was formulated with three 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 investments 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 the federal workforce reductions have introduced new pressures on our economy and the commercial corridors.

That being said, let me be clear.

Revenues had 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 in this spirit, I'd like to address how the mayor's budget will directly benefit our residents with disabilities and reflect the needs and priorities identified by district residents.

ODR leads the District of Columbia government's commitment to the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, and compliance with all other federal and local disability related laws.

The district remains a national leader in ensuring that government programs, services, and facilities are fully accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.

ODR actively supports, promotes, and works to advance the protections available under the ADA and other related laws.

Specifically, our agency provides guidance, information, and technical assistance to district government agencies and the public.

Additionally, ODR conducts extensive training across all levels of district government, from new employee orientation to mandatory manager training, from risk and building managers to health care workers, attorneys, and agency leadership.

ODR also provides administrative support to the federally funded developmental disabilities council and the Mayor's Commission on Persons with Disabilities.

ODR's Division of Deaf, Deafblind, and Hard of Hearing provides outreach and education through trainings on cultural competency as well as community events that celebrate and promote the deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing community in DC.

The division's effective communication program provides a unified system for ensuring effective communication is provided across district agencies.

So for FY27, ODR proposes a total operating budget of $3,734,902.

While this is a 4% reduction from FY26, we will continue with all our staff to fulfill our core mission.

The proposed budget includes 626,312 in federal funding to the Developmental Disabilities Council to assist in implementing its next five-year state plan from FY27 to 2031 to improve the quality of life for all district residents with developmental disabilities and their families.

And 1,652,114 for the Division of Deaf, Deaf Blind, and Hard of Hearing, which includes full funding for the effective communication program and supports strong daily advocacy for the community.

The remaining 1,456,476 supports ODR's core technical assistance and compliance work with our 11 dedicated professionals whose commitment ensures the district continues to serve as a national model for accessibility.

The FY27 budget will support several key initiatives, including continued engagement and work with all district agencies and their ADA coordinators in identifying and effectively implementing their annual ADA compliance plans.

Continued expansion of training to district government staff across agencies at all levels.

Continued partnership with multiple district agencies and community stakeholders to implement the district's 2025 to 2027 Olmstead Community Integration Plan while leading the planning for the next three years.

Coordination with the Office of Risk Management, DC Public Schools, and the Office of the State Superintendent of Education on Streamlining School Accessibility Surveys and ADA standards-based recommendations.

And expanded work with the Office of Chief Technology Officer to advance Title II digital accessibility training and compliance.

ODR is proud of the district's progress towards full accessibility and inclusion under Mayor Bowser's leadership.

ODR is committed to ensuring the District of Columbia serves as a national model of accessibility.

And I want to express my deep appreciation for the staff of ODR, the division, the DD Council, as well as members of the DC Commission on Persons with Disabilities for their relentless efforts and commitment to improving district residents with disabilities' lives.

In closing, thank you, Chairperson Lewis George and members of the committee for your leadership and support.

ODR looks forward to working with the committee to advance accessibility and disability justice across the district.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you so much.

As you mentioned, ODR's fiscal year 27 operating budget is about 3.7 million and about 4 per 4% less from fiscal year 26.

4% is not a large cut overall, but for smaller agencies like ODR, even slight increases and decreases can have big impacts.

For example, programmatic changes, it looks like there is a 13,000 or 59% reduction to property asset and logistics management.

It is not at 9,000, which where which is where it was in 2025.

Do you have uh we got some cut uh in NPS?

But we uh we plan to continue our mission and uh won't let uh any of our will be affected.

Uh we understand the environment we are in and uh all agencies uh uh sharing the burden.

Okay.

Um I understand it.

I think there was a similar situation with training and development when I look at it.

There was a 61,000 or 40 percent reduction from fiscal year 26 to 27, but the 90,000 in fiscal year 27 is about the same as fiscal year 26.

Were there any one-time expenses that required it to be 22,000 in fiscal year 26?

And is there anything that you are are not gonna be able to do in 27 that you were able to do in 26?

We don't anticipate any changes to our training in FY27 based on those changes in the numbers.

Okay.

I was encouraged to see uh what is a 15,000 or 55 percent increase to the budget for ODR's investigations unit.

Director Stefan, can you elaborate on the reason behind this increase?

And does that mean ODR expects to be able to conduct more investigations of ADA violations through the increase?

So I think our mission is to continue to ensure compliance through the ADA um compliance plan, submission review, and then follow-up through that process.

Um the investigations to the extent we receive complaints, we um follow up through informal investigations, um, but the the budget doesn't affect that process.

Okay.

So what's the the 55% increase?

What does that go?

What is what do you attribute that increase to?

Okay.

Yeah.

Good morning.

Uh the $55,000 increases due to step increases and other personnel adjustments.

Got it.

Okay.

That's what I want to understand.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I do want to talk about personnel and FTEs.

I'm seeing a 370,000 reduction in continuing full time and a 280,000 increase to account for part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees.

The number of FTEs is the same at 26.

Does this mean ODR is transitioning two of its full-time positions to part-time?

And if so, what are those positions and why are they being made part-time?

No, no.

The number of staff are the same.

Um we actually um net saved a quarter of uh FTE in terms of um the budget team that the division was using in the um mayor's office.

We are now utilizing our own budget team to help with that.

So that's where the point two five comes from.

Um then as far as the um positions, there's no change to the number as you noted.

Um there are some vacancies, but um those are two are being held for uh cost savings, and then um two have been posted for the division, and then um there is the attorney advisor and general counsel position that were part of the um previous position I occupied, and so we are working on replacing um finding someone to replace me.

Um, and then the two vacancies uh that are currently in the sorry uh the two vacancies that are currently in the division, it it's going to be filled very soon.

Okay.

I'm seeing uh 10,000 or 48 percent reduction to supplies and materials.

The 11,000 in fiscal year 27 is still 10,000 more than in fiscal year 25.

Um why was the 21,000 needed in fiscal year 26?

And how is 11,000 going to be sufficient for fiscal year 27?

So again, we're just um sharing the burden.

It's it's uh cut across the district agencies um that uh we we are in the same vote as everyone else.

Okay.

And and we feel confident that we can continue our core mission with the the budget provided for those supplies.

Okay.

I'm seeing the same in purchase and uh purchasing and equipment, which was completely zeroed out from 7,000 in fiscal year 26.

Why was that?

Is there anything ODR will not be able to purchase in fiscal year 27 as a result of that being zeroed out?

So, yeah, go ahead.

Well, I was just gonna say we we are planning to purchase some um equipment to enable um you know better communication uh laptops and the like this year, so that we are prepared next year for that not to have to be purchased.

Okay.

So before the fiscal year closes out this year, you'll get whatever materials you need as a result.

Okay.

Um both DCPS and uh DPR have dedicated ADA compliance projects in their capital budgets.

Um the mayor's proposed budget includes 1.5 million for DCPS and 2.14.14 million for DPR in fiscal year 27.

Was ODR consulted about the amount or which projects should be included in these ADA dedicated budgets?

So I don't know about how this aligns with the budget for those agencies, but we have been in close consultation with DCPS on surveying schools and also how to streamline that process going forward.

So we have met with their chief operating officer and facility team and the ADA coordinator that handles the surveys to um obviously provide ongoing guidance, but also at our last meeting in April, they are working on um coordinating compliance surveys that they do for us with other agencies, ORM and Aussie, both have similar um compliance survey requirements.

Um of those questions are significantly overlapping.

So we're working with them to streamline that and try to make it more uniform.

We're happy to help help if we need to streamline things so that they could be more um timely and effective in what they report to you all.

Um I understand uh I think we talked about according to the capital improvement plan that we see.

DCBS plans to use all of the 1.5 million on an elevator replacement at SUSE Middle School.

Um and SUSE certainly needs a new elevator, it is an older building, and and that is uh essential, but I'm concerned DCPS's entire ADA capital budget is eight is only able to pay for one elevator for one school.

Um as we talked about previously, elevators are a major ADA barrier at our D schools, and I don't think we can say ADA compliance and accessibility is being prioritized from a facilities perspective if we aren't adding sufficient funds to replace elevators that are consistently unreliable.

I so I guess my ask is that ODR reach out to DCPS and DPR to review how the agencies plan to spend the funding and to truly evaluate, which I'll ask them during their hearing, whether 1.5 million for an entire DC public schools budget is a uh enough for of ADA compliance budget is enough given what we understand and know about the issues that are happening across the city, um, especially within our schools.

Um while we're talking about DCPS, what progress has been made with DCPS participation in the ADA compliance program.

Have any plans been been submitted uh Section 5 facilities inspections been conducted since the performance oversight hearing?

Um thank you, Councilmember, for that question.

So since then, like I mentioned, we've met with the team at DCPS.

They're making good progress on those surveys.

Um they're not done yet, but they said that they would finish all school surveys soon.

Okay.

Especially because this time and budget is a critical importance for us to figure out what actually we need to be allocating to ADA compliance projects across the um DC public schools and capital budget.

I want to thank you all, ODR for engaging with Ms.

Carkrow and the Friends of on getting this done with just for people with disabilities.

We have a lot of seniors in Lamar Riggs neighborhood, particularly.

Yes, um, Councilmember, thank you.

We will keep uh on top of that and provide updates.

Um I was there yesterday to um inspect the the facility and talk with the staff there.

So and then uh in addition to DCPS, I want to make sure you also take a look at DPR's dedicated ADA compliance projects and ensure that those that that is enough funding and support to also deal with what we know is a um consistent systemic issue across DPR um facilities, especially our senior centers with ADA compliance across the board.

Um and if you need to make a recommendation, because my understanding is that they're having to order doors, 88 doors, if that seems to be a persistent or systemic issue across the board where we need to have more ADA doors just within the um warehouse a facility, please, you know, we want to know if that's a recommendation you'll be making to DGS team and overall for DPR and DP uh DCPS.

Okay.

Um I don't have any additional questions for you, but I do want to turn to Director Cook.

All right.

All right.

Uh we are going to turn it into division of deaf, deaf blind uh and hard of hearing.

Uh Director, there was a 124,000 or 7% reduction in to the division of deaf, deaf blind and hard of hearing.

Uh Director Cook, where was this cut made within the division?

Um, and will the division be unable to do anything in fiscal year 27 that it was able to do in fiscal year 26 as a result of that cut?

I will defer it to the director because he is responsible for the budget, so I do feel he'd more appropriate to answer that question.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Director.

Um Councilmember, can you repeat the question?

Yeah, there was a 124,000 or 7% reduction to the division of deaf, deaf, blind, and hard of hearing.

And I want to understand uh where was this cut made within the division?

And is there anything that this division will be unable to do in fiscal year 27 that it was able to do in 26 as a result of this cut?

So and let me correct me if I'm not understanding the question, but um my understanding is that the cut that you referenced is related to the um 110,000 listed on the um local policy, local funds that were actually restored for the ECP program.

So though it was initially um suggested as a cut, I believe there was a policy decision to restore that to full funding.

Okay.

And my team will correct me if I'm wrong.

I would also uh there are a couple of components of that.

One is uh contract services that is uh cut or reduced as a result of consolidation of activities, but another component of that is as uh director Stefan had indicated.

We had uh budget analyst and a uh budget officer that were partially funded uh through uh deaf, deafline and hard of hearing, which had um at this point had been cut out for the fiscal year 27 budget as a result of no longer needing that type of support externally from OCFO.

Okay.

I thank you for that.

Um Director Cook, we are seeing the district government government having to pay more for virtually everything from security to construction materials to disability supports and services.

How have the costs for interpreter services been trending over the last several years?

And are the budgets for the effective communications program sufficient to keep providing accommodations with rising cost?

So we contract out.

Can you hear me?

We contract out with three vendors at the moment.

And those goes out, the SOW statement of work goes out typically in May soon.

And that's when we see whether or not the increase will be there.

I do suspect there will be an increase, but I don't think there will be a significant increase to the point where we're unable to cover our services with the funds that we do have.

If that is the case, we will circle back.

But I I don't foresee that because everyone is impacted by the economy, but everybody wants contracts as well.

So we're trying to remain competitive and in the process of remaining competitive, we're able to get um a good value for the funds that we do have allocated to the program.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um after the performance oversight hearing, the committee received testimony from uh residents who are of the hard of hearing uh community about their concerns uh um and uh with I guess representation accommodations and outreach.

Um they point out that the hard of hearing community is the largest among the division's constituents.

Um is there anything in this budget specifically for helping out our hard of hearing residents?

We do not have any specific budget for any community, be a deaf buy and hard of hearing, deaf disable deaf people.

We don't have any allocation for specific community.

All of our work focuses on the most marginalized, which includes hard of hearing community.

We do have several out of hearing members um who are part of our staff.

Of course, we are not going to identify them for privacy reasons, but they are represented not only in the staff but also in the work that we do.

We have a versioning represent of versioning relationship with the HLLA DC, which is a hearing loss association of America of DC that has a very strong um hard of hearing presence, primarily senior citizens, um, which is I wouldn't say unique, but um definitely other districts of the states rather um sometimes population varies.

Where we're realizing most of our outreach is hitting is with um hard of hearing people who are part of um marginalized communities, so career hard of hearing people, um POC, hard of hearing people, those are the communities that we see are more responsive to our outreach and responsive to our resources and responsive to our events and programs.

Um so that is where we're we're thrilled.

Um we always want to make sure the heart of hearing community is represented as someone who is hard of hearing.

That is something that is um absolutely crucial to me.

And um I I always want to make sure that if we can enhance any partnership, the doors always open.

And not only that, but we're always willing to walk through their doors as well.

Awesome.

Thank you so much for that.

Um I want to ask uh uh revising another topic we discussed in February are the upcoming um elections.

Um we've been reached out by several uh members of um various communities represented by you all uh collectively as as an agency.

Um during the council's administrative meeting on Monday, I asked Executive Director Evans about the Board of Elections efforts to make our elections accessible.

Um I was surprised that the ADA coordinator position at the Board of Elections is currently vacant.

Uh that position uh I believe was posted earlier this month.

I don't know what the likelihood of it being fielded before what is a historic election of a different nature as there is a new system in place, as you all know with ranked choice voting that's giving some anxiety to uh specific communities across the board.

Um and while Board of Elections is doing education and training, um, because this ADA coordinate position is vacant at the Board of Elections right now.

Um I have to ask what is the Office of Disability Rights doing?

Um what is uh about working um with the Board of Elections during this moment, who is ODR in the division been working with since the position became vacant, and has this vacancy impacted your ability to coordinate with BO VOE or making uh changes and and making sure ranked choice voting is accessible for residents with disabilities and residents who are deaf, deaf, blind, and harder hearing.

So we have been working with them for about two years now.

The division, formerly the office was and still is a registered voting site.

So people can come up to anyone can come up to any of our events, come to our office and become a registered voter.

So we've always had a very strong relationship with the DCBOE.

Even so to the point that we have monthly, I would say monthly workshops and trainings and outreach, both virtually in person, would aid.

I think I believe tomorrow our um BOE assessment ranked choice um workshop workshop will be at Mother's table.

So we're we're we're we're trying to hit all the communities, all the neighborhoods, um, and all availabilities of time, right?

Because some people are working during the day or they're not working, so they're only available in the evening, so on and so forth.

What I have been exceptionally pleased by is the fact that we're not working with one person.

So even though the ADA coordinator is not there, it doesn't really impact us because every single workshop we have no less than four people from BOE show up.

Okay.

Sometimes they will even bring the machines.

Our last session was really um exciting because we had a deafline consistent who said, oh, for the first time I finally understand how to use these machines, right?

And this was for rank rank choice, um, which people think is you know super complicated.

But once you once we get a little bit of information, it's pretty like, oh, okay, I get it.

Um we're really thrilled about that.

So our relationship with BOE is absolutely very, very strong.

And it what I like about them, and I and I wish all district agencies could um can follow suit.

They don't think that it's the responsibility of the ADA coordinator to be accessible.

We think it's all of their responsibilities, and that that's been working really well for us.

So I'm not concerned.

Um I just say about the agency having that vacancy because the they're not reliant on one person to be acceptable.

They want to make sure everyone understands the rules.

Um they've taken our training, we've taken our training as well, become a registered um voting site.

So um it's been absolutely positive on our end.

Thank you so much.

I'm happy to hear those efforts.

And um I just want to echo everything that Director Cook said.

I think kudos to the division for hosting a number of lunch and learn sessions on ranked choice voting, um virtual as well as in person and in different wards, ward six, ward eight, ward four.

Um, and they've uh we've already signed an MOU with BOE to um have uh vendor support ASL interpretation for their content.

Um and then we also um uh ODR has also done uh other outreach, 12 outreach events in the last couple months at senior centers and rec centers to provide information and outreach on this.

Um we hosted um the partnered with BOE at the Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month award ceremony.

Um we actually had a voting machine there so um people could could test uh test it out, and then also worked with DDS um to bring BOE to their provider and community forum to speak specifically, target you know the disability community, not just people but also um families and providers.

So um through that we've reached over 400 people, so um yeah, it's been great.

Okay.

Um if you all um it sounds like things are going well.

Um do you all plan on providing um on site support during election day um and during early voting?

Yes, um we're working with VOE to make sure that we have accessibility at minimum one um in-person ASL translator in Eastwood, at least one um location in Eastwood.

We're still trying to figure out the the sites where that would be most applicable.

Um so for example, Ward 5 has a significant population with six as well.

So um we're still trying to um fine-tune and figure out which exact location will be, but every single um site will also have VLI option, and if which is um virtual um remote interpreting.

So if someone says no, I don't want VLI A1 in person, BOE is ready to deploy someone out there um if needed.

Right.

And in addition to effective communication for facility access um in advance of the early elections and election day voting, we uh have our team um as they're available to go out to the sites and survey for um facility access, physical access, and making recommendations to the board as needed to make modifications either to the sites or to change those sites as needed.

Um but yes, we're working to answer your question before about who we're working with.

Um our point of contact has been Terry Stroud, the general counsel, so she's been fantastic to work with.

Okay, great.

Um thank you all.

And as um you all make observations on election day for the primary, uh, the hope is that you'll give recommendations for the general election if you see anything where improvements should be made or anything that works that you think needs to be continued in that respect and to just be monitoring that as we have gotten emails and letters to the facilities committee and making sure that you all are a part of this process and that their communities, that your communities that you represent are represented in in the thoughtfulness of how this is rolled out.

Um and that their communities that your communities that you represent are represented in in the thoughtfulness of how this is rolled out.

So thank you from what I'm hearing, that is happening, and I appreciate those efforts.

Um the last thing I want to address before we move on.

Um, last year when the mayor proposed moving the mayor's office of deaf deaf plot and hard hearing out of the office of community affairs.

Uh we were assured the placement into DDS was purely budgetary and the office would be able to function completely independently.

As you all know, this committee decided to change the destination of the office from DDS to ODR.

Uh since then, this committee has received lots of inquiries and testimonies from deaf, deaf blind, deaf disabled heart hearing, um, and latent deaf and residents about uh moving the mayor's office of deaf death blind heart of hearing out of the office of community affairs, and now the division has been operating with an ODR.

Um some are happy that the division has now been able to better focus on its statutory mission of ensuring compliance and doing outreach targeted at its constituencies rather than needing to participate in general public events put on by the executive's office of the mayor.

Uh while some are worried the division will not have the ability and budget to serve the needs of the constituencies that the division knows uh better than anyone else in district government.

Um given the large interest in the future of both offices and the wide range of changes that could be made.

Um I don't think a budget support acts of title uh without a robust legislative process is the proper way to consider and make those changes.

Um and so um with that said, uh, we are going to um do our best to have the conversations we need to have um within uh the committee and with uh with participating organizations as well as the community.

Um what I want to know uh ODR will if you all will allow the division to execute um its mission as it sees fit within the bounds of the division's budget and establishment act.

Uh yes, council member.

We have been working with the division to identify um and set its own priorities based on communities um you know, input and uh aligned with the codified duties.

Okay.

And I want to ensure that ODR and the division will work collaboratively to best serve district residents, employees with disabilities, and those who are deaf, deafline, deaf, disabled, hard of hearing, and late indefinite.

Um is there anything else either of you would like to add on this particular subject?

Okay.

Uh with that, uh that is those those are all the questions I have for you all.

Uh we will now take a short break and then resume with budget oversight hearing for the Department on Disability Services, starting with public witnesses and then turning to our government witnesses.

Thank you very much.

Uh we uh will now begin on the department on disability services, uh, starting with public witnesses.

Robert Warren, Talib Kareem Muhammad, Celeste Strowman, Robert Kennedy Junior, co vice president of Project Action, Victor Robinson, peer mentor, Project Action, and Leonard Stevens, advisor, Project Action.

So uh turning to Lee Kareem Mohammed, you will actually be first up if you're ready to begin your testimony.

And blessing us to be here today.

Um good morning, Chairwoman, uh Lewis George and members of the committee on facilities.

My name is Talib Kareem Mohammed.

I am an engineer, lawyer, uh run a nonprofit organization called STEM for Us, uh also a uh technology platform named Abe Legal that helps people to find quality and seasoned lawyers as easy as getting an Uber.

And uh I have been talking about how we can make DC safe, affordable, and free as a candidate for mayor.

Today I'm here to testify on behalf of the residents uh of all eight wards, uh, in response to the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget for the Office of Disability Rights.

We believe that the District of Columbia as the capital should be the national model for accessibility.

However, the reality is that our streets tell a vastly different and far more dangerous story.

This was no better clear of a contradiction than during the winter storm catastrophe.

During the severe snowstorms earlier this year, the district government's snow removal performance was abysmal.

That failure actively endangered our disabled residents.

We witnessed a complete breakdown of basic government services.

What do I mean?

Impassable infrastructure, sidewalks were narrowly shoveled, and critical curbs, cuts, and ADA ramps were completely blocked by the mountains of plowed snow and concrete, or snow creep, if you will.

The dangerous alternatives.

Because the district failed to clear these pathways, district residents who rely on motorized wheelchairs and walkers and canes were forced into a unsafe pedestrian zone and into, in fact, busy dangerous streets.

I'm sure you all saw the uh picture of the uh disabled woman trying to traverse uh in this uh snow-filled streets.

I know my time is coming to end.

And I'll just say this.

That as the next mayor, you can count on me making sure that our disabled and our senior residents are never put into such a position.

The council's oversight of the department was totally a failure, and we will work and make sure that we do everything necessary to prepare for the next snow disaster.

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh next we will hear from Robert Kennedy Jr., uh co-vice president of our uh project action.

Um say good morning.

I hope it's still morning.

Good morning, yeah.

Seven more minutes.

Still morning.

Um I'm gonna say before I start, I'm gonna say congratulations on you.

Again, because uh um my name is Robert Kennedy.

I live in Wu-Fi.

Uh work at RCM of Washington.

Uh my thing.

Like I said, the uh a couple of days like people with special needs.

Uh uh I have special needs too, also.

And about job-wise.

People with press needs need jobs.

Ready ready to work, ready to be doing things.

Uh learning.

How to do a lot, like I did back in the seventh when uh when I worked at the National Lations Board, and we're how to learn the supply clerk, uh how to move typewriters, computers, and all that stuff.

But the other other stuff where they need to be doing.

Yeah.

Uh also nothing yes.

Oh, yeah, did he yes?

Um I have people in my home helping me.

Uh the laundry.

I know to do laundry, but going out going to the doctor, going to different places, need to go places where they're supposed to be doing.

Where we're getting help, you know.

Georgetown has help help me have where we're the doctor that like I wanted the doctor a couple of months ago for my hip.

And the daughter to ask some questions, they supposed to ask me questions.

They posted through the whole nine yards.

Um what else?

The um Medicaid, I've been sitting in front of y'all.

Talking about Medicaid.

I've been here.

I don't know.

I've been hearing today, don't know if we can stop Medicaid to do this and stuff.

We need Medicaid, my aid in children.

Well, I say that because if you stop Medicaid, and where I'm at right now, uh I'm gonna have to pay and all that stuff.

Uh one yeah, I used to campaign and fund that.

Fund y'all uh uh uh city hall here and stuff like that.

But the Medicaid thing, we need the Medicaid.

We need to wear that supposed to be.

And with how how my age is that how do we get around getting equipment, doing something free, or you know, what are we supposed to be doing.

Hey, you have any questions?

I'm here.

I will.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Um next we will hear from Carrie Flora, who is the senior attorney at Quality Trust for Individuals with Disabilities.

Good morning, Chair Lewis George.

My name is Carrie Flora.

I use she, her pronouns.

I am a white American Indian woman with long dark hair.

I'm wearing a white blazer.

I am the senior attorney at Quality Trust for Individuals with Disabilities.

QT is a nonprofit organization that has been advancing the interests of DC residents with developmental disabilities since 2001.

QT monitors the quality of the services provided to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and advocates for whatever changes or improvements are needed to enable people to live full, healthy, and meaningful lives.

Since our founding QT has supported thousands of people with disabilities through our legal lay advocacy and monitoring programs as well as systemic initiatives.

The Department on Disabilities Administration waiting list policy um established in 2022 states that DDA will establish a waiting list if the maximum number of particip or I'm sorry, if the IDD and individual and family support waiver slots are not available because the maximum number of participants are being served.

In the last year, DDS has stated that despite the number of waiver slots they asked the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to approve, and despite those slots not yet being filled, they plan to implement a waiting list.

DDS has not explained how they have determined that the maximum number of participants is being served pursuant to their waiting list policy when there are still IDD and IFS waiver slots available.

We asked the council to require DDS to explain how many IDD and IFS waiver slots the current budget proposal would fund and how much additional funding DDS estimates would be needed to avoid the need for a waiting list.

Ultimately, Quality Trust supports the mayor's budget proposal for DDS at a minimum, and we urge the council to support the proposal as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Robert Warren, Celeste Strowman.

Okay.

What specifically will you like to see DPW and DGS do differently?

And how do you think ODR, uh, Office of Disability Rights and DDS Disability Services can help improve the level of accessibility to the district's next uh snow response.

Absolutely.

Very good questions, uh, Councilmember.

And I I totally believe that there was a a failure of vision.

There was no clear uh you know use of just the basic uh tools that we have like atlases.

I'm an engineer.

And so I know that uh you know there are predictive uh method methods and uh and algorithms that uh suggested that the snowstorm was in fact gonna even be worse.

Uh but we chose not to use uh technologies like AI and other uh mechanisms that were available to us to plan and predict and prepare.

Uh and particularly uh for what should have been done to make sure that our disabled residents were not stuck in their home, not um uh able to go to either doctors' visits or go to uh places of worship or go and get groceries.

I had some neighbors tell me that they were literally um not able to leave their house for weeks.

This is uh unacceptable.

So I think that one, we need to use the technologies that are available, and two, we need to make sure that our our our um agencies uh such as those that are responsible for the disabled and the seniors are working lockstep with uh those agencies responsible for things such as snow removal.

And lastly, I think that New York did a great job by employing its own residents uh when there were a lack of uh city resources, um a lack of uh either you know shovels or a lack of uh people who had plows.

They reached out to the the the great people of New York to actually solve the problem.

Why could not we have done the same here in the District of Columbia?

We are going to be the capital, which is again supposed to be the model, we should be leading, not following, and prayerfully as the next mayor, we will actually do just that.

Uh thank you for your response there.

Um I wanna um uh talk come to you, Robert.

Uh first of all, just talking about jobs um in district government for people with disabilities.

Um how are you able to you know uh get connected to jobs and what can we do to make it easier for people with disabilities to get connected to jobs um in district government and what kind of jobs should we be thinking about?

Um I work at uh uh RCM.

They they have people in you know hard for people for jobs and stuff like that during sitting just like yesterday, uh somebody came in for the different jobs, and I mean, and then they um go the prison go with the person with the jobs, you know, with the jobs they uh asked for, okay.

Um it's like every Wednesday and Thursday somebody comes comes in.

Good, you know.

And and um also they the person have tell me who's coming in.

Okay, I've seen that at that front test.

Yes.

You know, they put the tell me who coming, whose butt, and stuff like that.

Yes.

I go attend them to the person.

Sorry.

Go to the person and stuff like that.

Wonderful.

Um and then I know you talked about your doctor visits, um, and and I agree, Medicaid is so critically important for uh communities.

Um, there's no no no, okay.

I don't know why I say that because also I'm with Georgetown students.

Okay.

And Dr.

Blooded.

They had taught me how you go to the doctor, they not probably sign my name.

They do not when when the the doctor asked questions.

Okay?

Mm-hmm.

My ay not supposed to be uh asking no question.

They're supposed to talk to me.

Yes.

Talk to me.

Because uh a couple of weeks ago I went to Georgetown and I'm uh uh a went with me.

Can I ask the question?

I said no, you can't answer.

You put you put the look at me.

You know?

Yes, so advocating for yourself.

Yeah.

I mean I've been doing it, but it's one I was like back then with a project action.

I don't know, I was kind of nervous, but now I'm more out of the outdip of more.

Yes.

Doing now and more.

Listen.

Yes.

And I stayed at DDS.

I had learn.

Like Georgetown and stuff.

So if you're listening.

And learn.

Oh, no, no.

You know, but we're doing that.

No, no, no.

I'm seventy-four years old.

I had great teachers.

I had great teachers.

You will learn a whole lot.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you so much.

Um, Ms.

Florida, thank you for your testimony.

Um I'm gonna ask DDS all the questions you raised about the waiting lists.

I know they're anticipating those questions coming from me.

Um, because I share some of your concerns.

Um if a waiting list is imposed and residents uh impose and residents um how do you think and and residents are put on it?

How do you think a waiting list will affect providers?

Uh will a waiting list change how individuals are connected with providers.

Um that's a great question.

I I know that Ian will be testifying today, and he can probably answer that question better than I can.

Um but I can imagine that it would impact providers um and everybody and across the board, and then that's why we as advocates um I think all share this concern around the waiting list and the impact that it will have um on everybody that it served and and providers as well.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

Um I want to thank this panel of witnesses.

Uh we are going to go to uh our second uh panel of witnesses.

Uh Ian Paragall, executive director of DC Coalition of Disability Service Providers.

Robin Shafford, the faculty member at Georgetown University Center for Excellence and Developmental Disabilities.

Sandy Bernstein, legal director of disability rights DC at University Legal Services.

And then Victor Robinson, uh peer mentor, Project Action.

Leonard Stevens advisor.

Project Action.

Ricardo Thornton Senior, co-president of Project Action.

And I know they may be joining online, and so we will give them time to do that.

Uh before we start, we're actually going to take a two-minute break for our captioners.

Exactly.

Okay, great.

Thank you all very much.

We will uh now begin uh with Ian.

Good.

Uh good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Am I on?

Yeah.

Yes.

Uh I am Ian Paragall, he him, and I serve as the exec director of the DC Coalition Disability Service Providers.

I'm a middle-aged white man with classes.

The DC coalition currently represents over 50 provider agencies supporting over 2300 persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and employing over 6,000 staff.

On behalf of the IDD provider agencies and those whom they support, we are concerned about the cuts that were proposed in the FY27 budget as they relate to DDS specifically, three things.

The reduction of the administrative fee support funding known as Clinate line item, the freeze on the continuation of the funding for the DSP rate payment act, and the continuing lack of funding for the elements of support under the Human Care Agreement or HCA as the cost of living in the district continue to rise.

I'm going to focus my comments today on the reinstatement of the administrative fee, since quite frankly, that's that's the area of concern with the most immediate impact.

As I noted in my oversight testimony, the coalition anticipated the mayor's FY27 budget would fail to include the necessary funding to reinstate the administrative fee for residential services for the uh 2027 fiscal year.

This reduction amounts to approximately 1.6 million dollars in savings for the district, but the harm that this reduction will have on the provider world is substantial.

IDD providers have been operating in the red for years as the result of continued turnover, high vacancy rates in the industry, and most recently in November 2025, DDS began an HCA accounting initiative that has resulted in tens of thousands of hours of additional administrative work for the provider community, as I shared more fully this past February.

Given the extensive scope of the submissions that each provider now has associated with this HCA reconciliations, in conjunction with the other continued underfunding and increased support costs, the DC coalition seeks the reinstatement of the administrative fee tied to residential services.

Because the facilities committee has astutely recognized the actual need for this funding, the proposed uh departmental reduction has been partially reinstated over the last two years.

For FY27, again, DDS's reduction proposed for this line item in the budget only pushes human service providers further behind and destabilizes supports.

For this reason, we asked that this 1.6 million uh be reinstated or allocated by the council toward the budget in order to bring the administrative rate fee back to the total supplemented FY26 amount.

And while some of the other budgetary concerns within my testimony are more detailed, let me just touch on a couple areas.

We're concerned that the direct support wage allocations of the DSP uh rate payment act are not included in the financial plan for future budgeting purposes.

From 2014 until the implementation of the Rate Payment Act, the DC coalition provided data and analytics which demonstrated that because the DSP wage was eroding, workers continued to leave uh uh the direct support workforce.

And as a result of that analysis, the act was unanimously passed by the council.

The act provided that the district would adjust fund the funding formula for provider rates to account for the continuing uh budgetary allocation of 117.6 percent above the DC living wage for all HCBS waiver and IC uh ICF DSPs.

This 117% uh factor was extended to the wages of the home health aids through a separate budget support act in 2021.

Further, in 2024, the DC Council will approve the Certified Uh Nurse Aid Amendment Act, which actually increased the target uh for direct support hour rate to 120 percent beginning in FY26.

Given these legislative actions, we remain troubled by the administration's decision to continue to freeze the implementation of the DSP wage act and wholly set aside the 120 percent funding aspect of the CNA Act.

By the end of FY27, we will already have dropped to 12.8 percent above the minimum wage, with over 27 percent of these gains lost.

As the minimum wage increases in the district, vacancies will rise along with the operational losses associated with those vacancies.

And we will again find ourselves in a crisis, having to again advocate for mechanisms like the DSP wage act.

We we learned how to remedy this crisis almost a decade ago.

I don't know why we're choosing to repeat the same mistakes.

Lastly, while we echo the testimony of the last three years regarding rental food rental cost, food, clothing, and household allocations.

We know at some point the district is going to need to tackle the fiscal implications associated with these issues.

The FY27 budget continues to fail to increase the rental stipend associated and allocated to persons receiving services.

Rental reimbursements, which were already behind market rates have not been addressed in four years now.

And finally, lack of adequate funding for basic necessities such as fresh food, clean supplies, clothing, and utilities under the district's human care agreement should signal to our leaders that an inherent inequity does exist for persons receiving supports through DDS, and this inequity must be addressed.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, and I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

Please stay on for questions at the end.

Next, uh we will hear from Robin.

Thank you, Chairperson Lewis George.

I'm can you hear me?

I'm Robin Shafford.

I use she, her pronouns, and I'm an older white woman with short silver hair, wearing a black and white dress, a red necklace, and tortoise shell glasses.

On behalf of the Georgetown University Center for Excellence and Developmental Disabilities, thank you, Chairperson Lewis George and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today.

The Georgetown UCIT is a federally mandated and funded program of the Administration for Community Living, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

It's part of a national network of 68 uses that began in 1963 with university centers in every state and in U.S.

territories.

Georgetown University is the user for the District of Columbia.

Ensuring that DC residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities can leave the.

If you could move your microphone closer.

Yes.

Okay, sorry about that.

Ensuring that DC residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities can live self-determined lives in DC's communities must remain a priority.

The Georgetown Town USA thanks the mayor for proposing a $3 million funding increase for DDS and her budget.

Notwithstanding this proposed funding increase, DDS is unable or unwilling to inform this council and the public how many people will be able to receive Medicaid waiver services during fiscal year 27.

Rather, DDS is again raising the specter of instituting a waiting list.

Following the passage of the FY 2026 budget, DDS announced that it planned to institute a waiting list for services under the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Medicaid waiver as soon as it was permissible to do so.

Until its recent performance oversight hearing, DDS maintained that because the FY26 budget included 1.68 million less than requested, DDS would be required to implement a waiting list for the IDD waiver as soon as it was permitted to do so in light of American Rescue Plan Act requirements.

DDS did not state that the reduced funding appropriated by the Council meant that a certain number of waiver slots would have to remain unfilled, but rather claimed that it would not be able to fill any of the open slots.

At the recent performance oversight hearing, DDS Director Reese stated that no waiting list would be instituted during this fiscal year.

Even though it now appears that DDS will not create a waiting list during FY26, DDS has indicated that the FY27 budget constant contemplates institution of a waiting list.

DDS declined to state at the budget forum it held on April 17th, what amount of additional funding would obviate the need for a waiting list.

For years, DDS has informed the council and the public that there are significant number of open slots in the IDD waiver as well as in the individual and family support waiver.

This has been widely understood to mean that each open slot could be filled by a DC resident deemed eligible for DDA services.

According to the presentation from the recent DDS budget forum, there are currently 80 open slots in the IDD waiver and 74 open slots in the IFS waiver.

Yet the presentation states, notwithstanding the number of slots, enrollment is subject to available resource, thus rendering meaningless the number of open slots.

The council should demand that DDS explain with specificity how many additional people it will be able to serve under the IDD and IFS waivers.

Okay, I'm sorry.

If the council enacts a budget that funds DDS at the level requested by the mayor.

The council should also require DDS to explain how many waiver slots will be available if the council enacts a budget with a funding level lower than requested in the mayor's budget, as well as how much additional funding would need to be allocated to DDS to obviate the need for a waiting list if there is such a need under the mayor's funding request.

Further, DDS should be required to explain with specificity how it plans to determine when there is adequate funding to lift any waiting list imposed in the future.

Absent this information, the council and the public remain in the dark about whether and when DC residents newly deemed eligible for DDA services will be able to receive the vital supports offered under the IDD and IFS waivers.

I also want to note that the Georgetown Usage shares the concerns that Mr.

Paragall raised.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Next we will hear from Sandy.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Lewis George and members of the Committee on Facilities.

My name is Sandy Bernstein, and I'm the legal director at Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services.

I use sheher pronouns, and I am a white middle-aged woman with brown curly hair and glasses, and I'm wearing a pink sweater.

DRDC is the federally mandated protection and advocacy program for people with disabilities in DC.

And as the protection and advocacy program, DRDC has represented hundreds of individuals supported by DDA and RSA and has assisted even more through our systemic advocacy and investigations.

In a tight budget year, DRDC is pleased that the mayor has increased DDS's budget by $3 million with $2 million of the increase going to DDA.

DRDC appreciates the mayor's decision to provide this funding increase to DDS as the agency provides critical services to both DDA and RSA through DDA and RSA to DC residents with disabilities.

At the April 17th budget forum, DDS Director Andy Reese stated that despite the $2 million increase to DDA's budget, there may be a waiting list for waiver services in October 2026.

DRDC is not only troubled by the thought of an impending waiting list, but also on the lack of transparency about how DDS is determining if and when there will be a waiting list.

For years, DDS has come before the City Council and provided information about the number of slots in the individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities waiver and the individual and family support waiver for DC residents.

It has always been understood that the number of waiver slots DDS has asked the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare and Medicaid Services to approve is the number of slots that they are prepared to provide to DC residents with IDD.

We understand that DDS must have the resources to have the waiver spots slots available.

In its waiver application, DDS requests the number of slots from CMS it believes it can support.

DDS has now changed its narrative in the past year for the first time, stating that the numbers of slots they request from CMS is really meaningless because they can just claim they don't have the resources, despite what they stated in their application, and then make none of the open spots slots available.

After the fiscal year 2026 budget was passed, despite having close to 100 slots available in the IDD waiver, DDS stated they would have to institute a waiting list because City Council decreased their budget by 1.6 million dollars.

At DDS's oversight hearing a few months ago, DDS denounced a waiting list would not be instituted that in fiscal year 2026 due to requirements from CMS under the American Rescue Plan Act.

Now the mayor has increased the wait the budget by $2 million, and DDS states it may be forced to institute a waiting list in fiscal year 27, despite having 80 slots in the IDD waiver and 74 slots in the IFS waiver available.

When asked at the budget form, how much funding DDS would need to avoid a waiting list, Director Reese failed to provide an answer.

DRDC assumes DDS must know this information but is not sharing it with the council, DDS consumers, stakeholders, and the public.

If DDS believes it must implement a waiting list, they need to be transparent about the deficit they face and then alter the number of waiver slots they have available based on the actual budget shortfall.

If DDS finds they do not have enough funding for all the waiver slots, they should calculate how many waiver slots they can afford to fill, submit an amendment to CMS with that adjusted capacity rather than simply announcing that they were revoking all open slots.

DDS should report to the council what amount of funding they would need to avoid a waiting list, how much DDS budget for for each waiver slot and how many waiver slots they could fill with the mayor's current budget recommendation.

DDS should also report on if there is a waiting list, how and how often they will assess whether an individual can be offered a waiting a spot off the waiting list.

Director Reese also mentioned at the April 17th budget forum that DDS has had some savings from reducing services from people supported by DDA and its providers.

While DRDC understands that DDA can assess whether an individual's needs have changed and reduce services, we still see reductions and terminations of waiver services being instituted quite arbitrarily and without citing any legal justification in violation of Medicaid due process rights.

Individuals are told their waiver services will be terminated and they can simply seek the services in the community or seek non-waiver Medicaid services without any investigation by DDS that these services are available, comparable, or meet the individual's needs.

We have clients who have had their waiver services terminated, and as they move through the appeal process, the reason DDS cites for the termination changes, leading us to conclude that DDS's decision is based on budget and not the person's need.

If DDS wants to save money and rely on services in the community, they must put in the time to determine if the services exist, are readily available, and meet the needs of the individual.

DDS cannot claim decisions are based on need and not budget when there is no discussion with the person or research into the community options before terminating a service.

DDS DRDC understands the council has difficult budget decisions to make this year and appreciates its longstanding support of DC residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

Thank you.

Rakyo Thornton Senior, the co-president of Project Action.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you and see you.

Are you still at the library?

I'm still at the library.

All right.

Coming to us live from MLK Library.

So afternoon, Madam Chair Lewis.

My name is Ricardo Thornton.

I'm here with Murray.

I am a longtime district resident, a ward four.

I'm here with my wonderful wife.

And I'm on a boy.

With my high scheme.

Donna's joining me.

Um and we just we're we are a lifetime district resident and live in Ward 4.

We are a former residents of Forest Haven Institution of the District resident with disabilities.

I am the co-president of Project Action, self-advocacy, and I serve on a number of coalition boards.

It means to make sure that people's rights are protected.

I am working at the Martin D.

King.

I work at the DC Public Library for over 40 48 years.

Project action marto is that our voice be heard.

And I am here to let my voice.

I'm here with my wife Donna to let our voice be heard.

Today I ask I asked you to please fully fund the FY 2027 budget of the department or disability services.

DDS has done a great job in supporting people with disabilities.

And to get the services and support they need.

But they need their budget to be fully funded to continue to help people.

DDS needs to increase of their budget as more people with disabilities will need assistance to meet the rights to meet the needs of the costs in every area of our lives.

People ensure that the Medicaid waiver program is fully funded.

That people who need receive this support can continue to get it.

This is a very important very important for everyone, especially for people with the Medicaid conditions.

I know many self-advocates who depends on Medicaid to live independently.

I am proud of project action, self-advocacy and collaborating with DS of the City Council and other DC organizations.

We are committed to working together.

You say that again.

Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak, and I'm looking forward to asking any questions you may have for me or Donna at this time.

Thank you so much.

Okay, great.

Okay.

Uh thank you to this panel of witnesses.

Um I want to come back to you first.

On the administrative fee, um DDS started a new HCA accounting initiative in November of 2025.

Um that uh I believe in your testimony you say has generated uh tens of thousands of hours of additional work for providers.

Yes.

Um DDS's testimony does not address this burden at all.

Can you give the committee a concrete sense of what that work actually looks like for a provider on a week-to-week basis?

And uh whether any providers have told you they may not be able to sustain operations if the administrative fee is not restored.

Okay, absolutely.

I'll talk to both of those points.

Um I know in my testimony from back in February we actually had a specific example uh delineating 560 hours of work um in order to complete uh this grid structure that each cost incurred um by the provider has to be broken down by an individual, uh this is only residential costs, right?

Um, but uh broken down by the individual that is receiving services.

So their portion of utilities, their portion of clothing, their portion of food, their portion of household supplies um needs to be on this grid that is broken down.

And and in many times, you know, these checks and and the payments that the providers are making are made in bulk.

So they have to take this consolidated number or end prescriptions too.

Um so they have to take this consolidated number and drill it down to each individual cost um for uh everyone that is being supported, and that is an absolutely arduous task.

Uh we actually asked for some follow-up on this particular issue.

Um and we had a meeting scheduled, and that uh topic was not addressed because the person uh did not was not present for the meeting that could address it.

We asked for follow-up and we were in uh advised that uh they would consider some follow-up after these budget hearings, but that still hasn't changed the dynamic here on the amount of work that's required in order for provider to process this documentation.

Um and then the other half of it, and the questions that I asked was well, what were the results?

Um did anything change for the the thousands of hours of work that was uh required by this particular task.

Now I recognize there's accountability.

I that that's fine.

And and and a submission a reasonable submission um about uh with with respect to the the individual charges that's expected.

And we we don't we don't we we can't say that we walk away, it's like, oh well, here's the bill and and you guys pay for it.

Um but I think that um at the end of the day, would they go out of business because of these costs?

I mean, this is just another one of the unfunded mandates that exists.

You know, there's the we the the rate for um nurses, for example, is far below the actual rate that that the providers have to pay.

And this administrative fee, this this kind of um very small amount of money goes to pick up those things overtime, another thing that's not compensated.

Um I'm on with the mayor.

I'm gonna heal in that.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

That's okay, Ricardo.

Um so anyway, um I hope that answers the question.

That um did I get all the points uh for you?

Madam Chair.

We're we're requiring more.

And we're funding less.

And I guess I don't understand the logic of that.

That why why the logic from the DDS side.

Yes.

Yeah.

Not from the provider side.

Just want to make sure we're going to be able to do that.

Not from the provider side.

Yeah, no, no.

Based on what you said, I I that's um not from your side, from from the agency side, which I'm curious to understand sort of what the thought process is in in doing so.

Um I appreciate the examples you've given.

Um it sounds like a lot on a on a week-to-week basis that providers are having to do.

Well, I will say, you know, in in full transparency, the one thing that we were able to um negotiate uh in the beginning was making this rather than a monthly submission, you can do it quarterly.

But it doesn't, it doesn't make it any easier.

It just means once a quarter, it's a it's a hellish uh uh uh fiscal analysis that the providers have to construct.

Many of them didn't even get it on in on time because it took so long.

Yeah.

Um on the direct support professional wage freeze, which you also uh touched on in your testimony, uh you've described a math, uh a 15 percent vacancy rate generates roughly 4 percent in overall organizational losses, even before accounting for other funding gaps.

Does the coalition have any indications of what vacancy rates could look like if the wage uh differential continues to narrow um relative to the living wage?

And at what point does become a what point does that become a staffing crisis rather than a and rather than staffing challenges is what I'm wondering.

So that is an excellent question.

We ran this drill back in the early 2010s.

Um and we know that uh as the there used to be there used to be a bit of a margin in for the DSPs when uh DHCF and DDS would construct their rate models, it wasn't right on the um living wage or or uh minimum wage line.

There was at least a little bit of a buffer at the time.

So about there's about a 20 percent buffer um uh all in.

And uh over time uh when that uh the district made a decision that it would not continue to create that buffer and it eroded all the way down to the point that um the funding equaled the living wage.

Um there was no margin for any any tenure or or quality or or you know, ability to to recognize um excellence.

Um and along the way, we absolutely saw that what happened was not only was there no incentive to continue in the job because we had a huge exodus of people in the in the above 20 percent mark, just to just to you know answer directly the question, um that we needed to initiate, you know, and and gain the support of this DSP uh rate payment act.

And once that happened, absolutely things improved.

Now, of course, we were occasioned with COVID at that time.

But even after COVID, when we had this buffer in there, I think that we fared pretty well.

So the proof was in the pudding.

We have shown that there needs to be some type of a margin, and and we know that it it's going to erode.

We can look at the pathway that was presented last night at uh DHCF's um uh Medicaid uh meeting going over the the actual budget, and we can see that in three years this is going to be a huge problem because the the rate is almost going to be the reimbursement rate if nothing changes is going to be uh very close to the living wage, and we're gonna be back and ground zero.

Thank you for that.

Um it's very scary to think about if we continue in this current trajectory, what we're setting ourselves up for.

Yeah, I mean we know we know it worked.

We it did.

So it it's as simple as that.

That that that at this at the very least, you know, if we could maintain this number, we we feel pretty good about it.

We're not even asking for the 120 percent or recommending the 120 percent that was uh you know was uh was approved in the council last year.

Yeah.

Um of course the committee is going to continue to do what we can do um within the constraints that we're in.

Um but uh Robin, I you asked DDS to explain with some specificity how it would determine uh when a waiting list could be lifted.

Um I'm going to do the same shortly.

Um but what is currently known about DDS methodology for making that determination on lifting the waiting list, or is this something uh new or that needed that needed to be created new?

So I mean there are waiting list policies and procedures, and I haven't looked at them for that question.

But this came up because when we were when we first heard that the waiting list was going to be instituted first in January and then in February, I asked the question about how during the course of the remainder of this fiscal year, we would look at whether we could add additional people in to the into the waiver.

I mean things have some number of people are going to die this year, some you know what so and I what I was told was that they didn't anticipate being able to lift the waiting list if it was put in place at any point during this fiscal year.

And I didn't I I didn't under it's part of what I didn't understand about the lack of calculation.

So there should be um, and it is this a slot is one person, so if one person gets the slot and leaves or dies or whatever, that slot isn't available.

But over the if you're if what we have to look at is what's happening with the with actual spending, you would think each quarter initially and then each month when DDS gets the data, there could be an evaluation of whether there's room to add one, two, three, however many more people onto the waiver if there were a need for a waiting list.

Yeah.

Um I agree.

Um I guess I I mean I can't have you, I don't want you to speculate.

Because I I guess I'm trying to figure out what what you all, what the giv what everybody thinks is the reason why we are back here again with this conversation over the waiting list.

It's really hard to determine that when you don't know what calculation went into any of this.

And that you know, as I've said, if we had heard that with the 1.68 million dollar cut there were 10 slots we couldn't fill.

That wouldn't have raised this level of concern.

Yeah.

We need to know what the what it what the basis for the calculation is.

Before the basis for the calculation is.

Okay.

Um hopefully we'll we get we will get that very soon.

Um can you uh Sandy, I wanted to know, can you describe it obviously without specifying uh identifying clients, what a typical termination looks like in practice?

Um like what notice is given and um what reason is cited and how the agency responds when someone appeals.

And I guess because I really want to really understand and see how this is playing out and how often in your experience these terminations ultimately are reversed on appeal.

We've seen it in different ways.

Sometimes we have seen that no notice, no written notice is actually given.

The person was just told, and so they've come to us and said, Oh, yeah, no, my in-home support hours was cut.

Yeah, I I just stopped.

I used to be getting uh, you know, 40 hours and now I'm getting 25 hours.

That just happened, you know, six months ago.

And then they didn't receive any notice whatsoever.

And the reason they're coming to us now is because they're 25 hours, they've gotten written notice that it's going down to 20.

So they didn't get any before, so they got nothing.

Um but they will get a piece of paper they have developed, DDS has developed this form where they check something off.

But the form, um, one, it doesn't cite um it's it's it's a form, first of all.

So it's it's hard to be specific when you've created a form um that is just something that you're checking.

And one of the things they may check is not it no longer uh is appropriate.

So, you know, we're we're canceling, you don't need in-home supports, no longer appropriate, or or fitness services, no longer appropriate.

That's just checked.

It doesn't indicate why, then it will say you can go to a recenter.

But it doesn't indicate in any way, first of all, and and any legal justification, there's no legal site there, there's nothing cited.

Um and then it will tell you um what your appeal rights are that you could go to in an internal appeal or that you can go to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Then at the bottom of the form, it will say whether or not you it will say um do you have I can't I don't have it in front of me, but it says something like do you have rights do you have uh the right to benefits pending appeal?

And you can check they can check yes or no, which is bizarre because they don't get to decide if somebody has the right to benefits pending.

That should be something the Office of Administrative Hearings does.

Um but DDS sometimes will check no.

Um we've seen that happen with a client.

Um it's very concerning because um DDS clearly believes that there is a requirement um under the waiver that people have to exhaust state plan services under every service, and that's not actually the case.

There are some services in the regulations, for example, personal care aid services where you do have to exhaust state plan services, but under the regulations, for example, under nutrition, it's a very different service under the state plan, and the regulations don't say you have to exhaust, which probably may be why they don't cite a legal justification.

Um and so what what has happened then typically either we go for an internal appeal or we go to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

We we make decisions based on you know discussions with the client and and and our own strategy.

Um we have um been successful at most of the cases um that we um have handled and um and they have been um determinations have been rescinded.

We do have currently one case that is in the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Um and we did file um in one case we filed um something called summary adjudication based on notice because for um for uh a Medicaid due process um and it but it was settled before that um because we do have very serious concerns in addition to the fact that the the people are having their services terminated, um we do have concerns about still that they are still using this form and that we do not believe that it is adequate um Medicaid notice.

And we are still seeing um from behind the scenes that some providers are being told, hey, we're gonna be cutting um this service, you're no longer gonna get um speech or are uh fitness or nutrition through the waiver, we're gonna have you, we want you to go through the state plan and they're just telling the provider and they're not providing notice um to the individual.

So we we we do have um concerns about that.

And again, there you know, there it may be that some services may be appropriate, but that's it, but that's it's it's not done in a way that that's being addressed that that's that it's not being done in a way that shows that DDS is looking to what the person needs and that this is available and this is comparable.

It's clearly just being done to just to save money money um under the waiver.

And is there a legal standard that requires DDS?

So, like for example, I know they've been pointing towards people towards like community services without verifying that those community services exist or are comparable.

Um is there a legal standard that requires DDS to do that, like verification before terminating a waiver service?

Well, under, for example, what is happening most often we've seen is with nutrition and fitness services.

That's where they're saying um for nutrition, they're saying instead of having um it's called nutrition consultation and evaluation.

And so you have a nutritionist, and unlike what was testified from DDS at the oversight hearing, it's not just somebody who comes and develops a menu for you.

It is a nutritionist, first of all, that is skilled in working with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities that is training the staff, that is working with the team with someone who has health concerns related to nutrition, does quarterly reports, it and is developing menus, but is making sure they're making it individualized and not just giving you a list, hey, you have fatty liver disease, you should eat these things or not eat those things.

Um it's not the same as if you go to the hospital and the hospital may say that here, you know, yeah, you're allergic to this, don't eat these things, or you know, you have a low iron issue, don't eat these things.

Um for something like nutrition, um, there isn't under the regulations.

If you look under the waiver regulations, it says this is what you need to qualify for nutrition services, and it doesn't say you have to go and try to use the state nutrition services first because it's a different service.

It may be that for some people that's fine, going to the hospital and meeting with that nutritionist.

I just found out maybe I have high cholesterol, what should I do?

That may work for some people.

That's not what this service is.

Gotcha.

And so, yes, there are requirements, for example, like I mentioned, for personal care aid services.

You do have to exhaust state plan services first.

So if they were to say that, yes, you need to go through that, and then you can use waiver.

But it's a different service.

And fitness, again, fitness is a service that you there's regulations that you have to show why you need those services.

And it's not the same thing to go to the gym, because you should, for example, one of the clients that I represented who had his fitness services terminated, and I know that DDS testified we really want to get people out in the community because you know we don't want them isolated.

My client's fitness coach was taking him to the recenter to work on his fitness there, like so, and actually made part of his fitness training working on his social uh interaction skills.

And so then that's and that's great.

Yeah and so um so it's not the same thing.

And so DDS is not following their own regulations.

You know internal regulations.

Yes.

And what recourse does someone have beyond just the appealing each decision individually what it what other structures are in place regarding that or is there anything else that they mean right now that's what the individual has.

They can go in internally and appeal it or they can go to the Office of Administrative hearings.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Yes thank you.

Uh Ricardo are you still here I'm still here thank you.

I wanted to ask you um as far as um DDS services go um how have you experienced uh some of the um your job placement um I don't know do you I don't know if you have fitness or nutrition what are some of the services that you benefit from that you want to make sure all uh individuals are able to also benefit from we have right now we have um we have residential services but we have the walk in supervision uh it's called pop-up and that's to make sure that uh that that we have plenty of food in our trigators and that Donna is okay and I'm okay and um there's no uh no one's coming going on right now we kind of like some of those services okay good and are there um and are there any services that you want to make sure that we that you all receive that everybody else is able to receive that you think would um benefit I think drop in supervision is a good thing okay um I think that um making sure that the people that they're working with listen to them and not get uh make a suggestions over give them a chance to say what it is that they like I think that's missing I don't think we're communicating more I think we have more on that this is what we want to do this is what we're gonna do we need to make sure that we are given our voices are heard.

Absolutely sometimes that's not always so okay great all right um thank you so much I appreciate you all being here um Donna did you have anything you wanted to add same thing thank you very much thank you thank you so much uh madam chair and just I I forwarded um the graphic um over to Mr.

Wyman um so you'd have some documentation on that trend line okay great thank you so much all right on to this panel is anything anybody else anyone wants to add before we end this uh panel no I just want to say madam chair thank you so much for coming out to the Better Together reception I was really surprised to see council members there this was a very good organization and um you coming out made a big difference so thank you so much for that time.

Thank you thank you so much for having me really appreciate it and thank you for all your advocacy always I I actually would like to add one thing I think we're very um as we move into this difficult budget period I think we need to in addition to the emphasis on due process recognize that we are fortunate in DC to have monitoring functions from two organizations both disability rights DC and quality trust and making sure that those are respected and unimpeded and supported um is going to be really important as is the transparency that and specificity and openness that we're talking about this is going to be a difficult time and we should you know we're lawyers we should play by these rules and respect them and let them do the good that they can absolutely right thank you so much thank you thank you for all your testimonies um thank you to this panel of witnesses um as well uh I want to remind people that deadline is submit written testimony is at 5 p.m on Thursday May 7th uh we will take a short break for our captioners while we transition to government witnesses um I before we begin I just want to reflag for the speakers to be mindful of their space of speaking especially while reading for the sake of our interpreters and captioners um we will uh now turn to government witnesses

Uh we will now turn to our government witnesses.

Uh here with us today is Andrew Reese, uh, our director of the Department of Disability Services, better known as DDS, and Anthony Young, our agency fiscal officer, uh and officer of the chief financial officer.

Uh, thank you all for being here today.

Uh, as you know, it is our custom to administer an oath before you begin.

So if you all could just raise your right hand, uh, do you swear or affirm under penalty of purchase that the testimony you're about to give the committee on facilities is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Director Reese.

Uh, you may begin your testimony.

Thank you.

And be mindful of the speech.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis George.

Good morning.

Good afternoon.

Uh, Councilmember Lewis George, members and staff of the Committee on Facilities.

I am Andrew Reese, the director of the Department on Disability Services, DDS.

With me today, as you said, is Anthony Young, the DDS agency fiscal officer.

The mission of DDS is to provide innovative, high quality services and supports that enable people with disabilities to lead meaningful and productive lives as vital members of their families, schools, workplaces, and communities in every neighborhood in the District of Columbia.

On behalf of Mayor Muriel Bowser, I am pleased to provide testimony today on the mayor's fiscal year twenty twenty-seven proposed budget and fiscal plan.

On April 10, 2026, Mayor Bowser presented her proposed Grow DC budget and financial plan for FY27.

This budget includes important investments in transformational growth, right sizing of spending, and investments in shared priorities, including public schools, public safety, and affordable housing.

The budget also reflects the mayor's commitment to continued support of people with disabilities in DC.

While recognizing Medicaid as a major cost driver for the district and FY27, Mayor Bowser's budget proposed a three percent local funds increase for fiscal year.

This five point one million dollar increase in local funds is prom is provided primarily to support wages for direct support professionals and to meet the projected Medicaid waiver growth in the intellectual and developmental disabilities, the IDD waiver, and the individual and family support IFS waiver.

The mayor's proposed FY27 total budget for DDS is 230.6 million dollars, which is a little less than a 1% increase from last year's approved budget of $229 million.

This includes a 3% increase in local funds from $162.5 million in FY26 to $167.6 million in FY27.

The proposed budget also includes $34 million $34.8 million in federal grant funds, $17.7 million in anticipated Medicaid payments, and $8.7 million in special purpose revenue.

The proposed FY27 budget funds $435.5 FTEs.

Our proposed FTEs include $121.93 FTEs within agency management, $149 FTEs in the Developmental Disabilities Administration, $90.64 FTEs in the Rehabilitation Services Administration, 62 FTEs within the Disability Determination Division, DDD.

We also fund 12 financial operations positions within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

There have been no substantive staffing changes within our administrations, and no restructuring has taken place within the agency.

The agency currently has 58 vacancies.

Of these 58 vacancies, 30 positions are 100 percent federally funded vacancies, and of that 30, 22 are DDD vacancies on hold pending Social Security Administration approval.

Six are in the recruitment process, and two are on hold for vacancy savings.

16 positions are 80 percent federally funded, three of these are on hold for vacancy savings, and 13 are in the recruitment process.

Of which six positions are on hold for vacancy savings, three are in the recruitment process, and one is occupied by a temporary promotion.

The two remaining vacancies are OCFO positions that are on hold for vacancy savings.

In last year's budget oversight testimony, I talked about the sustainability of DDS services and the fact that sustainability looks different across administrations within DDS.

For the Developmental Disabilities Administration, DDA, sustainability means working toward cost containment within our two waivers.

For the rehabilitation services administration, RSA, sustainability has meant reviewing provider rates that had remained essentially unchanged over the last 10 years.

For the past six months, DDS has been meeting with stakeholders to address challenges of sustainability.

These work groups have generated reports outlining recommendations.

On the DDA side, the workgroup aimed to identify key cost drivers within the IDD waiver, evaluate alignment between assessed need and authorized services, and explore cost-effective service delivery models.

Recommendations include revisiting supported living house rates, a house rate means that everyone residing in a supported living setting is supported or in many cases over-supported by a rate consistent with the highest staffing level of the person residing in the home.

The sustainability work group recommended revised the supported living rate structures to align with individual staffing and support needs in place of house rates.

Another recommendation made by the work group is to better align services with a person's assessed needs.

To this end, the work group recommended next steps, including training related to the accurate and consistent assessment of support needs, and robust internal controls related to the review and approval of services.

Finally, the work group recommended the expanded use of assistive technology and innovative service delivery methods like remote supports.

To this end, a pilot was initiated using American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA funds, to address the challenge of the initial cost of provider-side infrastructure and startup capacity, such as consultation and training, provider side equipment and supplies, and remote support platforms and software.

The RSA PCO Sustainability Work Group identified urgent concerns regarding provider rates.

To address these concerns, DDS approved an interim rate increase to the current rate structure, effective March 1, 2026.

This action provides near-term financial relief to providers.

Additionally, RSA awarded a consultant contract for a rate study, allowing us to move toward a more performance-based rate structure that will incentivize successful employment outcomes.

The proposed FY27 budget for DDA is $173 million approximately.

This represents an increase of 1% from the FY26 approved budget of $170.9 million.

It continues to fully fund all services for people currently supported by DDA.

DDA's proposed budget includes $152.5 million in local funds, $8.7 million in special purpose revenue, and $11.7 million in Medicaid payments.

DDA operates two Medicaid home and community based services, HCBS waivers.

The IDD HCBS waiver for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities provides $23 services and supports for more than 1,900 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in their own homes and in integrated community-based settings.

DDA also operates the individual and family supports, or IFS HCBS waiver, which focuses on people who do not require residential supports and can leverage support from family or friends to meet their needs.

The IFS HCBS waiver includes 19 services and supports over 100 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

In FY27, that local share is projected to be 126 million dollars for the two waivers.

The FY27 budget was developed based upon an assumption that DDS would implement a waiting list for the IDD waiver.

At this time, IDD enrollment does remain open.

However, the waiver growth calculated in FY27's budget projections included only the expected cost of living of the cost of living increases in the waiver that occur each July and any admissions to the waiver of people into slots that are reserved for youth transitioning from CFSA and for people who transition from ICF care.

However, DDA has been making progress in managing costs in the IDD waiver through ongoing efforts to better tailor services to the assessed needs of each person supported and ensure those services are provided in the most integrated and least restrictive setting.

In addition, we will be seeking a waiver amendment in January 2027, seeking to implement some of the changes recommended by the DDA Sustainability Working Group.

Our ability to continue enrolling new waiver applications, applicants into the IDD waiver is based on the projected availability of funds.

The waiver projections are made in coordination with DHC, the Department of Health Care Finance, and OCFO, and this will determine when DDA implements and admits people from a waiting list for the IDD waiver.

The Direct Support Professional Payment Rate Act of 2022 requires the district to support raising the Direct Support Professionals' average wage to 117.6 percent of the living wage.

The FY27 budget includes an additional $4.5 million to fully fund the wage enhancement at the current level.

This initiative was initially funded with ARPA Section 9817 funds beginning in 2023.

In FY26, this was funded mostly with local funds, that is 75% local and 25% ARPA, and it will be fully funded with local funds beginning in FY27.

However, it will be funded at $117.6% of the living wage in effect this fiscal year.

At this time, there are no plans to increase the wage at FY26 or 27.

In FY27, DDS's residential costs are budgeted at approximately $27.2 million.

This is an increase of 4%.

In fiscal year 2026, DDS reduced administrative fees payable under the human care agreements that reimburse provider occupancy and other residential supports.

This funding was partially restored by council in a one-time enhancement.

This enhancement was not annualized, and providers will see the reduction to administrative fees again in the FY27 budget.

DDA supports 1,091 people in waiver-funded residential settings.

Of those currently, 111 or 10 percent reside in a host home.

And 899 or 82.4 percent are in supported living placements.

Residential supports are funded using three distinct revenue streams.

The first is special purpose revenue.

This takes the form of contribution to cost each person makes, often using their own Social Security SSI or SSDI benefit.

In the FY27 proposed budget, special purpose revenue accounts for approximately $8.7 million for residential supports.

Special purpose revenue, however, is only sufficient to pay for a portion of residential costs.

The maximum monthly SSI payment is currently $994 a month.

$835.94 cents of this is contributed to fund residential supports.

The second funding source is Medicaid earnings from indirect cost recovery and administrative claiming.

This accounts for approximately 25% of the residential supports or about $7.6 million.

The remaining $11 million is covered by local funds.

RSA's proposed FY27 budget is $21.9 million.

This is a 1% decrease from its approved FY26 budget of $22,123,448.

RSA provides supports that are $78.7 percent federally funded with a $21.3 percent local share.

In addition, the grant includes a maintenance of effort requirement.

This requires that local funding must remain the must maintain the local funds expended during the last closed-out fiscal year, so that for FY27, this means we must maintain local spending at the amount expended in FY25.

The supports provided by RSA include vocational rehabilitation services, supported employment, independent living services, independent living older blind services.

RSA's budget also includes the assistive technology grant, which is currently a pass-through to the district's assistive technology center at Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services.

Federal grants account for $15.6 million of the RSA budget, and local funds account for approximately $4.8 million.

The Federal grant decreased by $2.3 million because we did not meet the maintenance of effort requirement in 2023.

Looking ahead, we expect additional penalties for not meeting the maintenance of effort requirements in FY24 and 25.

The impact of these penalties, however, will be offset by a cost of living increase to the VR grant that was implemented by the Department of Education in April 2025.

RSA's budget also anticipates that the administration will receive approximately $1.6 million in special purpose revenue collected through commission payments from vending machine income in all federal and district buildings, which is paid directly to the individual Randolph Shepherd vendors, or as quarterly pension payment to all eligible vendors.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, WIOA, included a requirement that 15 percent of the Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Grant must be reserved for funding pre-employment transition services, pre-ETS for eligible and potentially eligible students under the age of 22.

Under PRETS, there are five required pre-employment activities, which include job exploration counseling, work-based learning experiences, counseling on opportunities for enrollment and comprehensive transition or post-secondary educational programs at institutions of higher education, workplace readiness training to develop skills and independent living, and instructions in self-advocacy, which may include peer mentoring.

The requirement to reserve 15 percent of the Federal grant for pre-ETS, along with the maintenance of effort requirement for local funds, has created a budget pressure for RSA.

However, the proposed budget is sufficient to meet the needs of everyone supported by RSA in FY27.

DDS is also the host agency for DDD, the district office at which Social Security Administration reviews and determines Social Security disability, the medical portion of disability claims.

This operation is 100 percent federally funded with a proposed budget of 11.8 million dollars.

This budget is an estimate based on likely workload.

Still, there is a mechanism allowing for an increase in federal funds in the event that DDD needs additional funding.

At the start of FY24, the Social Security Administration imposed a strict hiring, actually at the start of calendar year 24, I'm sorry.

The Social Security Administration imposed a strict hiring freeze, impacting DDD's ability to fill vacancies.

This hiring freeze has been lifted, and DDS will begin actively recruiting to fill three vacancies within DDD.

I would like to thank you very much, Chairperson Lewis George, for the opportunity to share our vision for FY27.

We at DDS appreciate your thoughtful engagement and partnership.

I also want to thank DDS staff and providers.

Their resilient skill and compassion continue to drive our mission of full inclusion for people with disabilities.

I would like to offer a special thanks also to the stakeholders engaged who engaged in the PCO sustainability work groups over the last six months, enriching the discussion with their experience and perspectives.

I would also like to recognize the community of self-advocates, family members, and other partners who challenge us to deliver on the promise of our mission now and in the future.

We at DDS know that we are never alone in pursuing our mission, and there is no more authentic form of support than honest, thoughtful feedback that our stakeholders continue to provide.

Finally, I would like to thank Mayor Bowser.

The budget before this committee represents an ongoing commitment to ensuring the full inclusion of people with disabilities on the part of the mayor.

That commitment, in tandem with the commitment that defines our staff and provider communities, is part of why people with disabilities are and will continue to be integral participants in the district's growth.

This concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you, Director.

I want to start with DDS fiscal year 26 budgets.

The mayor reduced the developmental disability services budget by 310,000 in the supplemental budget.

First, this budget includes the local funding for waiver services.

Is that correct?

No.

The reduction was taken advanced contracts, right?

Yes, we do bases for contracts.

These were contract-related, they weren't waiver reductions.

Okay.

So did this this reduction didn't come from waiver services.

No, it did not.

Okay.

Where was their I want to turn to now on the fiscal year 27 budget?

This is the first time since 2022 that non-union DDS employees will receive a cost of living adjustment.

Is that correct?

No.

They are still not receiving a cost of living adjustment.

Wow.

Non-union employees for the district have not received an adjustment since the fall of 2022.

About how many non-ingU employees non-union employees work with work at DDS?

It's actually it's a small and decreasing number.

We we have had over the last year some expansion in the number of people who have been able to join the union.

I would have to get back to you on the specific number.

Okay.

But it does include just limited steps.

It's all managers, first of all.

So I want to hear about that.

Okay.

All the people who are reporting to me and down that chain, as well as then many administrative staff support and our HR staff.

Okay.

And are any non-union positions considered hard to fill positions?

We don't currently have any positions that we consider hard to fill.

Okay.

Does DDS expect the lack of COLA to either contribute to higher than expected attrition of existing employees or make vacancies for nonunion positions more difficult to fill?

Fortunately, that has not been the case thus far.

Okay.

The mayor's proposed budget also reduced funding and added limitations to the district's paid family leave program.

How many DDS employees use paid family leave in fiscal year 25 and 26 so far if you know?

I don't know.

I would have to get back to you on that.

Okay.

My concern is between the lack of raises with due to rising inflation is really a pay cut, right?

Um and changes to paid family leave.

Uh and DDS cons and I'm just wondering, is DDS concerned about employees leaving DDS or district government with wholesale changes being made regarding COLAS and pay family leave that many of your employees benefit from, but they benefit from because they work for it.

As I said, to date, fortunately, we have not seen that.

And so what in DDS's fiscal year 27 budget is there to support your more than 400 employees in light of these new challenges that will exist as a result of COLA freezes and uh lack of paid family leave current paid family leave benefits at the current benefit they receive it.

So we do uh our HR, I guess the only thing I can say is that our HR has regular um support for staff.

We have um wellness Wednesdays, we have a lot of things that support the staff in being able to sort of deal with the stress of doing the job that they are doing because the job that many of our staff do is extremely stressful.

Yeah.

So we support them in that way.

Um there is little we can do in terms of giving people uh uh pay increases.

We have been able to have um we have some positions that are career ladder positions, so where possible we have been able to do that.

Do the career ladders for people.

Um regarding your union employees, um DDS has a collective bargain agreements with four unions, each with uh a working edition CBA and a compensation CBA.

Uh only one union, I think it's after G1403 has both CBAs current, um which expire at the end of the year.

Um both CBAs for each of the other three unions are expired but remain in effect.

Of the six expired CBAs, only two of them are in progress, and the rest do not have negotiations negotiations pending, uh including for one that expired, I think, in 1995 and the other that expired in 2010.

Um the compensation CBAs separately, I think, cover 149 for 105 and 13 employees, but the chart seems to indicate, but the chart in pre-hearing responses seem to indicate no no employees are covered under the working condition CBAs.

Correct.

I I have to assume it's correct because that's how we can search.

And is that why none of them have negotiations pending?

OLRCB could respond better to that.

I know that one of our largest is related to compensation groups one and two, and there are discussions ongoing, but I don't know what the correct term of art of what the status of those discussions are.

Okay.

If you could, if you could get back to me on whether negotiations have been attempted and and why an agreement hasn't been reached or renewed for the working conditions CBAs for I believe it's DCNA ASME 2401 and AFG 383.

Yes.

Okay.

Um I was happy to learn the Social Security Administration approved hiring for three examiner positions.

Uh in your testimony, you mentioned of the 30 vacancies that are 100 percent federally funded, 22 are on hold pending approval, and six are in recruitment and two are on hold for vacancy savings.

Once the positions and recruitment are filled, what is the vacancy rate within DDD and how does that compare to fiscal year 25?

So they're only allowing us to fill three within DDD.

So we still have a challenge of vacancies within DDD, and it is totally dependent on the Social Security Administration when they will allow us to fill those.

And they are fully federally funded.

And so as soon as they give us the go-ahead, we move forward.

Okay.

Umfortunately, the district pay scale is better than many other parts of the country, although we perform a federal function, we pay the district wage, so the recruitment should not be that challenging.

Okay.

So we are really just, it's really pending on what the Social Security Administration does.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Now I want to turn to DDA starting with the waiting lists.

I'm surprised the fiscal year 27 IDD and IFS waiter protections were created based on the assumption that DDS would implement of a waiting list.

I'll get to DDA expectations that no one will be placed on the waiting list, but now I want to focus on, I think, the projections.

How many slots are funded in fiscal year 27 for the IDD and IFS waivers?

So I have attempted to explain this and apparently poorly several times.

Slots are not funded.

And when you look at, for example, the appendix J of our waiver, which when we're developing our waiver, we publish so everyone can see it.

It has its 12 pages long in projecting, and it's 18 lines per page.

In projecting waiver expenditures, what they look at is the projected number of people that will be served on each service line and the projected utilization of each of those people over the course of a year.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the appendix J and you look at the waiver slots, the waiver slots are used on the appendix J to project what is called cost neutrality.

The cost of the waiver per person cannot exceed the cost of a person being in intermediate care facilities.

So that the current cost average cost per average cost per person in our IDD waiver is 162,000 165 dollars.

And I'm sorry that's from last fiscal year, but we track that by tracking total waiver expenditures divided by number of slots used.

When we're looking at Wait, slow down slowly and say that.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

For me and for the captioners.

Oh, sorry, I was doing so well before I was watching.

So it's uh total expenditures divided by total number of unique slots utilized.

Okay.

And that gives you the average cost, which has to be tracked throughout the year.

DHCF is tracking this to make sure that our waiver remains cost neutral.

In projecting whether we have adequate funds to serve all eligible people, we look at those 12 pages.

It's about 200 lines of individual services in the appendix J, and we're tracking regularly utilization of e we first project what will be needed based on prior year's utilization and then track utilization throughout the year.

To be clear, I my recollection of what I said, and it's recorded and posted online in our forum, is that we did project that there would be a waiting list in place beginning October 1.

Because there was a waiting list at there was a waiting list planned at the time that we were developing the budget projections for our waiver.

Not only were we developing our FY27 budget, but we were also developing our appendix J to our waiver, which, as we also indicated, we will be submitting a waiver amendment that we hope to go into effect January 2027.

But the one that was done at that time, the appendix J that was completed last fall was done with an expectation that a waiting list was in place, and so we looked at projected needs based on the number of people that would be served based on that waiting list being in place.

And what I indicated uh last week and I expect will be the case is that a waiting list will be in effect in October.

My hope, which is what I said then, is that it will be more of a pause in services than a list that exists for any long period of time.

My the most reasonable expectation is that when we do our first quarter FRP, we will then evaluate along with DHCF and OCFO the available funds for the full fiscal year to be able to, I expect at that time eliminate the waiting list, because not only will we have our hope is the amendments to our waiver.

We're also taking into account what are the service level needs of the person in the home and this person, because the way that our waiver currently reads, the highest service needs person in the home is the level that we pay everyone in the home.

And so if you bring someone in who has a staffing ratio need that's lower, but they're in a home with someone who needs one-on-one staffing, you have to provide one-on-one staffing for both people.

We plan to address that in our in our waiver uh amendment, and they have been addressing trying to better just practically speaking, as they plan for people to move, aligning people better.

We're seeing good outcomes.

One of the things I know from tracking the waiver over the last 10 years is that you have to look at more than just a month or two of data, because for one, providers have 365 days to submit a claim.

So you do have to pay attention to utilization and claims over time, not just suddenly either get very concerned or very happy.

Um my first year I went through that and I haven't since.

Okay.

Um thank you for that.

Um let's I want to unpack that just a little.

Um so I understand this, the projections, was it only because there was a waiting list in effect at the time, like the projections were created were the projections created under the assumption there would be a waiting list, and it was only and it's only because there was a waiting list in effect at that time that you all did that?

Even though there wasn't a waiting list, yes.

Okay.

Just to contribute to the difficulty of it.

There was a waiting list that was projected, and there was concern about, given that because of the ARPA maintenance of effort requirement, we could not implement the waiting list.

There was concern about whether that would create spending pressure in our waiver.

Okay.

Um, which we are not seeing so far, fortunately.

Um, we developed it based on the the assumptions that were in place at that time.

At that time.

And if you look actually in our I think it's in our Form 5 where it talks about changes to the budget, there's the $5 million increase, and what it says is to fund existing service existing service levels or something like this, which is essentially saying everything that's currently in place is going to cost $5 million more.

And unfortunately, what was currently in place at that time was a waiting list.

And so funding existing services meant the increases so that we could absorb the cost of the last quarter of the cost of the DSP wage plus the cost of living increase.

Although we are not increasing wages in the waiver, there are cost of living increases to other costs within the waiver.

Okay.

So does that mean it's DDS's position that it was required to assume the existence of a waiting list to create the waiver services budget for fiscal year 27?

Correct.

Okay.

Um We did, however, as I've said, we worked with this with this PCO working group, um, the service coordination folks have been working hard on identifying ways to provide services in a more cost-effective manner.

And our hope is that by the first quarter FRP, we will be in a much better place.

And what we'll see by the end of the first quarter.

Okay, that we will be in a much better place.

My my agency fiscal officer is not as um he he likes there to be more data than I am.

So sometime in the first six months of the year, but my thought is that we will see within the first quarter that we have been making savings and um can uh begin to ease up on that.

Okay, not completely eliminate.

All right.

I appreciate that, fiscal officer.

So that's your job.

Um how did the consideration of a waiting list affect the projections?

Basically, would waiver cost have increased if a waiting list was not factored into the projections?

As I said, you go through 200 lines and what they had to do is that they project out the five years of the waiver and they identify that the increase or decrease of each service line based on the anticipated number of people coming in.

And so if you were to say, well, what would it be if you didn't have the waiting list?

It means someone going back and evaluating all 200 lines and making those adjustments.

I think that reasonably, given all of the changes that we have been making and the good work that we did with the PCO sustainability work group, that we should be able to live within the budget that we have, while it may mean a pause at the beginning of the fiscal year with a brief waiting list, that we should be in a good position to move forward and eliminate that waiting list after that one two quarters.

Okay.

Let me ask you this.

Would the waiting list assumption have been made if the council didn't not make the 1.4 percent reduction to waiver services in fiscal year 26?

No, because as I said, in if you look at Form 5, it would have we would have included in our budget the cost to continue existing service levels.

How much money would be needed to fund waiver services without the existence of a waiting list?

As I said, that that projection, it's already loaded into our appendix J, and that would require redoing the whole appendix J, which we will do when we submit the amendment that's due in January.

And it's not just a matter of it, is it this dollar amount?

And I hear people with the frustration of, well, exactly how many slots do you have and how much per slot.

We don't fund individual slots.

We don't know when a person is coming in for services, whether that's a person who is going to require $75,000 a year or $750,000 a year.

And so the projection is is extremely challenging.

And at this time it's not funded at that level.

And what is this is that new?

Because I I we don't fund individual slots to me is new because that's how you all used to do it.

Am I not right about that?

No, our waiver has always said that availability of slots and funding.

So we have to have slots because we can't we cannot place more people in waiver services than we have slots, and we have to have available funding.

We clearly don't have an issue with slots, but we do have an issue with available funding.

Right.

We did previously have in 2017 we bumped up against the slot issue.

And it was a simple less than one week waiver amendment.

DHCF reached out to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicated that we were coming to the total number of slots allocated for the year, and said that we needed to bump that up for the year and that we had the resources to pay for it, and we got an immediate yes.

So that the number of slots, as I said, is really a function of calculating the cost neutrality in the waiver more than it's an issue of you don't fund an individual slot.

You provide the services of each person that comes in based on their needs.

The reason why this answer isn't sufficient for me is because as facilities chair and now tasked with allocating the budget to meet the needs of the community.

If you tell me that we don't fund individual slots, then what can I look to if I want to ensure that there isn't a waiting list in my purview as the legislative branch who is now in charge with allocating the budget, which is my function is to allocate the budget.

How am I able to allocate the budget to meet the need of our community?

You can look at the appendix J that we have published.

Okay.

You can look at prior year appendix J's, you can compare, you can see how much it went up.

I mean, it's like I say, it's it is a complex calculation because it is literally more than 200 lines of services and making an assessment of the process.

So if it's complex, if it's complex for you all who are, I mean, let me be you you are the expert.

If it's complex for you, my budget office, it's going to be even more complex for them, um, with me trying to explain it to them and me and Specian having to deal with the rest of this bigger budget.

So I'm asking you to make it easier for me to do what my job is right now, which is eliminate the need for a waiting list by funding what that funding need is.

Um, and I don't want to add 1.7 million or more, and then DDS says that's not enough to get rid of the waiting list.

Um so in order for me to smart to budget smart, right, like you all do, I do need an answer here that would allow me to do that.

I don't even know, and it's possible I would have to consult with DHCF.

It's possible that we would need to do an amendment to our waiver in order to do that because we would be amending the appendix J.

And we're doing an amendment, but that amendment is our plan is to do an amendment that will go into effect January of 2027.

Our current appendix J anticipates that a waiting list is in place.

And we get quarterly from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services a whole list of those 200 lines, what we projected and what we actually utilized and spent and anything that is 10 percent higher or lower, we have to provide a justification.

And in the same way, if if the overall is 10 percent would be a huge amount over or under, given that our current waiver is at about 400 million dollars.

But it is, I do believe, and I I could get back to you on this, I do believe that that would require a waiver amendment.

It's not simply something that we could do.

Because it is in our current appendix J.

So we would have to update the appendix J and submit that to CMS.

If DDS keeps its waiting list, how and how and how often will DDA assess whether an individual can be offered a spot off the waiting list.

As I said, what we will look at it, what we will look at, well, I'm not looking next to me right now, is our first quarter FRP.

Our assessment thus far in the year is that we have been achieving good savings, and we will know by the first quarter FRP not only whether the whether we have been successful in achieving those savings, we will also know whether CMS has approved an amended waiver, which would be amending um to eliminate the waiting list and would be implementing some of the changes that have been recommended by the DDA uh sustainability work group.

Okay.

What is your response to concerns that DDS's deviation from the previous established policy that each slot could be filled by an eligible individual makes the waiver slot numbers meaningless?

That people have simply not understood what the waiver slot numbers meant.

I have attempted, as I said, poorly perhaps to explain it in a number of our meetings.

We finally moved on from it because it appeared then as it appears today, that I haven't been able to explain that, that we look at the overall budget, we look at all services and all people being served, not individual slots.

How does DDS plan then to determine when there is adequate funding to lift any waiting list imposed in the future?

We get both a quarterly FRP, but we they also do monthly updates to that FRP.

At the first quarterly FRP, we will have a, I think a fair very good sense of where we stand in terms of the waiver.

When is the first quarterly FRP?

January 2027.

Which means that we would, as I said, have a pause from October to January of just the IDD waiver.

Um the IFS waiver would continue admitting people.

We could continue providing in-home supports to people.

Uh we could continue providing up to $75,000 worth of services to those people.

Uh we have reserve spaces in our waiver anticipating for the number of people from CFSA, the youth from CFSA who may need these services and would be transitioning, and so those would be available as well.

Okay.

So the potential is 90 to maybe 120 days of a gap for individuals.

Yes.

Um if the waiting list is now in the amended waiver and projections are based on the amended waiver, when do we get out of having a waiting list?

Will we be in this same position, say, in fiscal year 28?

No.

So as I said, we anticipate amending the waiver.

Um my hope is that it would be in effect uh January 2027.

And so we would be publishing the revised uh appendix J in the fall as part of the public comment period.

And our expectation is that that our expectation and hope is that that would be done without a waiting list because we are making substantial changes.

We're making real progress in making some changes that we think will um ensure that we can live within our current means.

If you all can amend the waiver to remove the waiting list in the fall for January 2027, then why can't you all just do it now for fiscal year 27?

We submitted our amendment for our we're we're actually still waiting on CMS to approve our most recent amendment to the waiver that we started working on last spring.

Okay.

If I'm able to find the money, I want to get rid of the waiting list.

I mean I think you understand that even if it exists only on paper due to cost saving efforts.

But again I do not want to add money just for the waiver waiting lists to continue.

And as I said when we get to the amendment to the waiver in January and as we're able to fully evaluate the cost savings from the changes that service coordination has been making, we'll be in a good place in January of 2027 to say that the current funds are sufficient to eliminate the waiting list.

We can't do it prior to then because we've got to for one go through this process of amending our appendix J to ensure that we're accurately reflecting both the changes that we'll be making the um the basis for those changes the basis for us saying that we believe we can serve this many people because the level of service to to some may be reduced based on paying more attention to this issue of house rates, paying more attention to number of hours that people receive of service and those kinds of things.

If I add money and there is still a waiting list will DDA reduce the cost saving measures it intends to implement no the cost savings measures that we're implementing when we had discussions about them they were so one of the I remember one of the first things we started with had to do with doing an exercise where we presented a hypothetical person.

We actually took all the identifying information out it was a real case and asked providers can you can you give us your estimate of what level services this person would need based on what you're reading here.

And one of the things that came up was well just in case this person is going to need 16 hours a day of periodic supported living just in case I'm concerned about these issues.

And when we looked at this when we looked at it and looked at it together what we what we were able to develop was a sort of matrix of people who have a level of need here and overall needs that identify these specific needs there would be an expectation that they would be funded at this level going beyond that would require some kind of additional approval.

That not only is about saving money, it's also having someone in your home 16 hours a day is an intrusion unless you need that person in your home 16 hours a day.

We heard wonderful testimony at the performance hearing from a parent who talked about how important services were to allowing her child to become more independent to be able to communicate but we also have to make sure on the other side that we're not over supporting people that we're not providing so much support to people that they're not learning to live more independently and that they're having people there more hours than what they need.

Part of that part of to that end in part we have the um remote support pilot and that's going to be expanded we hope to more than a hundred people and we will see how those people are faring with having technology and remote supports so that they are able to live more independently and get just the the services and the visits into their home that they need while they are then able to get the support they need and able to connect to people in the community the way the rest of us would this isn't a m well I mean so this isn't a matter of funding it is a decision of it's more of a policy posture.

So are you saying DDS does not doesn't need or want me to add money to the IDD waiver because if I do add many I'm not sure what if anything would be able to be paid for that wouldn't be paid for in the current proposed budget.

Because in the course of the year, while it is true that we will have a waiting list on October 1, it will not be in place for that long.

And we believe that with making these changes, we will be able to live within the budget that exists now.

And so adding money to that is is going to help prevent a pause when we really are able to make necessary changes.

And I think it's essential to make some of these changes.

It shouldn't be.

In 2014, we had the settings of uh rule that requires us to provide services in the community in the least restrictive setting.

I think some of our advocates happen to believe that the more services you get, the better served you are.

I don't agree with that.

I think that services are intended to help you live your life as independently as possible.

And as I said last time we heard from someone who needed a lot of services to be independent and to access their environment.

But many people need services in order to transition into their environment.

And we need to do a better job of helping people do that.

Is there a cost savings estimate that you all have for the changes that you believe will result in that?

Do you all have an estimate of cost savings?

We haven't done that yet because we would do it as part of the amendment process.

So we work with the analysts at DHCF who prepare the appendix, J.

Got you.

You mentioned revising the supported living rate structures.

Can you elaborate on uh why the working group identified this as a cost-saving measure?

Well, as I said, we have this one issue in supported living where we have what's called house rates.

And we didn't always have that in the waiver.

Okay.

Um it got added because adding individual services.

I I don't know the whole reason it got added.

It's before my time.

Um but what house rates do essentially is if is that services to everyone in the home are provided at the staffing level of the highest needs person.

And the reason for that is, for example, if you have a person in a two-person home who needs one-to-one staff, you can't provide one to two staff to the other person because of house rates.

Now because of house.

We what we don't include and plan to include in the waiver is that you could explore technology, you could explore remote supports, you could explore uh supported living periodic for that other person.

The thing is it was based on a um an expectation of having to do a staffing ratio for each person in the home.

So like one to one, one to two, as opposed to having more flexible services available, which we have been implementing, and we hope through our pilot project we're going to see success with.

How long does DDA uh DDA expect completing revising revising these rate structures to take?

We expect they would be in place January 2027.

January 2027.

And and how are you all, how is DDA going to ensure revisiting supported living rate structures will not adversely affect supported persons, including by avoiding cutting staffing levels that are actually necessary?

I mean, part of our uh waiver amendment process is a very robust public process where we explain what the changes are, we take people's feedback and make any necessary changes based on that feedback.

Okay.

Um the working group also recommending, I guess, aligning services with the person's assess needs.

Um again, why was this identified as an area that could create cost-saving measures?

I know you mentioned aligning services would be achieved through training or accurate and consistent assessment of supports needs and robust internal controls related to the review and approval of services.

I guess can you provide examples of how these trainings and internal controls are still going to basically guarantee that a person receives all the services and supports they need and are not just need but are entitled to keeping in mind that, and we heard from them today, we have uh a pretty robust system of quality oversight within the Department on Disability Services, we have monitoring that's done by service coordination, and then we have monitoring done by our quality assurance and performance management administration.

During the Evans litigation, the Quality Trust for People with Disabilities was created, and they do ongoing monitoring of the work done by DDS, and I meet monthly with the director of quality trusts, so to the extent they were to the extent they are identifying problems, they immediately call service coordination, but then we also talk about those in our monthly meeting.

And we also have the protection and advocacy center, the Disability Rights DC, which, you know, as we know, we'll be watching over whatever we're doing.

Um I agree with you.

We do have a strong um monitoring system.

I just rather a person supports and services are not cut in the first place rather than needing to go to quality trusts or disability rights DC to get the services that they need.

Can I provide some some context for that?

Just that I know that we heard a lot of testimony about some very concerning reductions of the 19 the 2,000 people in the two waivers, 1,900 in the IDD, 100 people in the IFS waiver.

We've had 14 level one appeals within the agency.

Seven of those were approved, so that's a first level appeal, you're talking to the supervisor trying to work it out.

Seven of those were denied, and one of those that got denied went to a level two appeal.

We've had only three cases at OAH.

I know we heard a lot about the concerns about whether we're respecting rights, three cases out of 2,000 people served.

And I'm not saying that those three people didn't if they deserved to have it, we should have done it.

And I'm as concerned about each of those individual people, but I also want to make sure that it's in proper context.

My question then, I and I do you think that every person who had services terminated.

I guess I I don't know that every person who had services terminated actually appealed.

So I can't I hear you.

I just can't that can't be the only litmus test that I use, utilize to do the oversight.

So you asked us at the last hearing about terminated services, and in FY25, for example, fitness, we had 24 people who were terminated.

Of those 24, um, four of them were because they it wasn't really a termination.

The person or the uh guardian requested a change of provider.

Four of them, the person or the guardian said they wanted to terminate the service.

One of them transitioned to institutional care.

Um was an error and and was returned.

It was an administrative error, it wasn't actually terminated.

Um assessment didn't recommend ongoing or clinical necessity, um, and four transition to non-waiver supports in the community, which included a supported living provider that had fitness goals and used recreational activities in the community, an exercise group at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, a supported living provider that also was bringing people into the community and had started, and that would be the idea.

You have a fitness provider teaching, and then the provider picks it up.

And the other was a person who began visiting the Iona Senior Day program.

So even though they terminated, they we do transition people appropriately.

Um I understand that sometimes that doesn't happen, and when it doesn't happen in that manner, we work to correct it.

A lot of conversation is DDS's position that nutrition services must be exhausted under the state plan before individuals can enroll in them under the waiver.

I think I would say that all services you should make sure it we have this um integrated support star.

You you go through an assessment before you provide any service in the waiver of first exploring whether there are natural supports.

Um then there are Medicaid provided nutrition services, and if what is provided there does not meet the person's need, then they would go to the waiver.

In the same way, we have dental services that are paid through Medicaid, but our waiver supplements what they get.

And so, you know, the idea is what we should do a good job of at the team meeting is planning with a person, the extent to which these waiver services are needed for your independence and the extent to which these waiver services are moving you toward independence, and how are we planning for that?

And it should not be an abrupt, you can find that elsewhere.

It should be working together as a team to identify what it will be, trying it out, making sure it works, and then having a transition.

We have 80 service coordinators doing the very best they can on occasion.

Is there a problem?

Yes.

But as the asandy from Disability Rights DC referenced, we are doing a much better job now.

We now have a form which makes sure that things get done consistently, that is it that is completed by service coordinators each time that they may be denying terminating or reducing a service.

And the possibility down at the bottom of that form that it says will the service continue would be if you're denying a new service request.

Well, we're not going to put the service in place if we told you no.

So the answer to the question there would be no.

Gotcha.

So I guess I I can understand DDS's preference that the state plan services are exhausted for all services before enrolling in the waiver.

What I was trying to understand is under the requirements of the waiver, I'm I'm trying to understand from from uh chair perspective, what services is DDA allowed to enroll in waiver without exhausting services under the state plan.

Something that's not available in the state plan.

So supportive living isn't available in the state plan.

Got it.

Okay.

And as I said, there are other considerations as well.

Whether there are natural supports, whether there are community-based supports, whether there's Medicaid support, and then we get to the waiver.

Now the one I was really I I'm curious about was the your testimony also mentioned the working group recommending expanding the use of assistive technology and remote supports.

I'm curious why the working group identified this as a cost-saving measure, only because unlike other cost-saving measures, assistive technology and remote supports have upfront cost.

Is DDS going to be able to pay for the upfront cause as it awaits savings from implementing the plan?

So assisted them.

The assistive technology, purchasing equipment for the person is in our waiver.

And so we can pay up to I want to say 10,000 dollars.

And if I'm wrong, I'll correct this later.

But we can pay to purchase equipment for the person, and that is in the waiver.

We would be responsible for the 30 percent local share, and that is already calculated in our waiver.

The significant piece that's made this difficult is so when you do remote supports, you've got to have a base.

And there are the costs of implementing that infrastructure.

We have, with the use of ARPA funds, funded three providers to be able to pay the upfront costs for that, and as I said, but between them, they anticipate serving at least a hundred people utilizing remote supports, and that will give us a good sense.

And then from there we will once we see how effective that has been, they're they're meeting monthly.

They had their first monthly meeting after implementing, so we'll see how that goes.

And if it does appear to be successful for increasing independence for people and for saving.

And you know, we have separate rates for remote supports, and you can see those in our waiver that's posted on our website.

And the thing that's more help for the person than savings.

The savings, the rate is not that much of a savings.

Right.

But the independence for the person is tremendous.

Got you.

Um I guess how are you all gonna make sure that expanding remote supports will not have adversely affect supported persons, particularly through lowering the quality of care and especially medical care?

So part of our remote supports is a requirement that a person have face-to-face contact with someone every day.

Um they also have a requirement for on-call.

And our rate includes um a certain number of hours each day for face-to-face.

So there is still a check-in every single day with the person.

Um we learned during COVID that remote support remote monitoring is not the same as in-person monitoring.

Yes, we learned that across agencies.

Um that's what that's what I was referring to.

And we implemented in-person monitoring by the end of 2020.

So as you know, um, there are some uh senior residents who don't like technology overall and they get frustrated with it.

Uh my mother being one, so I can just say that I can throw my own mother but there.

Anytime we ask her, she is told to move to technology of any sort, it gives her anxiety to the point that I literally have to be like, mom, you can do this.

What's going to be there for people who you may offer assistive technology and they say I don't want it.

I want a person, I don't want assisted technology.

A lot of seniors are going to say this.

I get, you know, I have a lot of seniors.

And whenever we try to institute technology, not just in this context, but in any other context, right?

I'm there's some seniors right now upset because they're like, I'm not paying my rent online, and I want to give a check and a money order.

I'm telling you, this is like a real issue.

So anytime you ask seniors to start using technology, I can tell you that they start to get anxiety and then they get upset, and it's a thing.

I want to make sure when we start instituting assisted technology that if a one of our um participants says, hey, this isn't something, I know the agency thinks this is great, but it's not something that's great for me.

Are you all going to allow there to be the opportunity for them to appeal based on their preference?

That shouldn't even get to an appeal.

This should be what the person wants.

As an example, and this isn't on the DDA side, but as you're aware, in the Randolph Shepherd program, we reached out to all of the vendors asking what kind of accommodation they needed in terms of written material.

And one of the people said, Don't talk to me about using a computer, making large print on the computer.

I'm not going to learn a computer.

In my 80s years, I haven't.

I want you to record letters on a cassette tape and mail them to me.

And that is what we are doing.

Okay.

So I want to be clear.

I do not believe cost saving measures are a bad thing per se.

Um I'm glad we were able to go through each of these because there's some pros and cons to each of these.

And I'm not opposed to, you know, some of these plans uh in and of themselves.

However, I and others are apprehensive about the timing.

I want to be clear of DDA's decision to implement these measures.

And on that note, I just want to be clear as to whether DDA is making these changes because costs are higher than they should be, or that the district no longer has the money to pay for supports and services as we used to.

And to that end, Director, um, would you consider DDA has been overspending over the last several years when it comes to paying for supported living rate structures?

Yes, and I'd want to, because of this issue in part of house rates, but also because of supporting people just in case.

We all still have, even though it was next year it will be 10 years since we exited Evans.

I think that many people still have this anxiety of, you know, they they want to prevent anything, and that's not how you know real people live their lives with some level of dignity of risk.

And we need to make sure that that we're allowing people to do that.

And one thing, many of these changes, COVID really made too much noise in the data.

Um in 2014, the settings rule was implemented, and we had to create a transition plan for how we would implement this.

Our transition plan, I believe, was the second one in the country approved, and that was done in 2017.

In 2001, uh DHCF reported that they were starting to see some savings related to some of the changes we were making.

And then COVID came.

And so what we are doing now is picking up where we were in 2019 and continuing to implement what what is required to be implemented, which is that services get provided in the least restrictive, and having a person next to you is a restriction in the least restrictive and most community integrated manner possible.

Um as you know, there's always certain amount of resistance to change.

Um we saw this during the unwinding of public health emergency, particularly with the removal of flexibilities to companion services.

Um and then we did see complaints about changes due to frustration that things were not going to be the same as they were the last several years.

But frankly, we also saw examples of services that were reduced or removed when they shouldn't have been and sort of were untimely ultimately restored.

Does DDA expect the number of appeals to increase due to uh these uh changes to waiver services?

No, we don't actually.

And you know, some of what you learn when you get the appeal is how people may have made some missteps and you're able to then identify the people who need ongoing training.

We didn't just have, you know, a one and done with the training.

They have uh division-wide meetings every month, they have unit meetings every month.

I you know, they identify um individual people and individual units where they might need more support and in an ongoing way are working with people to make sure that they understand some people hear it much more simply, which is reduce the service, which is not what it's about.

It's about transitioning people into the community and only providing the level of service that they need.

Okay.

And what is overall DDS's response to concerns that some of the reductions and terminations of waiver services are in violation of Medicaid due process rights through the arbitrary decisions without legal justifications.

As I said, three cases at OAH.

Okay.

I will say this.

I and others will be monitoring closely, not just the number of appeals, but how many of those appeals result in reversal of DDA decisions?

And if the numbers tell us DDA is cutting services that people need, we're going to need to re-evaluate the mentality and the strategy behind these cost saving efforts.

I understand.

As I said, three out of two thousand.

Does DD8 plan to implement any cost saving measures, including changes to policy or procedure, practices or services that were not recommended by the working groups?

No.

We did not go into as much detail about the changes to the house rate, but indicated that we would be doing that during the waiver amendment process.

But when we brought it up, people thought that was fantastic.

Okay.

My final point on these cost saving measures is going forward.

I really want DDA to be intentional, as I believe you are, about not overdoing changes just for the sake of cost savings, which is sounds like it's not what you've communicated to me is not the impetus of the reason.

But I know and I know every complaint I get about reduction or termination does not mean DDA did something wrong.

Um but I also don't want DDA to dismiss all complaints of supported persons and their families as frustration about change and routine instead of legitimate concerns about the reductions and terminations adversely affecting the well-being of supportive persons.

And so can I get a commitment that when balancing saving money or providing necessary supports and services, DDA will choose the latter over the former?

Oh, absolutely.

Okay.

Staying on waiver, I want to talk about the administrative fee.

The administrative fee is the only clin line item that did not increase from the fiscal year 26.

I think we've talked about the consequences of a low administrative fee on our disability provider network during the last two previous budgets.

This committee was able to partially restore funding each time.

This year, not only is administrative fee too low, but DDA is also requiring providers to fill more burdensome requirement reporting requirements, which is what we heard, that will be paid for with the administrative fee.

And in fact, we are being told by providers that the cost of these reporting requirements alone is much higher than the total administrative fee.

Has DDS met with the Coalition on Disability Service Providers about the recording requirements since they were announced.

Well, I was just hearing that the meeting was canceled.

I know that we did meet with we yes, we have met with them since it was announced.

We announced it, we had a meeting with them, we changed how it would be implemented so that we could make it something that was less burdensome for them, and then they asked for a subsequent meeting.

We meet with the provider leadership coalition or provider coalition leadership on a regular basis, and so I'm sure we will continue to talk about this issue in those meetings.

Can I uh I have two weeks, so I need something to happen within the next two weeks because before I can make decisions about changes to all the committee agencies' budgets, um I need to understand sort of Yes, I will I do want to say two things.

Um I can make the commitment except that I'll be leaving town next Wednesday.

So but but my staff who implement this will be able to meet with them.

Um I do want to make a couple of important points.

One is that we did not increase the CLIN lines, we increased the amount that will be paid for each of those other CLIN lines because of increased utilization of all of those during 2026.

We're serving more people by the end of the year than we were last year, so the cost in 27 will be higher.

But it is not that we are paying as Mr.

Paragall indicated, we're not paying more uh for rent for clothing for food.

Those clin lines did not go up.

The admin cost, as we have said before, well, as I've said before, prior to implementing a requirement that exists in the human care agreement.

I was at a loss to identify what the administrative burden of this human care agreement was at all.

All that we do, because to the extent that we're talking, it's it's a reimbursement.

We're paying them for food they've purchased, rent they've paid, utilities they paid.

It means writing a check.

At that time, so prior to our human care agreement requires that they reserve receipts and that they provide them upon request.

And so we've implemented a system for requesting that data, which we had not done previously.

Other than that, the administrative burden of receiving money from us and paying bills did not seem burdensome.

And what was detailed in the testimony last year was essentially well, we use it for cost overruns in the waiver.

In other words, that's extra money that falls to the bottom line that we use when we have had a robust public comment period for our waiver about whether our rates are adequate.

Uh we have an admin cost within the waiver, and they're using admin costs from the human care agreement to fund what they see as shortfalls in what they receive in the waiver.

But within the human care agreement, prior to us implementing the requirement that they actually comply with what the human care agreement says about maintaining information about what's spent on each person and providing that to us on a quarterly basis.

As I say, I'm at a loss to see what the administrative burden of receiving money and writing checks was.

So DDS recognizes that providers use the administrative fee for overtime of direct support professionals.

I know it since I heard it from Mr.

Paragall a year ago.

Okay.

And so we have overtime funded within the waiver.

It is a line within each of the rates.

And I guess so, so then there you do recognize that there would be less money for overtime due to the reporting requirements.

That's not what it is intended for.

If there are an if there is a need for the waiver rates to change based on the need for increased funding for overtime vacation and training, then that should be that should be made part of the public comment when we publish an amendment to our waiver.

And and it was not.

Okay.

But what if those areas are not increased in the waiver?

What should providers do to pay them to pay for them?

I mean, you know, we have a mix of success amongst providers of being able to meet uh their financial obligations, both under the human care agreement and the waiver.

Okay.

So I think there's a disagreement between whether the new requirements are burdensome to providers or not.

It's clear the agency feels like it's not overly burdensome, it's not newly burst, and providers feel like it is overly burdensome and it's costing them.

So I think that's the impasse here.

And we need to have a follow-up meeting.

There was one scheduled.

That was my last point here is I'm going to insist that you all meet with residential providers as soon as possible and report back because I have a job to do in two weeks to make it sustainable make this sustainable for providers and figure out um what if anything our our committee can do and needs to do to deal with this.

I appreciate that.

Um as announced last year, the mayor's proposed fiscal year 27 budget freezes the direct care professional wages, so no longer tying it to the 117.6 percent of the district's living.

Earlier we heard testimony about the impact of this freeze on the direct support professional workforce.

Does DDS believe this freeze will will resort in more direct support workers leaving either the district or the industry?

And if so, you know, how does DDS intend to compet such an exodus?

And if not, why not?

I mean, in part I don't know that I'd say an exodus.

I I would be concerned year over year of seeing this occur because, you know, as I said, it'll it'll get closer and closer to the living wage.

Currently, we're still at this time we're still at 117.6 percent.

And so when the living wage goes up in July, we will be behind a little bit.

I think that what we need to keep in mind is we're not just talking about the DDS, DSP workforce.

We're also talking about across the city other people that provide direct services.

Um it was um extremely costly to implement the um DSP wage enhancement.

The total cost for DDS, I believe, was around $140 million for three years of implementing the DSP wage increase.

And so thinking about how do you keep doing this is a tremendous challenge.

And you know, we are doing other things.

Right now, we've made one of the amendments in our waiver.

Um this could also create more of more pressure within that workforce, but we've made some changes to allow for um career enhancement for DSPs to allow for them to more easily be able to move up the ladder to become uh QIDPs.

Yeah, I heard I heard you I appreciated the strategies you all identify earlier to try to deal with what what we're experiencing and seeing across agencies and and within your agencies.

I just think in only a few years, there's going to be a little to no difference between the DSP wage and the living wage, and I think erasing many years of and millions of dollars spent improving the DSP workforce capacity and DSP well-being.

And so I guess does DDS have a plan to address the tipping point?

And are we are you working on this now?

Or we or we get to this point?

Our wage is still considerably higher than the surrounding jurisdictions as well.

So that that does help us in that regard.

The bigger challenge is that's true for the district as a whole.

And so while our DSP wage is higher, our living and our minimum wages are higher as well.

Um, I think that every year, as the administration is developing the budget, they look at what the costs are and the ability to make those transformations.

Turning to the rental reimbursement cap, uh, the rental caps are 20 percent below the median rent for a one bedroom and 30 was 31 percent below the median for a two-bedroom.

During last year's budget hearing, we talked about DDS's strong record with supported persons living within the district.

Um what percent of supported persons are living within the district in fiscal year 26, and does DDS expect the number to decrease given current rents and rental caps.

I would have to get back to you on the exact percent, and I'm trying to remember if I have it somewhere here because I saw it very recently with a whole list of where everyone lives.

Um keeping in mind that, I mean, for one, we currently have, I think it's fifty-three vacancies within supported living.

So if a person were moving, they'd move into an existing vacation.

One of those vacancies.

Okay.

Um each time that a person's lease is renewed or that a person has to move, it's an individual decision.

Gotcha.

The caps are a general guideline.

And in individual cases, we can go beyond the cap when the need is there.

Um we don't see it.

We have had people that move primarily.

I I do recall when I looked at the list, primarily they were living in Silver Spring, which is right over the line.

Um, and they are primarily close in in the suburbs.

We're not seeing people.

The people who we have who live further out are people who are in host homes, um, where they're in a family setting in a bedroom community further out.

But generally speaking, our folks in supported living, okay high it's Philadelphi Silver Spring.

Okay.

Um in addition to needing to move to Maryland, there's also concern that the current rental caps for supported persons to live in small specific areas of the district that may have fewer resources, which of course this goes against the homestead's integration mandate.

Uh does DDS believe the current rental caps hinder integration of supported persons across the district?

No, and that's actually it's something that we're required to evaluate as part of our transition plan, and we do to make sure that people are not clustered too closely together so that they're not integrated into the community.

We do have certain areas where you do see more people and you do want that to some degree.

I mean, I have thought before the you know people may make friends amongst other people who are supported with them.

So having living close to your friend is a good thing as well as you don't want to cluster everyone together.

Yeah.

Um I want to turn to RSA during, Director, you mentioned the RSA's Federal grant was reduced by 2.3 million because we did not meet the requirement in 2023 and expect additional penalties for missing it in 2024 and 2025.

With tightening budgets, I don't think we can be leaving 2.3 million on the table.

Why do we why did we miss the maintenance of effort requirement in 23, 24, and 25?

Because of prior year reductions in our local funding.

And so by 23, when we were coming out of the period where we had all these extra funds because of the enhanced FMAP on the DDA side, we had more challenges meeting.

The local match requirement for the VR grant is 21 point is 21.3 percent.

Our maintenance of effort requirement was well over $8 million.

We were over 50 percent matched.

So when we missed the maintenance of effort one year, to some degree we intentionally missed it the next year, because otherwise you would have a maintenance of effort local funds requirement that one year is $8 million and the next year it's six million, then it's back to eight and then six.

So it made for more consistent budget planning.

Um our maintenance of effort is now closer to what our match requirement is.

Okay.

And um and just it was sort of coincidentally.

Uh after many years of not providing one, the Department of Education provided a cost of living increase to our VR grant in um April of 2025.

With the and that increased the grant from like 15.6 to 17.5 million, something like that.

Um with the maintenance of effort penalty, we have essentially just lost the um cost of living increase that they gave us, or we have deferred the cost of living increase until we get past this period of right sizing our maintenance of effort.

Uh the other thing that is available to us is many states are unable to meet their match.

In August every year, states that can't meet their match have to return grant funds, and they do what is called reallotment, and so that states that are overmatched can seek realotment funds.

We continue to have our local funds budget at the higher grant amount to to match the higher grant amount.

So to the extent we needed those additional funds, we could seek it as well during the realotment process.

Got it.

And is that your is that is that your intention to do?

I expect this year it's not going to be necessary.

We carried over much of our grant last year.

And so, but it it would be something we will pay attention to all year, and to the extent it's necessary, we feel like we're in a good place to do it.

Okay.

When does RSA expect to be able to meet the requirement?

The the maintenance of effort requirements.

So it's been reduced.

So in FY26, we will meet the maintenance of effort requirement because we have got that reduced maintenance of effort.

Right.

Okay, that's great.

Okay.

As always, we're going to end with Randolph Shepherd.

Uh in February.

In February, we talked about how things were seemingly getting better with the program.

Um it seems some of the issues were not resolved with the closing of the office of administrative hearing cases.

Uh are you aware that there has been a I guess there's a case filed against DDS in Federal Court now?

Not against us, no.

Not that I'm aware of.

There is there is a Randolph Shepherd matter in Federal Court, but not in DDS.

It's so the Secretary of Defense asserted that the Randolph Shepherd priority undermined the the United States.

They tried to put people off Army bases, and there is a there is a case, the district is joining the case.

If there's a case in Federal Court that I'm not aware of, um, I expect I'll get a text right now from my attorney back there telling me.

But that's the Federal case I'm aware of, and the district is is planning to join that case.

We have no it's about Army bases right now.

We have no Army bases in D.C., but the Secretary of Education, when the Secretary of Defense requested that it be that they waive the preference, waived it.

And with no hearing, no arbitration, nothing.

She just waived it.

Our concern is that that's a slippery slope and that they could start to erode the Randolph Shepherd preference across other federal agencies.

So we do think this case is important.

And so that's why the district is joining it.

Okay.

Um based on what I was looking up, I think there was something the court order OH to file record with the court by May 11th.

So it look into whatever this pending case is that has been filed.

It looks like you all could just basically keep us updated on the status of the litigation.

I'll afterwards I will share with you what we're seeing on the system.

And you're saying in federal court?

Yeah.

District Columbia Court of Appeals.

Oh, DC Court of Appeals.

Maybe.

We'll confer with you afterwards, but we just want to make sure that could be someone who had filed an appeal to an OAH proceeding.

Oh, okay.

That that would be because the OAH proceedings go directly to the DC Court of Appeals.

Okay.

All right.

I'll I'll follow up on the code.

But we'll find that isn't give you an update.

Okay.

And so I just need DDS and RSA to continue to do a great job of listening to vendors and where appropriate provide accountability across the board.

I'm meeting with the vendors every other week currently in their policy committee.

So things are going quite well right now with the Randolph Shepard program.

As you know, the DC Healthcare Alliance program is undergoing significant changes due to budget cuts.

So the way that it affects people is not as much that they get health care through the DC Health Alliance as the eligibility for our services is that you're Medicaid eligible or you're eligible for the DC Healthcare Alliance.

We're currently supporting one person who gets waiver services and their eligibility was based on being eligible for the DC Healthcare Alliance.

I I need to be able to explain to my budget office what you all tried to explain here but didn't.

I get it.

Okay.

I've been trying.

I know.

I'll consult with someone and do better next.

Okay.

Um so that those two things are of critical importance for me and the committee and the things that we're going to try to fill the hole on or make whole for providers and and participants across the board.

So thank you for that.

Again, thank you all for the um robust testimony that you gave and um so as well.

Um this concludes today's budget oversight hearing for the Office of Disability Rights and the Department of Disability Services.

And council support services.

So a reminder that the final deadline is submit written testimony is 5 p.m.

on Thursday, May 7th.

Uh you can do so by uploading your test into the council's hearing management system or emailing facilities at DC Council.gov.

With that, the time is 2 34 P.M.

and this hearing is adjourned.