Recording in progress.

Good morning, everyone.

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

I am Councilmember Brooke Pinto, representing Ward II and chairwoman of the committee.

The time is now 9 44 a.m.

on Wednesday, May 6th, 2026, and we are conducting this hearing in person in room 500 of the Johnny Wilson Building and streaming virtually on the DC Council's website and on YouTube and X at CM Brook Pinto.

Today the committee continues its review of Mayor Bowser's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget and financial plan.

We'll discuss the proposed budgets for the following three agencies.

First, the Department of Corrections.

Second, the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, and third, the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants.

First up will be the Department of Corrections.

DOC is responsible for providing a safe and secure environment for individuals in custody at the district's correctional facilities, which includes pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates.

In this role, the department manages the DC jail facilities, including the Central Detention Facility, CDF, and the Correctional Treatment Facility, CTF, as well as overseeing the range of programs and services offered to residents at these facilities, including educational, workforce development, and other programs focused on residents' successful reentry following the completion of their sentence.

The mayor's proposed FY2027 budget provides DOC with approximately 229 million dollars, which is a 0.4% increase from the current fiscal year.

This funding supports 1,230 FTEs, which is a decrease of one.

I want to be direct about the areas of concern that this committee will be asking about today.

The central detention facility is in serious disrepair, and the current practice of funding small fixes and upgrades as more and more systems fail due to age is not a viable long-term solution.

The Council for Court Excellence, through the Office of the DC Auditor, released a report last year on the urgent need for a new jail facility highlighting a range of ongoing concerns within the agency from issues with providing residents timely and quality health care to a lack of nutritious food offerings and consistently fresh fruits to produce to residents.

Many of the findings in this report are issues that I have addressed with DOC both during budget and performance site oversight hearings as well as in visits to the jail.

Excuse me, and we will continue to address these until they are resolved.

Despite my and others' continued calls for a new facility and expectation that this would come in the budget, the FY26 proposed budget removed capital funding for a new jail, and the 2027 budget continues with the plan to instead rely on private sector funding to finance this need.

The council needs detailed information on the plan for a new DC jail, and I'll be asking Director Faust about the timeline, accountability for this project, and where residents will be placed while the buildings are built.

Another area of concern is around staffing.

Staffing remains the most urgent operational concern at DOC.

DOC has had major understaffing problems for many years, which must be addressed.

A number, a high number of correctional officer vacancies have a direct effect on the programs that can be offered to residents at the jail, and I'll be asking about those numbers to understand the extent of that gap today.

A reduction in program offering offerings leads to worse outcomes for residents upon reentry and existing staff face greater demands on their time, including mandatory overtime, which are funds that could be used for other priorities and projects if there is otherwise sufficient staffing to prevent these overtime expenses.

Around $30 million was spent on overtime in FY 2025 due to short staffing and vacancies.

I'm looking forward to understanding today what this budget does to ensure adequate staffing both for the benefit of residents at the jail and the officers who serve there.

Furthermore, programming at the jail must be prioritized both while residents are in custody and upon release.

DOC offers comprehensive reentry services to residents and its care, including workshops, in-life skills, parenting, anger management, adult and continuing education, in-person instruction, certifications for specific career fields, resume preparation and financial management, as well as substance abuse treatment and other wraparound services.

These programs are vital tools that have proven to reduce recidivism and protect public safety.

While I'm pleased to see that funding for most programs has been maintained, I'm concerned that maintaining these programs at current funding levels won't be sufficient to support the increase in population.

Funding is insufficient to supplement additional programs that I've introduced and proposed, and that the council has passed, like my bill, the Fresh Starts Act or my Bill of the Ease Act, which provides additional training opportunities and opportunities to engage in the legislative process as well as access to healthier food and better hospitality training.

The DC government has an obligation to the residents in our custody, to the communities to which those residents will return, and to the correctional officers who show up every day in the facility.

I look forward to continuing to work with Director Faust and my council colleagues to ensure that this budget supports those obligations.

Following DOC, we'll hear from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department or FEMS, whose mission is to preserve life and promote health and safety through excellent pre-hospital treatment and transportation, fire prevention, fire suppression and rescue activities, and homeland security awareness.

The mayor's proposed FY2027 budget provides fire and EMS with approximately 402 million dollars and 8.9% increase over last fiscal year.

The capital budget also has a large proposed increase of 15.1% compared to FY26.

I have questions for Chief Donnelly today about how the mayor's proposed budget will impact the quality of life and safety of firefighters, service provided to residents, and maintenance of the department's fleet and facilities.

I am pleased to see continued investments in capital improvements, modernizations, and renovations of our firehouses that must operate 24-7.

Additionally, I'm glad to see funding allocated to replace Fire Boat 1 so that DC can continue to provide world-class emergency response in all areas of the city.

The urgency of this improvement was underscored by the horrific plane crash over the Potomac last year, and we must ensure first responders have the resources they need in an emergency.

Although this funding is not within the FIRE and EMS budget, I'm very disappointed and very concerned that this budget does not allocate needed money in the Workforce Development Fund to account for the new collective bargaining agreement with the fire department.

Local 36 has been negotiating in good faith since July of 2024, and despite being an arbitration and therefore hopefully closer to a new CBA, there is now insufficient funding for any CBA.

Our first responders deserve to be paid appropriately, and we must show them the gratitude we have for them as a city by properly compensating all of our first responders through on-time and fair CBAs rather than continuing the practice of operating under expired CBAs and failing to allocate proper funding.

These workforce investment funds for collective bargaining agreements and non-union pay increases could be funded with revenues currently being held back by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to prioritize funding for collective bargaining agreements and non-union pay increases within this budget.

Finally, we'll turn to the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants or OVSJG.

OVSJG's mission is to develop, fund, and coordinate programs that improve public safety, enhance the administration of justice, and create systems of care for crime victims, youth, and their families in the district.

OVSJG issues victim service grants and justice grants to community organizations that support returning citizens, victims of domestic violence and sexual assault or immigrant community and victims of other crimes.

OVSJG is also the state administering agency responsible for the direction of systemic criminal justice planning, coordination, management, research training, and technical assistance.

The agency provides policymaking expertise, advice, and counsel to the executive on the role of victims and offenders in the criminal justice system, the evidence-based practices to respond to, intervene in, and prevent violence.

This is done in part through the work of the juvenile justice advisory group, which includes five appointed youth members and the domestic violence fatality review board.

The mayor's proposed FY 2027 budget proposes a total budget of 77 million dollars for OVSJG.

This reflects an over 30% decrease to the agency's budget compared to FY26.

The majority of the proposed cuts are made to access to justice, or ATJ, which is facing an 86% reduction of $27 million.

The mayor proposed similarly drastic cuts to ATJ last year.

My colleagues and I were able to work together to fill most of this gap.

This year, however, agencies across the district are facing drastic cuts.

So right sizing access to justice budget will be more challenging, but even more important to do.

I know we have many of the ATJ grantees testifying today, and I want to thank you all in advance for your work to provide critical legal services to district residents throughout the year and your advocacy to the entire council of this important funding priority.

ATJ is a vital program.

It's crucial for both residents and for all of our broader public safety goals as a city.

We know that there is a deep correlation between public safety and people having their core needs met, including stable housing and access to legal representation.

ATJ estimates that the proposed cuts to their budget will leave almost 40,000 district residents without access to critical civil legal services that would otherwise help them remain in stable housing, access social benefits and health care, receive protection from domestic violence conflicts, resolve child custody disputes, and so much more.

ATJ has provided information that for every one dollar that we spend on civil legal help, there's a $7 return on that investment.

Ensuring ATJ is funded is a top priority for me this year, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the importance of this funding and the impact that they have had on our community throughout the year.

In addition to cuts to ATJ, OBSJG is facing an over $5.5 million cut to victim services.

This is not the time to be pulling back from our investments and victim services.

While overall crime is down in the city, the domestic violence homicide rates are rising.

We must ensure that our victim service providers have the funding they need to continue operating, cover rising costs, and work with our agencies to prevent domestic homicides before they occur.

Victim services grants also support our hospital-based violence intervention programs, or HVIPs, that interrupt cycles of violence by connecting victims of gun violence crimes at our hospitals with support services they need.

Ensuring HVIPs are funded also continues to be a top priority.

Finally, I'm concerned that the justice grants are facing an $83,000 reduction to an already comparatively small budget.

Justice grants support critical housing, employment, and mental health services to our returning citizens to ensure they are successful when they come home.

I look forward to speaking with OVSJG and all of our public witnesses today about the importance of these grants, how we can maximize the impact of this work during a difficult budget year, and if there are any ways that we can look at this agency's budget to move funding around to ensure that the money goes where it really needs to go, which is in our community.

So just so everybody knows for awareness, today we're going to hear from our DOC public witnesses, then our DOC government witnesses.

Then we're going to hear from FIRE and EMS public witnesses, then OVSJG public witnesses, then FIRE and EMS government witnesses, and then OVSJG government witnesses.

And so I'm going to ask for everybody's help to keep us on track.

Everyone will have three minutes to present their testimony.

At three minutes, we're going to have to cut you off so we can hear from everybody today.

So just be mindful of that.

You can watch the time as you go to ensure you can get your testimony in.

And of course, as always, please submit your testimony in writing to the committee so we can have the full version for the record if it is longer than that three minutes, too.

Okay.

With that, we are going to get started.

Timothy Armstead.

Welcome to you all.

And yes, if you can all sit in the order, which I call you.

So if you could sit in this third seat, and then Timothy Armstead.

Okay.

Welcome to you all.

A reminder to turn your microphones on when you are beginning.

We will start with Deontra Davis, State Policy Fellow, DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

Chairperson Pinto and Committee staff, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is DeAndre Davis, and I'm a state policy fellow at DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

My testimony focuses on the concerning use of fees imposed on residents of DOC as reflected in the mayor's uh proposed FY 2027 budget.

In particular, the projected increase to concession income, a special purpose revenue that is used by DOC to restock commissary items at DOC facilities.

And the mayor's proposed budget indicates that DOC revenue will be collected from DC residents in DOC facilities for concession income by them paying higher commissary fees.

The use of criminal legal fees within the criminal justice system disproportionately harms black residents with low incomes.

In 2024, 87.8% of people in DOC facilities work black due to systemic racism.

This means that the bulk of DOC fines and fees collections comes from black DC residents.

Many fees charged to DC residents in DOC are too much for them to pay on their own since they earn a maximum of 50 cents per hour and $3 to $4 per day.

People incarcerated in DOC have to rely on their family members to make up the difference in cost of commissary items to have basic necessities such as food, toiletries, and clothing.

However, both residents and their families are struggling to pay commissary fees.

And the mayor's proposed budget indicates that commissary fees are likely increasing, not going to cause more financial harm.

Concession income is generated from residents in DOC and their family members paying these commissary fees.

And according to the mayor's proposed budget and financial plan, concession income is projected to increase by 2.7 million dollars compared to the current $2 million budget in FY26.

At the same time, the resident welfare fund, which is intended to improve living conditions for individuals in DC jails, remains flat across the four years of the mayor's projected financial plan.

And this is odd considering the funding that comes from commissary profits of the resident welfare fund is primarily used to improve living conditions of DC residents in DOC.

The resident welfare fund could potentially help residents in DOC facilities afford commissary costs that they otherwise are struggling to pay.

And this could help put pay for other services like educational support services and re-entry services.

And the committee should examine how DLC can make better use of this resident welfare fund.

In contrast, the mayor's budget proposes a 44.4% increase in overtime pay, and this is a massive increase to staff pay while there are still many unmet needs for residents in DLC.

The committee should ask DOC a clear explanation for why there is such a large increase in the amount budgeted for overtime pay and consider reallocating excess funds for unmet resident needs.

In conclusion, DC FPI urges the committee to closely examine DOC's budget and over reliance on vulnerable DC residents and DOC facilities and their families to pay for higher commissary fees to meet commissary needs.

Many of these residents are already financially struggling, and it is necessary to implement a more balanced budget approach to supporting commissary needs.

Thank you very much.

Anthony Petty, Public Witness.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Good morning, Chairperson of Pinto.

Thank you for uh this hearing and allowing me to speak for myself and also thrive on the 25 coalition.

My name is Anthony Petty.

I'm part of a coalition as the merging adult cohort.

Uh mentor, we advocate for anyone who enters the dog judiciary system before the age of 25.

Also, as that director of Neighbors for Justice, which is an organization that worked with DC jail and uh individuals in the BOP.

Finally, I'm also a free mind member and organization that pre- the help that does pre- and post-release program using literary art job readiness and peer support for DC residents who are currently or were incarcerated.

I have had the privilege of speaking directly with residents at DC jail, including people housed and the maximity unit.

What I heard from them and what I'm here to tell you today is the absence of programming those units is doing real lasting harm to real people.

Rehabilitation is not supposed to begin as since it is supposed to begin at uh and then not supposed to be in that transfer.

It is supposed to be on day one of incarceration.

There's no justified reason why DC residents sitting in the jail right now are not accessing education skill building and meaningful programming.

And let's be clear: the DC jails is not revolving door for people inside.

It's DC owned data that shows 20% of the residents that are there for over a year.

That is at least one year learning, one year of growth, one year of rehabilitation that one and five DC jail residents simply are not getting.

One year is the floor.

I know people who have been in DC jail for seven years.

That is not temporary state.

That is a significant portion of someone's life spent idle with nothing to show for it when they come home.

Idle time is dangerous.

It breeds conflict, it breeds despair and make the jail less safe for early one's staff and residents alike.

Program and changes the equation.

We have proof that YME unit at CTF works, but it's a limit by capacity, and the vast majority of DCGL residents will never set foot in it.

We cannot allow a single successful program to be exceptional.

Program has to be a standard.

This is specially urgent for young people.

When young youth are charged as adults and turn 18, they are transferred from DYS directly to DC jail, unprepared, unsupported.

And ATO walk into a unit where people are engaging and learning and building fundamentals safer than one walking to a unit full of adults with nothing to do.

And with many of these young people eventually here to the BOP, far from family and far from home.

The need for credible message, the need for people who have been there and done things going and can help them navigate is the resource that exists and deal, but it does not exist at DCGL.

That has to change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll be available for any questions.

Good morning, Chairperson, Pinto, and Council members.

My name is Jakia Carroll.

I'm here on behalf of myself and my son Kimante.

We appear before you today, not just as residents, but as documented victims of ongoing harm who have been denied recognition, protection, and support by the very systems funded to serve victims in the District of Columbia.

Under district and federal law, victims are entitled to protection from harm, access to services, emergency support, equal treatment under the law.

Yet, despite years of documented reports, agency interactions and evidence, my son and I have not been treated as victims.

We have been ignored, mischaracterized, and denied services.

This is not a simple failure.

This is a pattern across agencies, including systems connected to child and family services agencies, department of human services, metropolitan police department, where harm has been reported, evidence has been provided, risk to the child has been known, and yet no meaningful protection, no emergency intervention, and no victim support has been provided.

At the same time, my family has been forced into ongoing financial hardship.

We are facing significant expenses and instability while funds are being directed elsewhere, including payments not connected to individuals responsible for my child's care, where neglect has been documented.

This creates a deeply troubling reality.

The system is financially sustaining conditions of harm while denying support to actual to actual victims.

The office of victim services and justice grants is funded to support victims, provide emergency assistance, ensure access to services.

But in our case, there has been no emergency relief, no meaningful access to victim services, no intervention despite known risk and harm.

This raises serious legal concerns, including violations of due process rights under the 14th Amendment, denial of equal protection, deliberate indifference to known harm, potential violation under 42 USC 1983.

Because when government systems are aware of harm and fail to act while continuing to operate and fund programs meant to protect, this is not just a policy failure.

That is that is a constitutional issue.

Today I am asking this council to recognize my son and I as victims under district law, investigate the denial of victim services and emergency support, review how OVSJG funds are being used and whether they are reaching actual victims, providing immediate intervention and stabilization support for our family.

This is not about asking for help.

This is about holding systems accountable to the laws they are funded to uphold.

The district funds victim services, but has failed to protect the child and mother standing before you today.

Let the public record reflect that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry to hear that and be happy to follow up with you afterwards so we can figure out how to be helpful.

Thank you.

Timothy Armstead, public witness.

Good morning, Chairman and members of the council.

My name is Timothy Amsterdam.

I'm the father of Jakia Carroll and grandfather of Kim Monte Carl.

I stand, I'm here before you today as a retired man that lived fixed income, doing everything I can to support my grandson after he was returned from adopted place and conditions that has caused several motions and physical harm.

I have known my grandson his entire life.

I have known my daughter, her tired life.

Before the government intervened, my grandson was not neglected or abused.

He was loved, supported, and part of a stable family bond.

Since the intervention, our family has endured years of trauma and instability.

I have personally traveled repeatedly between Baltimore City Courts, district of Columbia Courts, Prince George's County Courts, and where I reside in DC council hearings.

Barriers to reunion reunification despite a strong love bond between mother and child.

Today I'm asking the counselor for accountability and immediate relief.

Families like mine should not have to campaign publicly just to survive.

We should not have to ask for help or assistance to chair claims to protect children, contribution to long-term harm.

I have already sought relief through the courts and through outreach to counselor office, including Robert White Jr.

But the but the reality is this the denial of victim service has created financial hardship, emotional strain, and ongoing trauma for my entire family.

My grandson deserves stability, my daughter deserves a fair and lawful process, and our family deserves support, not continue harm, and respect request immediately intervention, emergency assistance, and full review of this case under victim service authority.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Being here.

Triney Ka.

Teo Bell.

Natasha Walls Smith.

Welcome.

As a reminder, if you can turn your microphone on, we'll begin with Keyshawn Gacy, student attorney, UDC Law Legislation Clinic.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee, committee staff.

My name is Keyshawn Gacy.

I'm a student attorney in the UDC Law Legislation Clinic, testifying on behalf of our client, the School Justice Project.

We supported the LERNS Act, which this committee approved on April 15th.

Thank you, Chairperson Pinto, for advancing this bill.

I'm here today to ask that you fully fund learns in the FY27 budget.

The problem is simple.

Students in DOC custody have a legal right to education, but in practice, that education is inconsistent or not delivered at all.

And the reason is just as simple.

No one is clearly responsible.

Learns fixes that by creating clear accountability and strengthening the grievance process, to which my teammate will speak on that after me.

I want to ground this in one example.

SJP worked with a young DC resident.

I'll call him Kyle.

He was detained just eight and a half credits short of graduating high school.

Kyle had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and concerns about his learning needs were raised, but he was never evaluated for special education.

When he entered DOC custody, he tried to go back to school.

Instead, because he didn't already have an IEP, he was denied access to education entirely.

That barrier was never resolved, and Kyle lost his chance to graduate.

That is what happens when there is no clear system of accountability.

Lawrence provides that system by designating DOC as the local education agency.

But that only works if it is funded.

Federal law guarantees students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education or fate.

That right does not disappear in custody, but right now it disappears in practice.

When a young person enters the DC jail with a suspected disability, they should be evaluated.

And if eligible, they should receive services immediately.

Right now that is not happening.

Responsibility is fragmented, evaluations are delayed, IEPs go unimplemented, and students fall through the cracks.

Learns fixes this by placing responsibility where it belongs.

DOC already controls nearly every part of daily life in custody.

Education should not be the exception.

It also ensures that students who are not identified finally receive evaluations and support, including instruction, counseling, and transition planning.

This is not just education, it is intervention, and it works.

Education reduces recidivism, lowers long-term costs, and strengthens communities.

But none of that happens without funding.

Without funding, evaluations won't happen, services won't be delivered, and we continue to fail the very students we're responsible for.

Funding learns is not about expanding responsibility, it's about fulfilling one.

It ensures when someone enters DOC custody, their education does not stop and that their rights are respected and their potential is not ignored.

I urge you to fully fund the Learns Act and the FY27 budget.

Thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you.

Trinay Ka, Student Attorney, UDC Legislation Clinic.

Good morning, Chair Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Trine Ka, and I am a student attorney in the UDC Legislation Clinic, testifying on behalf of our client, the School Justice Project.

I urge the committee to fully fund the digital grievance and transparency provisions in Section 11B of the Learns Act in the district's FY27 budget.

These provisions are critical not only for educational equity and federal compliance, but also for ensuring the district can identify and address systemic failures before they escalate.

The Learns Act addresses these accountability gaps by requiring the DOC to establish a digital trackable and publicly publicly accessible grievance system.

Under this system, every complaint will receive a unique ticket number and be searchable by status, type, and resolution.

Residents will be able to view bill time updates while families, legal counsel, and the public can monitor de-identified grievances to ensure no requests is lost or ignored.

This is not a new or untested model.

Other jurisdictions, including New York City and Minnesota are ready to use transparent grievance tracking systems to provide real-time oversight and accountability.

The barriers begin at the very first step.

A resident must request a grievance form from a correctional officer, often the very person that they are grieving against.

If they do obtain a form, they must complete it and writing, navigate strict deadlines without reliable timekeeping, and risk dismissal for even minor errors.

Even when grievances are submitted, they often disappear with no record or response.

Over time, this process discourages people from coming forward at all.

What remains is not just inefficiency, but a system where access to basic rights becomes out of reach.

These failures extend beyond education.

Oversight reports have documented serious challenges within a district's jails, including high mortality rates and deaths linked to preventable causes.

When medical or safety concerns are not tracked, they can go unaddressed.

A digital trackable system ensures that these requests are documented and timestamped, making it more likely that the issues are identified and addressed in a timely manner.

It allows the districts to respond earlier, improve conditions, and strengthen accountability.

The fiscal impact statement reflects the cost of vote in the system approximately 2.36 million in FY27 and 4.5 million over four years.

In practice, this is an investment in a system that works.

At its core, this is about whether people in a district's custody have a meaningful way to be heard, and right now they do not.

The Learns Act ensures that no grievance simply disappears.

It creates a system where every request is documented, visible, and accountable.

The question before the committee is not just whether to fund the system, it is whether the district will invest in a process that works and bring its practices in line with other jurisdictions that treat transparency and accountability as a basic standard, including for those in custody.

We urge you to fully fund these provisions so that no one is left unheard in a system designed to serve them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tao Bell, Deputy Director of School Justice Project.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing.

My name is Tao Bell, and I'm the deputy director of School Justice Project or SJP, as well as award for a resident.

SJP is a DC-based legal services and advocacy organization that provides special education representation to older ages 17 through 22, court involved young people with special education needs.

I'm here today to advocate in support of full funding for the LEARNS Act.

SJP is also a very proud member of Thrive Under 25, many of whose members have signed on to a letter provided to the committee in support of full funding of the LERNS Act in this upcoming budget year.

In my limited time, I want to focus on some of the shortcomings we have identified with the FIS for Learns.

In the Markup for Learns, you, Chairperson Pinto, remarked that, quote, every person deserves access to a free quality education.

And importantly, you also stated that Learns is about, quote, investing in the future of our young people.

We couldn't agree more.

Thrive has a number of questions about the incredibly high $26 million estimated FIS for Learns.

We urge this committee to inquire with DOC on how it arrived at the estimated figures presented in the FIST and demand answers that are supported in facts.

One example of how we see the FIS as being incongruent with facts is the FIS's estimate that the bill would quote, require DOC to evaluate 521 new commitments annually for the presence of a disability.

Yet in the same sentence, the FIS also notes that this estimate is, quote, based on the average number of new commitments across calendar year 2024 and calendar year 2025.

So by the FIS's own text, the DOC is basing its number of evaluations and therefore over half of the $8.2 million the DOC has estimated for IEP evaluations on a number not supported on FACS.

For this reason and others, we believe the initial overestimated out of evaluations has a cascading impact on all the other numbers in the FIS.

And for example, if the evaluation number was calculated incorrectly, this could have an impact on the number of students who would receive under education under the school contract, or nearly $2 million of correctional overtime pay necessary to move individuals to and from housing units for evaluation purposes.

We're also puzzled by the addition of a diagnostic assessment center and attorney salary costs estimated at nearly $2 million when number one, the IDEA does not demand these extraneous salaried positions, and number two, the $2 million cost of education under the school contract should actually cover the cost of a special education teacher, or at least one would think.

We also don't understand the sudden need for five additional employees for grievance processing and compliance to manage learns grievance system, where presumably the DOC already has staff conducting grievance processing and compliance.

So in short, we asked you to carefully consider and re-examine the FIST, recalculate the budget, and appropriately fund the Learns Act.

Thank you.

I'm also here to answer any questions that this committee may have.

Thank you.

Natasha Walls Smith, Supervising Attorney Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services.

Chairperson Pinto and Committee members, I'm Natasha Wells Smith, and I use she her pronouns.

As this customary in the disability community, I will briefly describe my appearance.

I am a light-skinned biracial black woman with shoulder length curly hair, wearing a light blue suit.

I am testifying on behalf of Disability Rights DC.

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

Under the authority of the protection and advocacy program, DRDC has unaccompanied, unannounced access to DOC facilities to monitor the conditions of confinement for people with psychiatric and intellectual disabilities.

Each year I provide testimony regarding the deteriorating conditions of the DC jail.

Last, the DC jail complex.

Last year, the Council for Court Excellence released a report about the horrific conditions in DOC.

I was interviewed for the report and provided information regarding the conditions and the persistent unresolved issues.

I reaffirmed that the physical conditions are not improving, but continue to worsen, and that DOC urgently needs a new jail.

In the meantime, the facilities require funding for substantial maintenance, cleaning, and remodeling.

Today I want to discuss the distressing and inhumane conditions of the men's mental health unit, or MHU in the central detention facility.

The unit includes acute mental health cells and most of the safe cells.

I regularly observe mice running throughout the unit, pools of urine or water leaking from the plumbing closets, overhead paint peels, dried food hangs, and what appears to be mold, rust stains, and other unidentifiable substances accumulate on the walls and ceilings.

Residents report feces smeared on windows, walls, and grates, and generally unsanitary cells.

On top of the horrible physical conditions, the men are locked away in isolation simply because they are on the MHU.

Isolation, no matter the term used, has harmful long-term effects.

The Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons defines restrictive housing and solitary confinement as the voluntary or involuntary separation from general population while locked in a room alone or with a cellmate for 22 hours a day or more.

The Correctional Leaders Association of America, an organization Director Faust cited as having professional membership in during his testimony in 2024, defines solitary confinement as separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in a cell for an average of 22 or more hours per day for 15 or more continuous days.

DOC is also accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care.

It states that solitary confinement should never exceed 15 days, and anything exceeding 15 days is considered prolonged isolation.

Prolonged isolation is standard practice in the men's MHU.

Some men on the MHU spend 22 hours locked in their cells.

The majority of the MHU spend at least 23 hours locked in their cells every single day.

Prior to the COVID pandemic, residents on the MHU were given three to five hours of adult cell time or recreation.

I don't know why, but the out of cell time has not increased post-pandemic, but it should be, but it could be because of a lack of trained staff on the MHU.

If that is the case, I ask that the DOC be provided with necessary funding to fix the physical conditions and the conditions of isolation in the men's mental health unit.

Thank you.

Thank you all for getting into these questions with the director.

Giancarlo Cambrellan, Santiago, Katie McConville, Misty Thomas Sileski, and Zachary Ragoni.

Good morning, everyone.

We will begin with Giancarlo Camberlain, Kimbrellan, Santiago, Policy and Research Associate DC Justice Lab.

Thank you.

Good morning, Gentleman Pinto and distinguished members of the committee.

My name is Giancarlo Gambron Santiago, and I'm a policy and research associate at DC Justice Lab.

I want to paint a picture to begin my testimony.

Inside a ceremonial courtroom in front of expert panel of judges, one currently incarcerated person walks up to the podium and says, I stand here today pleading that we as a democratic nation recognize that solitary confinement not only violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, but it also depletes the sanity of prisoners, it raises who their once awarded her loved ones, and eliminates the freedom to live out the incarceration.

Another incarcerated individual sets forward and states: this is not ideology.

This is testimony.

This is not what we believe, but how we know.

Arguing that solitary confinement fails to deter violence inside prisons and interiors incarcerated residents' physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.

The judges deliberated, and when they returned, the decision was clear.

Abolishing solitary confinement was a winning argument.

These statements were made during a debate on whether or not solitary confinement must end.

It was held at the U.S.

District Courthouse between the Georgetown University debate team and the DC Jail Debate Team.

The latter composed of currently incarcerated men and women.

However, in the chamber where I sit before you today, we have not created the same space where testimony is heard and arguments are considered.

The people of DC and these and the DC uh council deserve a similarly robust debate.

This can be achieved by the committee holding a hearing on the erased solitary confinement act or at a minimum on the topic of solitary confinement, restrictive housing, and other forms of confinement and isolation at the DOC.

Solitary confinement is expensive and over and overused.

Reports estimate that the average annual cost is roughly 75,000 per person compared to 25,000 in the general population.

In DC, the DOC reports the average length of stay in restrictive housing is 18.5 days, which exceeds the United Nations' 15 day threshold for prolonged isolation, which is torture.

Yet the DOC uses misrepresentations to deny the reality that torture is happening at DC jail as defined by the UN.

I urge you, Chairwoman Pinto, to uh to press DOC to improve their practices with the goal of reducing the average restrictive housing stays to less than 15 days for fiscal year 2027.

We've heard about the harms of solitary confinement many times from advocates, legal experts, community members, survivors, and the clearly incarcerated, even a debate team arguing against the abolition of solitary confinement, acknowledge the harm it causes, and push for a series of reforms that make the system more ethical and more humane.

Lastly, we add our voice to those calling for funding of the Learners Act as well as continued support for the Ease Act.

This is a kind of approach that will bring true safety through better access to education, civic engagement, and improvements to the grieving grievance process.

We also reiterate the need to fully fund the Corrections Oversight Improvement Omnibus Amendment Act to further increase transparency at DOC.

As always, I will I welcome any questions or concerns you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Katie McConville, Policy Counsel, Counsel for Court Excellent.

Thank you, Chair First and Pinto, for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Katie McConville, and I'm providing this testimony in my capacity as policy counsel for the Council for Court Excellence.

My testimony today concerns the proposed operating budget for DOC, focusing on the health care, dietary, and educational needs of residents as well as staffing issues at the jail.

First, it is unclear whether this year's budget will adequately cover health care.

The jail population has surged, averaging 2,211 residents by late April, yet the budget proposes adding only 176,000 for health services.

Unity Healthcare is owed about $6.7 million more annually for core services when the population exceeds 2200, which is hard to reconcile with such a small increase.

In addition, staffing shortages add pressure to providing adequate care.

At the end of 2025, Unity had 180 employees in 42 vacancies, relying on 36 contractors plus overtime to fill gaps.

With a class action lawsuit alleging denial of basic medical care, which I have attached to the record, we hope that council can ask how the population threshold in Unity's contract is calculated to determine whether funding matches the actual need.

Because the contract is not to exceed, we also ask council to clarify what population level has been used to set payments in 2026 to date.

Next, the proposed budget may not let DOC fix food concerns.

The food services contract currently fulfilled by Eramark is up for solicitation this year.

Under the current contract, residents report DOC does not provide adequate portions, variety, or enough fresh fruits and vegetables.

CIC recently reported 63% of residents said hot food was not served hot, and 37% said they did not receive fruit.

The 2025 ODCA audit found residents rely on commissary because meals are too small.

This is inequitable.

Commissary lacks fresh produce, has high prices, and is limited by housing classification.

Despite ongoing concerns, DOC's budget does not specify food services funding and was cut last year.

We echo the DC Jail Food Working Group and ANC Cunningham's calls to remove barriers for new vendors in the solicitation, including prior correctional experience requirements.

In addition, we urge council to fund Section 32 of Security C, which would improve nutrition in the jail, but remains unfunded.

Third, I'll turn to staffing.

DOC has the second highest overtime spending among any district agency, rising from 19 million in 2022 to 30 million in 2025.

The proposed 26 million for overtime pay in FY 2027 may be inadequate to maintain staffing, especially since the jail population is now about 10% higher than in 2025.

In addition, overtime pay is also unlikely to be sufficient due to chronic vacancies.

Reported vacancy rates drop from 27% in FY 2024 to 12% in 2025 to 2026, but this reflects 92 positions being eliminated after long-term hiring failures.

Even so, in FY 2026, 101 positions remain unfilled.

We urge council and DOC to adopt an overtime budget that reflects staffing shortages, population growth, and actual spending trends rather than a figure likely to fall short in strained staff.

Finally, we'd like to thank council, the school justice project, and every person who has worked towards passing the Learns Act to improve educational and grievance procedures at the jail.

And we urge council to include funding for this act in this year's budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Misty Thomas Saleski, Executive Director, Council for Court Excellence.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto.

I am Misty Thomas Zillesi, the proud executive director of the Council for Court Excellence.

My testimony today concerns the capital budget for the Department of Corrections.

And while I know that there's only a limited amount that the DOC representatives can speak to, the capital budget, it is here.

It is really important.

We want to talk about both potentially the vague and potentially inadequate investment that's reflected in the capital budget for a new jail planning and the importance of establishing a community advisory board to support that work and our correctional facilities in general.

So our current jail turns 50 this year.

A new facility is profoundly overdue.

All the evidence that has become before this council suggests that this is true, and this administration unfortunately has continued to kick this can down the road at the very dangerous expense of both the people who live in the jail and the people who work in the jail.

As you've heard and you know, we conducted an audit that on behalf of the DC auditor that profoundly supports the need for the new jail.

We are not the first.

We will not unfortunately be the last if we're continuing to do the timeline that the administration proposes in this capital budget to tell you that this is insufficient.

We also support the district task force on jails and justice, that is an independent advisory body that includes directly impacted people with their expertise, community advocates, and governmental players who all unanimously agreed in 2019 that we needed a new jail.

And here we are today.

So following the task force's recommendations, DC did put 477 million in the 25 capital budget, and then poof, that money was gone last year as the district prioritized investments in a football stadium at the expense of the safety of the residents and the staff who continue to live, work, and ultimately some die in dangerous and unhealthy conditions.

Far too many.

So instead of a capital investment, the mayor has announced that there will be a public-private partnership potentially in 2025 when pulling this, but no solicitations or RFPs have been issued to date, despite that being more than a year now of when that promise was made.

And now our capital budget for this year has a 75 million dollar investment out in 2032.

Nothing in between then and now for new jail construction, and it's purported as a pay as you go.

This does not provide sufficient clarity to the public, certainly, but likely not enough to this council to understand how or when a new facility will actually come to be.

How will that private partnership meet our needs and our values in the District of Columbia of what we want incarceration to look like and as little as possible, but when it has to happen, how should what conditions should people be in and what should we be providing in that facility?

Um this council deserves more information, so does the public.

My written testimony asks more pointed questions in that issue, but I will say that um, you know, one good way to address some parts of these problems would be to invest in the FY27 in the operating budget in a community advisory board that could talk about the ongoing issues that face DOC as well as certainly the new jail planning.

It is considered a community advisory board a best practice by the National Institute of Corrections.

We hope that those investments are made and you get more clarity for all of us on new jail planning.

Thank you very much.

Zachary Ragoni, public witness.

Good morning, Chairwoman Pinto and committee staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Zach Rodoni, and I'm a policy professional in the district's criminal justice space.

My work is grounded in a simple simple premise.

Public safety is shaped long before release by the conditions and systems people move through.

We often talk about reentry and public safety as something beginning when someone comes home.

In reality, by that point, the system has already spent months shaping that outcome.

The conditions someone leaves custody in is one of the clearest drivers of whether reentry stabilizes or unravels.

That is why conditions of confinement are not a side issue.

What the department's budget shows is that our public safety outcomes are not accidental.

They are the result of how resources are allocated in practice.

At the basic level, the system is expected to do three things control crime, protect rights, and prevent future harm.

When we look at the DOC budget through that justice lens, a clear imbalance emerges.

First, control.

Custody and security operations receive the largest share of funding by far.

That reflects a system primarily structured for incapacitation, simply managing people while they are inside.

Second, protection of rights.

There's a meaningful spending in areas like health services, but outcomes remain questionable.

Independent audits by places like CCE continue to document unsafe food conditions, facility failures, and ongoing concerns around deaths in custody.

At the same time, capital investment that could help address the underlying causes of those issues has been reduced.

That raises a basic question.

Is the system meeting its obligation to protect residents' rights in practice?

And then third prevention.

Investment in education and re-entry remains deplorably limited.

The gap between custody spending and rehabilitative support is 40 to 1.

This is not a system designed to mitigate future crime.

That same imbalance shows up in workforce conditions.

The department continues to rely heavily on overtime, reflecting a system operating under sustained strain, one consistently underestimated in past budget projections.

Conditions drive outcomes.

Instability leads to lower staff satisfaction.

Lower satisfaction leads to higher turnover.

Higher turnover leads to greater reliance on overtime.

And that reliance puts further strain on the system, reinforcing the same conditions that created it.

Finally, there's a clear gap in oversight and transparency.

I want to note my support for the Learns Act and the requirement for a publicly accessible grievance system.

That kind of transparency is necessary, but it will require infrastructure, and this committee should ask what it will take to implement and sustain it.

As you continue oversight, my written testimony detailed a number of questions to ask.

I would like to highlight two.

What is the DOC's realistic overtime projection?

And what proportion of individuals are receiving meaningful programming before release?

In closing, the conditions we see inside the facility are not separate from the budget.

They are the product of it.

If the goal is safer communities, the system must be aligned to produce stability, not simply managing crisis.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much, and thank you all.

Really important points, and I'll be getting uh into that with the director today.

Thank you.

Amy Cashman, Herbert Robinson, Joshua Miller.

Amy Cashman, public witness.

Hi, good morning, and thank you, Chairperson Pinto.

My name is Amy Cashman, and I'm here on behalf of the Hope Foundation and the Ready Center.

I am a returning citizen who's utilized these resources in order to change my life after 20 years of drug abuse and living life as homeless person.

So on Monday morning, I chaired a meeting at 7 a.m.

I went home and I did my dishes, and I got up and I went to a department of behavioral health class that I'm taking.

This is absolutely unheard of for me.

Three years ago, my mornings looked very different.

I was waking up out of a tent, and the first thing I did every morning was panhandle enough money to get beer and cigarettes just to start my day.

Addiction was not something I did, it was my entire structure of life.

What changed my life was re-entry and recovery programs that I learned about while incarcerated at the DC Department of Corrections facility.

The Hope Foundation gave me something I had not felt in years.

As I said, I became a lifestyle with addictive behaviors.

So when I return home, the Hope Foundation linked to fresh start, virtual mentoring program and leadout program, project empowerment at the Ready Center, and later I was a graduate of the Morca Georgetown Paralegal Program that gave me structure and accountability and purpose in life that um that helped me stay sober and become a part of society again today.

Today I'm not only a success story, I work at the Hope Foundation and the Ready Center.

Um the Ready Center was opened in Ward 8 on October in October 2023 and has quickly become a critical lifeline for returning citizens in the district.

Every day.

People walk through those doors carrying addiction, trauma, homelessness, unemployment, untreated mental health um struggles, and fear that they will never escape the cycle that they're trapped in, just like myself.

And every day the Ready Center meets them with resources, support, dignity, and people who understand their experience because many of us have had that experience ourselves.

In April 2025, the federal government terminated hundreds of department of justice grants that promote re-entry services.

And our leaders are struggling with raise rising recidivism rates, increasing correction costs, and growing number of returning citizens who lack stable support systems.

The Ready Center was only established three years ago, and three years ago is not enough time to see real results.

The Ready Center has changed countless lives, including mine, and we struggle with the possibility of continuing this life-changing opportunity for those beginning this process.

It is truly heartbreaking to think that there are still thousands of people sitting in DC jail right now who will not have this opportunity because funding has been cut.

Reentry programs are not just charity, they are public safety investments.

They strengthen families, reduce incarceration costs, improve neighborhoods, and create productive members of society.

Today I ask you to protect this funding and support the Ready Center and organizations doing this work for the district because people can and do recover.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Congratulations on all you've worked on.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Herbert Robinson, public witness.

Thank you, Chairwoman Pinto, Judiciary Committee on Public Safety.

Um I'm here today for one to uh ask you for a hearing to end solitary confinement before the end of the year.

Uh two to ask you to fund the ease act so we can make sure those that's incarcerated can have their voice heard at these hearings.

Um when we hear from DOC later on, we need to be hearing from those that's incarcerated as well to counteract those statements that they're as you heard today.

It is solitary confinement going on.

They are being trapped in their sales 23 hours a day, 22 hours a day, some 24 hours a day because uh they might be asked to wake up at four or five o'clock in the morning for breakfast and then go out for a wreck at seven o'clock in the morning, like different issues, but also to ask you to make sure that those tablets aren't the way that they uh being asked to testify because that's a privilege.

That tablet is gonna be taken from them at different times, or it might be issues with their Wi-Fi and the institution where uh that unit don't have it just for uh for some reason.

So I asked you to put a concrete way that they are able to testify, but also since we're talking about a budget in 1997, we uh the district had a revitalization act created, and that was because of budget issues that sent a lot of DC residents far away in the federal system.

Eleanor Holmes Norton has been putting out HR 3012 to help curve that distance.

Um I was always told that you all here in the city government couldn't help with that because that's a federal issue.

But it's district residents, and you have money in this OVSJG grant that can help the people that's getting that's going on visitation and being denied their visits after traveling from DC to California, and told because the institution is on lockdown, they can't have no visit.

It's money in this budget to help reimburse these people.

Oh, it's something that you all can do to make it so it's a stipulation where if they uh set up this vision is scheduled that they will be admitted into these institutions.

People are wasting money that they don't have, and it's breaking up relationships, and it's because of this same budget we talk about is why they that far away.

So I'm asking you, let's come together with something that can fix this budget, but also something that can help some of these families that's stressing and breaking up uh relationships.

I think.

Thank you.

Thank you for raising that.

Joshua Miller, research and advocacy Director, open city advocates.

Good morning, Chair.

Chairperson Pinto.

Um I am the research and advocacy director at Open City Advocates.

Uh, but before joining OCA, I spent six years as director of education for Georgetown University's Prisons and Justice Initiative.

Uh I had previously run a volunteer uh program called the Prison Scholars Program at the JCI in Maryland, and um I've I've worked with thousands of students inside.

In 2018, in partnership with then Director Booth, we created this program at the DC jail, and every student we admitted was ready for college level work.

They were curious, articulate, and undertrained.

They had been failed long before they ever set foot in a cell.

And the institutions that failed them were DC's public and charter schools.

The disabilities that the LERNS Act asked the district to identify and accommodate were in case after case present and unaddressed since elementary school.

Today at OCA, I see the other end of the pipeline.

Young people committed to DYRS with documented special education needs, reach their 18th birthday and get transferred to the same jail.

Some arrive with IEPs that have not been honored.

Many arrive having never been evaluated at all.

That is the central problem that learns fixes.

The high school program inside the DC jail, run by Maya Angelou, only serves students who already have an IEP.

A young person who arrives without one, no matter how visibly they need the services, has no path into the school.

Their only option is GED self-study, which for students with significant learning disabilities is no option at all.

Learns requires the district to evaluate them.

The district has already paid for that failure in court in the Charles H.

Settlement, and it will pay again unless this bill is funded.

Learns guarantees a floor that federal law already requires.

The fiscal impact statement substantially overstates the cost of meeting that floor.

While I defer to my colleagues in coalition at Thrive Under 25 on the details and arithmetic, I would ask you to reevaluate.

I urge you to fund the Learns Act in full.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Okay, we're gonna call our virtual public witnesses for DOC as a reminder to please accept your invitation to join as a panelist.

Max Broad, Keonte Lewis, Rita Gray, Chet Bennett, Sophie Thackray, Aubrey Dillon, and Cinquan Umar.

Max Broad, Executive Director of DC Voters for Animals.

Hello, Councilmember Pinto and Committee staff.

My name is Max Broad.

I'm the Executive Director of DC Voters for Animals.

We are now halfway to the 2030 deadline set by the Green Food Purchasing Amendment Act, the law requiring DC agencies to reduce the carbon footprint of the food they buy by 25%.

And as I shared during the performance oversight hearing, citywide food related admissions are not going down, they're going up.

Thank you to the Department of Corrections for taking an initial step on this law by holding a taste test on plant-based entries entrees in 2024.

While this, while the results were not supportive of our goals, this should not be the end of the road.

The taste test is an important data point.

It shows that presentation matters and that residents value the familiar.

There are ways to address these needs.

First of all, to enhance the presentation of new foods, use tempting labels and descriptions.

For example, in New York City, their food service has included dishes like the Hawaiian teriyaki burger with fresh pineapple, a mouthwatering option when compared to a less appetizing version of the same dish, Black Bean Burger, words matter.

To preserve familiarity, make the best choice the first choice, whether on the menu or in the cafeteria, placing the climate-friendly dish first makes it more likely to be selected.

Blend proteins, increasing the proportion of plant-based ingredients and familiar dishes, such as adding beans to chili or blending mushrooms into ground meat, can significantly reduce the carbon footprint while improving nutrition, often without being noticeable to diners.

Ultimately, the goal of the law is to reduce the carbon footprint from food systems.

There are several concrete steps the agency can take to advance this goal.

Incorporating DOE's green food language into food service contracts with ERIMARC, follow DEOE's guidance on environmentally specific guidance for food and beverage purchases.

Implement a plant-based by default trial.

Plant forward meals don't need to be the only strategy, but the evidence is clear that they are among the most effective ways to reduce food-related emissions.

Animal agriculture is highly resource intensive.

It can take up to seven and a half pounds of food and green to create one pound of meat from an animal.

That's like taking ten dollars out of an ATM and getting charged with a sixty dollar five $65 fee.

That inefficiency translates into wasted resources, polluted waterways, climate impacts, and major biodiversity loss.

Fortunately, the green food goals align well with Section 32 provisions of the Secure Omnibus Act that seek to improve food quality and nutrition for residents at the jail.

It is also in alignment with the values-based purchasing goals of the Food Policy Procurement Act of 2025, pending before DC Council and the Committee on Health.

By taking steps to implement more climate-friendly and nutritious food systems, DOC can demonstrate headway on multiple important laws while benefiting the residents at the jail and our broader district values.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keontae Lewis, emerging adult cohort member, Thrive Under 25.

Good morning, Chairperson Pinto.

Thank you first and foremost for this opportunity.

My name is Keonte Lewis, and I'm part of the Thrive Under 25 Coalition's Emergent Adult Cohort Leadership Team.

Thrive on the 25 advocates for anyone who entered the adult judicial system before the age of 25.

And I'm also a proud free minds member, using my personal lived experience of incarceration to educate the community on the root causes of youth incarceration.

I'm here today to urge the council to pass the Learns Act and fully fund it.

We believe the Learns Act, which will expand opportunities for education for young people at the DC jail, can literally change the trajectory of a person's life.

Studies prove investing in education results in reduced recidivism rates.

And I'm here as a living example of what education at the DC jail did for me.

I'm 23 now, and I was incarcerated at the DC jail from ages 19 to 21.

I was one of a small number of extremely lucky young people who were able to receive education on the young men emerging unit, also known as YME.

If I had not been given that opportunity, I don't even want to fathom what would have happened to me, especially in light of what we heard concerning the young man spoken of by UDC just today.

When I came to the DC jail, I committed to getting my diploma.

That was at the central detention facility, which has historically proven an even more contemporarily reaffirmed itself to have scarce and even destitute educational options.

It wasn't until by a miracle, and I say that as serious as possible, it was by a miracle that I got onto the young man emerging unit, and it's a it's not a transparent process to get onto YME, but it absolutely should be.

All people at the jail need to have the opportunity for me having access to YME, I was able to execute on educational opportunities I wouldn't otherwise have had, such as earning my high school diploma as well as getting several credits through Georgetown University.

A door truly had opened and I began to take life seriously.

I left the jail equipped with real skills that had applied in my jobs in the restaurant and fitness fields as well as to my goals of being a fashion and technological entrepreneur.

This is what I want for every young person at the DC jail.

Education gives young people who are locked up hope and possibilities for their futures.

When people leave jail without getting access to school, without access to services, without skills, it's like pushing them back into the same situation that brought them there in the first place.

I'm asking you to make sure that every young person in the DC jail has access to a real education.

It is crucial that we invest in our young people as you already know.

Please fund the Lurz Act.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Rita Gray, you hear?

Peer Navigator for the Hope Foundation.

Rita Gray, can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, now I can.

Okay, I apologize.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee, and distinguished guests.

My name is Rita Gray, and I'm honored to testify today on behalf of the Hope Foundation, re-entry network, and the Ready Center.

I come before you not only as a professional working in the re-entry services, but as a formerly incarcerated black woman whose life was transformed through access to support, structure, and opportunity.

Reentry is not a single moment, it is a process.

When I return home, I face the same barriers that so many others encountered.

Unstable housing, limited employment opportunities, stigma, and overwhelming pressure to rebuild a life while navigating systems that are not designed for your success.

What made the differences for me was access to programs rooted in accountability, support, and belief in my potential.

The whole foundation and the Ready Center represent what affective re-entry should look like.

These programs do more than provide services, support workforce readiness, mentorship, and consistent follow-up.

They meet individuals where they are and walk alongside them as we rebuild.

That approach is critical.

People do not succeed simply because they are released.

They succeed because they are supported.

Because I have access to that kind of support.

I was able to stabilize my life, pursue education, and step in leadership.

Today I serve as a returning citizen, liaison, working directly with individuals transitioning from home from incarceration.

I also founded females of color united for success focused and organization dedicated to supporting formally incarcerated women through housing, life skills, and leadership development.

In addition, I have a senior role in nonprofit operations and grant administration, helping to secure funding and build programs that now serve hundreds of returning citizens across our community.

My story is not unique.

It is an example of what is possible when the right investments are made.

Programs like Hope Foundation and the Ready Center reduce recidivism, strengthens families, and contribute to safer, healthier communities.

They are not expensive.

They are solutions.

I urge you to continue supporting and expand funding for re-entry programs that are community-based, trauma informed, and laid by people who understand the lived experience.

When you invest in re-entry, you are investing in second chances in families and long-term stability of our communities.

Hope Foundation took a chance on me.

And in taking that chance with me, I was also a pair and have a data for them.

I'm grateful to Corey, Cory Knight, as well as the Hope Foundation family and the Ready Center.

Without them, I probably would not be where I am today.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my story and for the commitment to this important work.

Thank you so much, Miss Gray.

Thank you for all you've done.

Chet Bennett, founder and CEO of Bennett Career Institute.

Mr.

Bennett, I can't hear you, but it looks like you're off mute.

Can't hear you.

You make sure on if you're on Zoom on the bottom left where the audio is, make sure you're joined on audio.

It looks right on your screen.

Okay, I would maybe try exiting and coming back, and we'll come back to you next.

Okay.

Um, Sophie Thakray, Supervising Attorney School Justice Project.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing.

My name is Sophie Thack Gray.

I'm a supervising attorney at the School Justice Project, a member of the 525 Coalition, as well as a Ward 5 resident.

School Justice Project is a DC-based legal services and advocacy organization that provides special education representation to older court-involved students with disabilities.

Our special education attorneys work with young people while they are incarcerated and throughout the reentry process to ensure they have access to a quality education.

I'm here in support of full funding for the Learns Act.

When young people receive education, our community is safer.

Individuals who participate in any educational program while incarcerated are 43% less likely to recidivate.

Expanding access to special education is a vital step in solving the root causes of crime and improving pathways to community stability post-release.

The Learns Act would create a pathway to receive special education and earn a high school diploma at the DC jail for young people ages 18 to 22 who don't currently have access.

If a young person in the community between age 18 and 22 has a disability that impairs their ability to learn, they have the right to request an evaluation.

That right is extinguished if that same individual seeks an evaluation while incarcerated.

This produces an absurd result.

Trauma and mental health challenges are only exacerbated by incarceration.

Incarceration often results in high school dropout.

Dropout leads to unemployment, which is an indicator of future court contact.

Special education not only gives young people access to a high school diploma, but also provides tailored and individualized mental health support to students.

The provision of the Learns Act that allows for young people to be evaluated for special education, provides a common sense public health solution to cycles of violence and will make us all safer.

This provision just provides that students in the DOC the same opportunity they would have if they were in the community.

And we have seen the positive results that special education during incarceration has had for many of our clients, including one I'll call Michael.

Shortly after his 18th birthday and only a few credits shy of completing high school, Michael was arrested and detained at the DC jail.

Fortunately, he already had an IEP in place, so he was able to enroll in the high school at the jail.

Through his own hard work, coupled with the specialized instruction and behavioral support he received through school.

Michael successfully earned his high school diploma in February of 2025.

After serving the remaining eight months of his sentence in the Bureau of Prisons, Michael was released back home to DC in October.

Within two weeks, Michael independently secured employment with a local maintenance company, thanks in part to his high school diploma.

He also applied and was accepted to college at the University of the District of Columbia, where he has completed his first semester.

Finally, in recognition of his capacity for rehabilitation, Michael was sentenced under the Youth Act and is currently halfway through successful completion of his youth act probation.

We encourage the committee to fully fund the Learns Act.

Only when all our students can access education can we truly achieve a safer and more equitable district.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Chad Bennett, I'm turning back to you to see if we can hear you.

No, can't hear you, unfortunately.

Hmm.

Is there another device you can try with?

Yeah.

I would try on your phone.

Oh, you can use the same you can use the same link on your phone.

That should work, and then we'll come back to you.

Aubrey Dillon, Managing Attorney's School Justice Project.

Aubrey Dillon?

Yes.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Aubrey Dillon, and I am award-one resident in DC.

I'm also the managing attorney at School Justice Project or SJP.

I'm privileged to work with a team of dedicated special education attorneys who represent older special education students who are court involved in the juvenile and adult criminal legal systems.

We work with students and their families to protect and enforce their special education rights.

Unfortunately, many young people are not timely identified as special education students, and as a result, their disabilities go undiagnosed, untreated, and they are deprived of necessary support and accommodations.

Many of these young people end up at the DC jail.

I'm here today to ask for the council's support and funding the LERNS Act, which would allow older court-involved young people to go through the special education special education eligibility process while detained.

If found eligible for special education, these young people will receive access to education, which is the number one factor in reducing recidivism, which ultimately leads to increased public safety.

It is also life-changing for the individual young people themselves.

I don't have enough time today to talk about the untold number of young people, SJP encounters at the DC jail who have not been evaluated for special education services and therefore are not allowed to enroll in the high school program at the jail.

I will, however, tell you a success story of a young person who did have access to education.

When we met Jamal, he was attending Maya Angelou Academy at the jail.

He was in his senior year of high school taking a full course load and earning all A's, and was generally on track to graduating, except for his community service hours.

Though Jamal had focused on his academics as he was supposed to do, he had only completed three of his 75 community service hours required at that time in order to earn a diploma in DC.

SJP organized a meeting with the school team to discuss Jamal Special Education Services and a path to graduation.

When Jamal graduated from the high school, he was moved to the Young Men Emerging Unit, the YME unit at CTF.

This unit is a highly selected program for 18 to 24 year olds to continue on their education and skills development post-high school graduation.

The fact that Jamal was moved to this unit is a huge testament to his dedication and hard work.

At one of Jamal's subsequent court hearings, after hearing arguments from both sides, the judge granted Jamal's request for release, developed release conditions to allow him to attend programming in the community.

The judge was impressed with Jamal's hard work and stated that she hoped he would continue to do well in the community, and he did.

Jamal's story is one of many successful stories we are happy to share with the council about the impact that education had on the students who are able to access it.

SJP is proud to support Jamal and many other clients just like him in completing their high school diploma while at the DC jail.

We look forward to continuing to support Jamal in this transition to adulthood.

Thank you for allowing me to testify.

I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

Chad Bennett.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

We can hear you.

But thank you so much.

Of course, go ahead.

Yeah, so of course, let me just start off.

Uh, Chairwoman, Councilmember Pinto.

I just want to start by saying again, thank you.

Uh I listened to your opening.

You know, we share the same views.

I appreciate you so much.

On almost every post that we do on social media as we get another graduate from the Ready Center.

I get on and I tell everyone how much we appreciate our council lady for always supporting what we do.

I would just say to you on today, when the news came to me that uh the mayor was cutting the budget in reference to the training and education at the jail, and I said I would not let this moment go by without me coming on to the wonderful Ms.

Pinto and what you have done in the previous years for us when I tell you the Ready Center is something that I have never seen anything like it before.

Now you already know me.

I've been in a correction since 1990, uh 98.

I've been in corrections since 1998, and uh it'll be 30 years of me owning the award winning been at Career Institute.

I've never seen nothing like the Ready Center, and we can't let it go.

What I mean by never seen nothing like it is first when I first toured the place.

You know, I can't take no credit, because Lord knows I won't take the credit for it because it was something, the the things that happened at the Ready Center is something that not only should the budget not be cut, but we need to put more money in it because I have seen lives change at an enormous rate, not just our program, but the ready center in general, almost anything that a returning citizen can uh that can get or need, it is available at the Ready Center.

And just like you said in your opening statement, we would not want that all of the good work that we have done to be nailed cut back or cut completely because of what's going on and with this budget.

We know the uh statistics in reference to uh uh how well people do when they have the right education, when they have the right trainer under their belt, uh, how important it is to keep them outside of the prison system in the ready center has been that uh unimaginable thing that now is uh people can imagine how they can come out, go to the ready center, get this training, get this education, get the services that they need.

I mean, over 30 vendors go in and out of there, helping much needed people.

And I just want you to, whatever you do, please talk to your colleagues about how important it is that they do not cut these programs at the Ready Center and at the Department of Corrections.

If anything, we need more because we're doing amazing work there.

And again, I just want to say thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Bennett, and thanks for all of your important work and certainly a priority for us, and we will speak to the director about it today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sinquan Umar Muhammad, public witness.

Uh, well, hello, Chairwoman Pinto again in as many days.

Uh and your staff.

Uh, first of all, excuse me for how I sound I'm a little under the weather, have been for a few days.

I'm trying to recover quickly, but my name is Sanquil Umar Mohammed, and I'm a War 7 resident and a member of the Unlock the Box DC coalition working in solitary confinement in DC jail.

I'm here today as an advocate in that effort, but also as someone with dead experience with the true desire to see real change inside of DC jail.

So thank you for the opportunity to testify at this budget oversight hearing.

As you consider the budget for the coming year and ways to improve conditions for incarcerated people, I urge you to closely examine the issues addressed in the erase solitary confinement act.

This beer represents a needed shift away from isolation and towards increased out of sale time, meaningful programming, therapeutic interventions, and a reduced reliance on restrictive housing.

I know firsthand the solitary confinement does not rehabilitate anyone.

It does not make people whole, and it is and it does not prepare them to re-enter society.

What it does is it intensifies trauma, it deepens hopelessness, and it strips people of the human connection we all need to survive.

And my own journey would made a difference was not punishment power on top of pain, but access to positive influence, reflections, and opportunities to grow.

The things that help people heal are programming, mental health support, education, mentoring, and real reentry preparation.

That is where the council should put its money.

If we are serious about safety, dignity, and rehabilitation, then we must invest in what restores people, not in practices that break them down further.

A hearing on a race act would allow this committee to have an honest and necessary discussion about the realities of restrictive housing in DC jails and what steps the council can take to create a more humane and rehabilitative environment.

I urge you to hold that hearing as soon as possible, Councilwoman Pento.

Ideally, before the council period ends, the opportunity to improve conditions at the DC jail and finally end the use of solitary confinement has been within our reach for far too long.

Let us move with urgency and push DOC to take meaningful action.

And if DOC truly claims the solitary confinement is not an issue in the jail, then it should have no proud of supporting the policy that officially bans it.

Thank you for your time, Councilwoman Pinto, and I'll be welcome to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much for having me.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling 100%.

I hope you feel better soon.

Thank you so much.

Okay, that concludes our public witness testimony for DOCs.

We are now gonna call our government witnesses for the Department of Corrections.

Director Thomas Faust and team.

Good morning.

Welcome to you all.

Thank you for being here.

Um and if I can ask you all, turn your microphones on and uh state your name and position for the record, please.

Good morning, Jacqueline Williams, Deputy Director for Education Programs and Case Management.

Thomas Faust, Director, Department of Corrections.

Good morning, Michelle Wilson, Deputy Director of Administration, Department of Corrections.

Good morning, Anthony Norman, Agency Physical Officer, Department of Corrections.

Thank you.

And as you know, it is the tradition of this committee to swear in all government witnesses who appear before it.

So if I can ask you to turn on your microphones and raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony you're about to provide before this committee and the council of the District of Columbia is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Now, Director Faust, I'd like to invite you to make any opening statement that you have.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairperson Pento and members of the committee on the judiciary and Public Safety.

I am Tom Faust, Director of the DC Department of Corrections.

Again, joining me this morning are Deputy Director for Administration, Michelle Wilson, Deputy Director for Education Programs and Case Management, Jacqueline Williams, along with Agency Fiscal Officer Anthony Norman.

Mayor Bowser's proposed FY27 budget, GROW DC, was formulated with three key considerations in mind: how to drive growth in our economy, to fund the services and programs residents count on, how to keep families in DC and attract new residents, and how to create a business environment that draws new investment and creates new jobs.

We are navigating a pivotal moment that demands a more deliberative approach to growth.

The federal dollars that once expanded our programs in unprecedented ways have been exhausted, and federal workforce reductions have introduced new pressures on our economy and commercial corridors.

That being said, it's important to be clear, DC is still growing.

Revenues have slowed, but the city maintains a strong financial foundation on which we can build by making the kinds of strategic and targeted decisions that will allow DC to continue growing while delivering the high quality services our residents depend on.

I want to begin by thanking Mayor Bowser for submitting a budget that reflects a commitment to the mission of DOC, providing critical resources for our population, future planning, and supporting a workforce charged with the day-to-day oversight and supervision of men and women in our custody.

This week is recognized around the country as National Correctional Officers and Employees Week.

I acknowledge, as always, the continued hard work and dedication of the DOC workforce.

Their work, while extremely challenging, must each day be carried out with a focus on optimizing safety, security, and service to others.

Our team serves tirelessly with passion, pride, and professionalism to ensure those in custody have safe and secure housing, access to robust health care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, education and rehabilitative programs.

Mayor Bowser has allocated an FY27 total gross operating budget of 229 million two hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars for DOC, which is a 0.4% increase from the FY26 budget.

This budget supports 1,230 FTEs.

The budget is composed of 212 million in local funds and 17.2 million in special purpose revenue funds.

Mayor Bowser's FY 27 budget shows the continued investment of $23.5 million in capital funds during FY27 and $128.5 million in the six-year capital plan.

The mayor's commitment to the DOC workforce is vital to maintaining safe and secure fit facilities for staff and residents.

Anticipated this fiscal year.

Additionally, the 12.9 million dollar overtime increase further supports staffing that is crucial to operational efficiency.

We recognize that this upcoming budget cycle will require a more streamlined approach for efficiencies based on funding changes in some areas.

And as presented, the budget stabilizes support for the comprehensive inmate health care and provides funding for consumables, security resources, resident clothing, grooming supplies, facility maintenance, and critical information technology system upgrades.

Although some traditional federal grant funding through our federal partners has lapsed, we are in the process of applying for additional U.S.

Department of Justice grants.

It is our hope that funding will be secured during FY27, which will allow DOC to continue offering new and innovative programming of both facilities.

Our budget will also continue to fully support both the IAP education program for qualifying residents and the tablet educational program.

Our capital improvement budget reflects a commitment to maintenance of the current campus of DOC buildings.

Increases include funding to cover projects at the central detention facility and the correctional treatment facility.

Exterior infrastructure improvements, required phased replacement of HVAC air handling units, and much needed resources for plumbing and pipe replacements within both the CDF and the CTF.

DOC remains engaged and excited about plans to design, construct, and deliver a new jail annex building on the DOC campus within the mayor's GROW DC plan.

The six-year plan provides a preliminary payment for alternative funding approaches to construction of the new annex.

The Department of General Services expects to release a request for interest this month, May 15th, I believe, to begin to engage with area contractors.

To further clarify, this alternative funding option is for the capital construction phase of the physical facility only and not for its operations.

The district and DOC would maintain all operational and staffing functions for the new annex.

In closing, Mayor Bowser's FY27 budget supports the agency's core missions and priorities as we continue to serve those incarcerated in the district and in keeping our community safe.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Director Faust, and thank you to your team who is here today and everybody who works at DOC throughout the year.

We appreciate all that you do.

So I want to start with the new jail annex.

Um this is something we've talked about for a very long time, and this budget suggests the movement towards the rebuilding of the new jail, but it lacks a lot of details about how that actually would come about, what the timeline would be, who would pay for it, when residents can expect it, and to ensure that all of the years and years of planning of what the design would look like are still part of part of the plans moving forward.

So under the current plan, what can be expected for where the financing is coming from and when construction would begin.

Sure.

Um so as I briefly mentioned my opening comments so Department of General Services first step is they are scheduled to issue what's called a request for interest and RFI.

The date that they have plugged in to get that out is May 15th of this month, and that will go out into the construction community, so to speak, which the RFI gauges what the market interest is, and it also seeks input on delivery approaches and alternatives in terms in terms of the construction itself.

Um the decisions in terms of a time frame that Department of General Services is looking at, and again, there's two.

Let me start off by saying there's two potential options right now that part of the this RFI will continue to explore, and these are options that have been looked at by through the OCFO's office, EOM, et cetera.

So there's two potential options.

One is CIP funded, the traditional funding, I guess, district self-funding as a capital project.

And then the other method would be a lease-lease back method, which essentially is third party financing.

So again, this request for interest will gauge the market interest and get also input on those delivery approaches and alternatives.

So does that mean you haven't made a decision yet as to which financing plan will proceed?

It'll depend on who responds to the RFI?

Correct.

The district has not made a decision yet on which financing alternative to go forward with.

I guess the date worries me a little bit because last year during the budget oversight process, we were told that the RFP at the time, I don't know if it meant to be an RFI, but at the time we're told an RFP would go out in the summer.

I think we're told by July of 2025.

So do you know what the delay was about?

Well, again, it's about determining what the um most appropriate financing option should be for the district and in the best interest of the district in terms of um through the traditional CIP process, and you know what other district priorities may be there within the the CIP uh funding, and then also and this alternative process.

In terms of some give you an idea of some dates too to put in context, so um again with this decisions on the funding on the project funding method, and then going forward with that, um the district DGS is looking at issuing an RFQ RFP sometime in around spring of 2027.

So that would be 12 months from now.

That a actual again, once the funding mechanism has been set, um, then a uh RFP, RFQ would be um would be set.

Phase one of the jail delivery in terms of building being completed is um estimated to be in the summer of 2032.

Um, as was mentioned, there is a what I'll call a placeholder of 75 million dollars in uh 32.

And again, so that 75 million dollars, and again it would depend on what ultimately the district decides is the best method from an uh financing method.

That's 75 million dollars provides a placeholder for for that future decision.

Um it might be, and again, I'm just without knowing which way the district may go.

It could be that 75 million might be the first payment on a lease lease back, for example, but the mayor has put that money in as a commitment and um for having that flexibility for future decisions.

So I guess a couple follow-ups on that.

May 15th is next Friday.

So have you seen the language for the RFI?

Um I have not seen a final language on that, no.

Will you before it goes on?

That'll be issued again by DGS.

Okay, but is I would assume that they would include DOC and reviewing that paperwork before it gets solicited to the public, right?

Yeah, they would they'll give us a review of it, but again, the RFI, the requirements and the language of the RFI are not so much corrections based specifically as their construction base.

So it's really much more in the wheelhouse of DGS.

In terms of again, the RFI is to really gauge market interest and gauge interest in seeking input on various delivery approaches.

So it's not really at this point as it relates to the RFI.

Of course we're involved, but it's not something that we would give um expertise to in terms of the this initial process.

So what will you expect to go in that solicitation?

It's just a like when we talked about the effort that's already gone into considering what a new design would look like, what types of spaces would be needed, how many units you would need, like all of that input, I would imagine needs to be considered at least uh the parameters around the RFI so people know what they're responding to.

Yes, it would be those broader parameters.

I mean, it's not going to get into the detail of you know uh particular designing units or that type of thing, but again, it's it would certainly be the parameters of the project, and then again, what might be different delivery approaches that could be um brought to bear um within the construction industry and what might be different alternatives that will lend more information for the district to make the decision on what the funding mechanism should be.

Deputy director, it looked like you were Hudson Ad.

I was gonna uh note uh good morning again, that we've worked closely with DGS on the conceptual ideas of what the facility will look like, and so in terms of the question is have we worked on and discussed with them the concept, what we're looking for the facility contain to contain, and yes, we have worked very, very closely with them on that.

The RFI itself will contain those parts that we have worked on closely with DGS, um, and that will be a part of this request for information in terms of what so that people know what we're not reinventing the wheel, they already have those pre-architectural designs and concepts that we've worked with with the vendors, they have that information, um, they will have that information in order to respond back with potential financing options, and that they're interested in in being a vendor and how they see the payment structure and all of that.

That's what this RFI is seeking to see what the interest is, what the uh market interest is in terms of building the facility and the different ways that we could potentially build it uh looking at the different funding structures.

Okay, so walk me through again the two primary funding structure options.

The two that really are being I would say considered right now, in terms of options.

One is what I guess you would say is the more traditional CIP uh capital improvement funded, that as you know, would be district self-funding as a capital project.

Um, and again, I'm sure from a district perspective, that has to be balanced against a lot of other capital needs and you know what the what the available funding is.

Um, and how much about what that estimate be for?

I'm sorry, how much would that estimate be for?

Um, I'd have to refer back to like OCFO.

What I can tell you is that in terms of those two options or alternatives, um, the OCFO had opined that both either or the CIP funded option and or the lease lease back option from their perspective uh would be options that you know can in fact be considered.

Um the other the other option would be a lease lease back, which would be a third party financing.

So that would be an example where let's say, under this request for interest, that we might get different delivery approaches and alternatives.

An example of that would be a um company, a builder would come in and build the facility.

Then the district would pay back in a lease, lease back situation over a number of years, and at the end of that term of making payments, annual payments, then the building itself reverts to the district of Columbia.

Okay.

And so the RFI that's going out then does not include the first option of the district CIP, right?

It only includes the lease-lease back option to see if there's interest in the private market to finance that type of structure.

No, I don't I don't think that's quite accurate.

I mean, the the request for interest, part of that is we want them to look at look at the different alternatives and the um the delivery approach.

Because regardless, so yes, they would look at both of those options because if there was a construction firm or whatever that might take on a project such as this, um, I mean, obviously, whether it was through a CIP process or through a um or through the um lease-lease back process, they would still have to obviously be a part of that in terms of the construction.

So, no, the RF, the request for interest will, in fact, um help I think the district in looking at those all two alternatives and what might make the most sense.

Okay, so I guess again May 15th is next Friday.

So when do you expect them DGS to share with you all what that language will look like to ensure that even if it is broad strokes, the operational needs of the facility are accurate from the agency's perspective?

Yeah, well, again, as Deputy Director Wilson stated, in terms of the act, we've been working with DGS and NCGL, you know, who has been our um jail planner for several years now.

So it's not that we haven't been everything that's included in terms of the design, the concepts, everything that would be needed in this RFI.

Up to this point, we're working hand in hand with DGS, so it's not like they're gonna just be issuing something that that we don't know.

So we we've been with them every step of the way, but in terms of your question about the final that's going out, um, I would assume we'd see it in the next couple days.

Okay.

So I guess maybe then ask differently.

Are you confident that that RFI actually will go out on May 15th?

I am confident.

Okay.

And if that does go out according to schedule, you think that the construction will be completed by 2032, or what was the 2032 year for the 75 million load?

2032 would be the um the construction complete on the uh phase one construction, yes.

Okay, and what is phase one construction include?

Um that would be the the first what we're calling uh building one would be totally complete um on that time on that timeline, which would be what currently houses CDF.

Um it would be yes, partly.

It's not going to, in other words, when building one is completed, CDF will still be operational.

Um, but um again, building one will include both general housing and um that also was, I would think, the input of the uh jails and justice task force and CCE, because they did actually push to get some general housing into the phase one building.

But the rest of the phase one building includes the medical infirmary beds, mental health, behavioral health beds, our intake, where persons first come into the facility, and some general housing.

Okay.

So just to make clear, the build the completion of phase one building does not completely eliminate the CDF.

So is there a phase two contemplated?

Yes, there is a phase two.

Um as always been as part of this entire project.

It's divided into two phases.

For phase two delivery, it's approximately summer of 2035.

So the entire process from beginning to end when all the new construction is done, and including renovations, ongoing renovations to the CTF, is in 2035.

So from today, you know, essentially about a what nine-year process for uh total completion.

And why does it need to take so long?

Well, I mean, building a facility, it's not like building uh an office building.

I mean building a facility like this is very complex and and very uh complicated, I would say, in terms of not only what goes into the building, but all the support services, all the electronics, you know, on and on.

It's it's a very uh complex and uh and a high security facility.

So in terms of the length of building a jail or building a prison, it's it's not um at all an unusual process.

And again, you have to go through that um you know, an RF, once an RFQ and an RFP goes out on the street, that has to take uh close to a year uh period for that to happen.

Then you have all the architectural and engineering work and then the construction.

So we're already in summer of 26 to summer of 32.

Again, once it's decided, once it's decided which way the funding mechanism goes forward, um between then getting that out on the street, selection, the architectural work, the actual building, um, it falls right into place, I mean I'm not a construction expert.

I certainly see why this takes some time and even some years, but 10 years seems like an unusually long time for a construction build of this size, even given its complicated nature.

Well, again, they're that's for a completion of two separate two buildings, a building one and a building two.

They're not both concurrently going at the same time.

And we need to build building one and have building one operational in order to start on building two, so because portions of the CDF would be coming down in order to build building two.

So we need we can't build them at the same time.

Um we have to have one building operational before we can move forward with the second building because of the campus.

Um as a director indicated, we also there are a number of processes, while we have a concept, we still need to get an architect on board, we still need to do all of the architectural requirements, work with the city on zoning and and all of the the the ground and all of those other things that need to occur before the actual buildings can start to be built and once the building portion starts to be built I think that that's a much faster process but we have to do all of the pre-work before we can get there.

Thank you.

Okay so when can I see the language for the RFID we we can talk to DGS and we can get back to you on that.

Okay that would be great thank you.

How about for C C B there's six million dollars allocated in this budget for the renovation of CCB I've heard everything from this is going to take 10 million to 400 million so what is the six million dollar allocation expected to be able to help us move forward on completing that very needed renovation.

So for the CCB you're speaking at daily building CCB.

So in the uh CIP between FY26 where we currently are and FY29 so six, seven, eight and nine, there is a total of twenty-two million dollars approved in the CIP.

DGS has drafted uh AE services architectural and engineering services for the daily CCB renovation that's been drafted by DGS.

They expect a release of that sometime probably within the next 30 days in terms of a draft for the um an e services then the uh selection and award um again within DGS's timetable selection and award for an A and E contract would be um this coming around this coming September September October time frame um which again coincides with the would coincide with the with our move to the 501 new york avenue um I know you've made a point in the past in terms of having it you know when we move out there should be there should be something going on at at daily and this plan that DGS has their timeline would do just that again there's 22 million over the next uh four years um c ip and they will be releasing a um again uh an e services for this job and that should be awarded by their timetable again and around the September October time frame which would match right up with the time frame of our operational movement out of there and what will the six million dollars go towards uh the six million toward those an e services yeah so the there's two million allocated last year uh was that has that already been expended no there's two million which was will go toward this process and the selection process toward the an e services then the six million you're talking about is construction I mean it's an e services and there's construction services stand for engineering architectural and engineering sorry thank you okay so two million is for architectural engineering has that all been completed now no they have not architectural engineering there that's what uh DGS is now releasing going to be releasing the solicitation for is to secure an A and E services and then so that will so there is enough funding available for the A and E services and then then when by the time 27 begins there'll be additional funding to start construction once the A and E services have been expended and used and a design has been determined for um for daily and again DGS is expecting release of that within about the next 30 days.

Okay.

I'm just a little nervous about that again because it feels that every year we're hearing that DGS is about to release those bids but it has also been several years.

I know you are not DGS but um this needs to of course be a priority of us and the agency and so if we don't time this properly um it's gonna create a lot of other challenges so you think within you think next week the RFI is going out for the new annex facility to determine what financing option and that within the next 30 days the architectural design proposals going out to determine your within I would say approximately the next 30 days yes and again that's in terms of your question about um you know what you've heard before you know getting moving forward um I think there's certainly additional pressure I would say to have it line up so that this needs to get out have it lined up so that when we do move as you've expressed a concern before there's not some long gap where we move out of um the daily building and then it's you know there's nothing going on there so the way it's scheduled out now would line up well in that effort.

So why is the architecture and engineering solicitation for the daily building gonna take six months but for the new annex will take a year well I gotta look at the date again the uh well the two projects are vastly different we're talking about really with C C B at daily it's basically a renovation it's not new construction it would be updating and renovating um what's already there so it's really a renovate renovation construction project more so than an actual construction project with the um with the jail annex building I mean we're talking from from ground up building um extremely large and complex facility but I can see that for taking longer in the construction phase but just in terms of the request for proposal phase why would it be double the time to just determine which financing is feasible.

So the draft I the I'm not so I think we're trying to do two different things here is is number one we're it's two different things for the new building we're releasing for the annex it's an RFI request for um information and then that interest excuse me and and that is designed to um again determine part of that is to determine financial feasibility in terms of which option to use and then test the market and then a decision the district will need to make a decision as to which of the two options they're ultimately going to go with and then then we can release the RF RF um RFQ or RFP however um the district decides to move forward in that process for daily what we're reducing right now is releasing the or DGS will be releasing the um RF RFP, I believe it's an RFP, right, for A and E services, then they will have to go through the process of getting construction and doing the solicitation for construction as well.

Um, we've given a condensed timeline, but first we have to get the design finalized for what the CCB at daily will look like, the updated CCB at daily will look like, and then that will let us move forward with the next step, which is to release an RFP or an RFQ for construction, and we'll but we already have we actually have funding allotted for construction.

So we're we're in a different space.

We already have CIP construction allotted for daily, so we're in a different space.

We can move forward a little quicker because we already have that financing already determined that it will be in a capital um in the capital budget.

So they're a little bit different processes just because we're trying to um do funding, but we've also done the AE services for the new jail.

That's what we've been doing for the last couple of years.

So that's in a different space than we are right now.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you for that.

That's that's helpful context.

And I I hear you that it uh they're they're different projects or different needs, and they're at different places in the timeline.

Just as a relative perspective, like one year just to determine which financing plan to go with feels like a really long time when it's not even about the specific engineering.

Right.

It's it's so we're I I understand, but one of the things we've talked to and had conversations with with DGS about is this alternative, the alternative funding that we've been talking about, and that they've worked closely with OCFO in the last year to determine what's feasible, whether CIP is feasible, we should go with the alternative funding.

This for the district is, and I know they've talked about it in the past, but to actually move forward with it is slightly different than what we do for a normal building.

A normal building where you do a lease back option, you if if the district were for some reason to default, I'm not saying it would at all, you know that a building could get leased, and so that folks can get have an opportunity to the space would be would be um rented and they could they would have renters come in.

That's a little different from a jail.

And so there is a little bit more, um, I don't want to say concern, but there's you you step a little lightly when you're dealing with this type of, and so that's one of the main reasons for this RFI is to see and to test to make sure that there are individuals and companies and organizations out there that are interested in this type of alternative funding, that we we would have potential bidders on this type of alternative funding, and that the market there's appetite in the market for this.

And so that's really in that would take us to the fall.

If I the interest is interested in what we can do out there and what the interest actually is.

Yes, okay.

So the one so it's it's due by July, and then the grievance portal.

IT and offender management system is it's two totally different projects.

We we are up currently operating a legacy system in our offender management, and that's a system that just tracks our inmate movement population uh within the facilities, the residents within the facilities to efficiently be able to track them, their movement and location.

Our offender management system was last updated um in 2020.

So we are 25 years behind.

We are we need to uh support and upgrade our offender management system, but it does not tie in an internet-based system the short answer management system and it and the way that this the outlook is for it in terms of under the act, um, the learns act, is that what you're seeking to do is to give everyone access to an a real time system, and our our systems don't currently work that way.

And we don't have we have a secure Wi-Fi portal where our resident population does not get access to the internet in the in the way that you're seeking to give them access to it, and so our we don't quite work in that manner.

Um, I think that we can do we're looking possible in our current system dated and off the shelf.

Oh, and I don't want to currently have joined us also.

So I appreciate all jump right in.

Uh give investments and infrastructure scale as well.

Um for this uh for this fiscal year that we're talking about in FY27.

So there's um two point five million um of capital in the CDF and 1.5 million in the CTF.

Uh HVAC system is uh improvements is one of our big projects coming up.

There's 2.5 million dollars to go toward uh HVAC.

Um exterior finishing, um there's a $500,000 allocation, uh plumbing, and this is all new work.

Uh have a lot of issues with um old um failing plumbing piping, all of that, um, showers, sinks, plumbing pipes throughout the facility.

There's uh new allocation of 7.5 million um to address plumbing issues, um, and then as uh deputy director Wilson was just speaking of there's three million dollars toward an uh upgrade of our fender management system, which is now about 25 years old, those are the the main project areas in terms of details.

I don't know if you want to speak to anybody did you want some additional information about particular projects or no that's helpful.

Uh, I guess just a follow-up.

Could you speak to what is the total long-term financial commitment associated with DOC's major capital projects and how will those costs be managed over time?

I'm not sure I understand what what's the total amount that we received in capital.

So if you look at like your long-term financial commitment to ensure that these projects are delivered over time, and as a director, just highlighted all of the projects that are with are within your portfolio.

Could you give an estimate of how much all of those will projects would cost throughout the entirety of this you guys as CIP?

If you have that information, these are the retired costs.

Right.

So this is the the amount of money that we've uh receiving or that is um proposed by the mayor in our capital funding is is what we have to work with.

Um if you're asking, so what happens typically is we will not start a project unless we have the funding to support the project's completion.

And so what we typically do, especially with our CDF and CTF funding, which the director mentioned the 2.5 and a 1.5, um, we typically ask for funding each year in those areas, and then the funding that is allocated in those areas, we will work on particular projects that we know we have at least we have the funding to start or complete those projects.

So even what's currently in our capital budget, and then this additional funding that we add to it.

So, for instance, we've done extensive work on our elevator systems, and so if we we know we need to uh continue some work on our elevator systems, we will make sure that we have the available funding to do that before we begin.

We're finishing up our sink and shower project now, and so we'll we'll we're doing some door control projects as well.

So other we'll make sure that before we start a project that we have the we have the funding in order to move forward with those projects.

We wouldn't start a project without the appropriate level of funding to either um start or complete those projects.

So we're I mean, those that I mentioned, I mean we're committed to those projects.

I think the only project that we have started already and is in its final phase, and which we've asked for additional funding for is to finish the exterior finishing.

So we know working with DGS that we need some additional funding to complete that project.

So we have asked for additional funding to support that project.

Uh thank you for that.

I'm gonna shift uh over to the new corrections facility.

Uh uh there's approximately 117 million dollars uh estimate that that's the need uh to build the new jail, and I see and I see that it looks like to date 8.2 has been spent.

Can you describe the major phase and milestone of this development?

Uh yes, and I um I'll go over a couple earlier things if I may.

Um, so um as I mentioned before, DGS will be putting out um they're scheduled to put out as of May 15th the request for interest.

Um, and again, that will be to kind of gauge the market interest within the construction world and seek input on different delivery approaches and and alternatives.

Um again, the district still has to make a decision on what funding alternative that might look like.

It could either be through the a CIP kind of traditional funding, or through a lease-lease back, which would be like a third-party financing.

Um, so that's still being considered by the district.

Um, but in terms specifically to your question about the the funding, there is um 75 million in the FY 32 mayor's budget that the mayor placed 75 million in FY 32.

I refer to that kind of as a placeholder, in other words, that the mayor hasn't made that commitment to put the third uh 75 million in in FY32.

Um, and that that is toward the the building and construction of the new facility.

Um but again there will need to be district decisions made on the the mechanism for the for the butt, but she has put it that like that placeholder of 75 million in FY32.

There's 24 million right now that DGS has essentially that's available now, that separate from the 75 million placeholder that I mentioned, and that 24 million is to cover both the scope of the um jail planning process CGO, who we've had now for several years, that's our um our um jail planning uh firm programming consultant and money to support within that 25 million uh DGS will be using those funds to support the initial advancement of the detailed design for the new facility.

So the 24 million that's available now will be to start that advancement of detailed designed option is then the million is there as a placeholder for that uh director.

Well, I say since I was under the impression that the facility will be completed by 2032.

With that being said, if based on what you're telling, do you that uh the facility will be completed by that day line?

Building completed in that um and that seventy-five uh again, depending on which way the district chooses to go as that placeholder.

Um if it was a lease lease-back situation, that 75 million is there in FY 32 that I would assume would go toward essentially a first annual payment over you know a number of years on the lease-lease back option, um, or there's 75 million again.

Also, not that's under the CIP option, but um that money had put in there by the mayor for FY 32, and then as decisions are made by the district, um, you know, at least that placeholder is there.

And just a follow-up question briefly.

Uh how certain are you that the true cost is 117 million to build this new facility?

Do you think it's less than that?

Do you think it's more than that?

The oh, definitely more than that.

Yeah.

This is the 24 million and the 75 million aren't for the total construction of the facility.

How much is it?

Um what's the last?

Yeah, it's somewhere in uh I'd have to get back with you to the exact current estimate, but it's somewhere I think between 900 million and a billion dollars.

You said a billion 900 million and 1 billion dollars.

Thank you for that.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Felder.

Okay, so let's turn to the Office of Investigative Services budget.

Um, as you know, I continue to be concerned about the issues that we see with contraband and deaths and violent incidents, and want to make sure that they are adequately staffed and prepared to carry out their important work.

How many filled FTEs are currently in this department?

With investigators or the entire unit.

Uh let can we give a clean.

I just because there he has, and then there's also the game and then monitoring the offices as well as pre-get you.

That's why I'm thank you.

If you keep asking the questions, I will get have you received any federal money to help with this unit?

I'm sorry, federal money for what now?

To help with this unit to investigate.

Um as far as money for the investigative unit.

We received the funding we received was um several years ago for to implement our body.

Um monitoring to the body worn cameras that all of our officers carry, and the mon we receive funding to start that up.

But that has ended up that's that's no longer there, but yes, we did get the startup seed money for that.

Um that's the only area as far as actual funding now.

They have a lot of partnerships, um, ongoing partnerships with both federal and local agencies, obviously, work very closely with MPD, particularly in the gang intelligence area, in information sharing between MPD and DOC, and then also work uh OIS works very closely with some other federal agencies, such as uh DEA and uh FBI.

In fact, DEA has provided, and again, this is at no cost, but they've provided training, for example, for um uh field drug testing, those types of things.

So we make use of a lot of uh both federal and and local law enforcement partnerships.

Okay.

Which is 4.9 million million.

With this increase, we now have 26 million allocated for overtime in FY27, 30 million on overtime already, or you spent it in 25.

My concern is that these are extremely high numbers that we could be spending on stabilized staffing and other needs.

How much has been spent on overtime in FY26 to date, and what do you think are some of the most the largest factors driving that overtime so high?

Yes, um, today uh you to date expenditures are so far about 15.7 million.

We're projected to spend about 32 million.

And you're saying that again?

Yeah, the year-to-day expenses are to 15.7 million.

And we're our projected spend around.

Okay.

FY27, correct.

Okay, it's high number this year, and what gives you confidence that you're gonna spend less on overtime next year.

Well, go ahead.

Many, I mean, many I'll go over some of what would be the key drivers of overtime.

Um areas certainly uh lots of unscheduled uh medical, so a lot of our overtime is not controlled in sense of not being scheduled overtime.

So for example, we have many many runs and we're having to go to the hospital.

Um that always takes two officers, the transport time, and then uh being at the hospital itself, sometimes for many days or even many weeks where it's for to be done with we have a lot of medical clinic runs, so we're uh unity health care has to be outside um medical um examinations outside of what can be done internally.

So there are uh many many clinic runs.

Just to give you an example of that, yesterday I was looking at our clinic runs.

We had 16 different clinic runs scheduled to go out.

So again, that's 16 different runs that we have to make throughout the day, much of that on overtime.

Um also um FMLA is a uh is a big driver, sick leave, um, away without leave, the paid again, the paid family leave, um, mandated training, uh, both all our officers are mandated to have in-service training, 40 hours of in-service training every year.

Um, so many of those what I would call drivers of overtime, those are some of the some of the typical areas where we're having to, because we're having to pull people out for mandated training, or we're having to pull people out to make uh uh hospital duty runs or whatever, we're having to fill those typically with overtime.

Okay, and are you anticipating that to happen less next year?

I think well part of that too is filling, obviously trying to continue to fill more positions.

What I'm very um buoyed by is that our recruitment efforts um have continued to be much brighter.

Um for example, our last three recruit classes um have had a total of 80 new recruits coming in.

If you add up all three, 25 and one, 26 in one, 29 and another in the most recent, um, and those are um much improved numbers to what we have had historically, certainly over the last four or five years.

Um, and then we have a current class right now of 22.

So in terms of some of the key drivers that are hard to control, um certainly, you know, that will continue.

Um, but at the same time, in terms of looking at our recruitment efforts and those people coming in, and the other thing I think that's important that we've seen is over certainly over the last three years, our attrition rate is improving, so we're getting good numbers coming into the classes, and our our attrition rate is starting to trend in a more positive um direction.

What is the appropriate staffing complement you need for COs to be fully staffed and not rely on overtime?

What's the full staff?

Full staffing for uniformed officers is um 816.

And how many do we have?

We currently have 706 filled, and that's vacant are 11.

And you said the last three classes were increased?

Are trending positive.

We're we're um estimating um for this through this current uh fiscal year.

I believe fifty one is what we're tracking um in terms of our our estimate for additional officers.

So last year we allocated four hundred thousand dollars to promote hiring incentives for DOC.

How was that money used?

And do you think it helped?

Bring more people on board, um, well, how it was used was to um provide an incentive um initially for someone who um was went through the hiring process and was hired and then went to the uh went through the um recruit academy and successfully completed that um at the end of that time thousand dollar bonus in effect and then later one year at the full complete they would be eligible for an additional 18 month period they'd be um it certainly I would say um you know any time you have it's not a negative thing um but I I don't here's what I would say I would not make a direct correlation to say oh we have this and that was the reason numbers I I don't see that I if I correlation are things that our staff like having a full time wealth coordinator um having uh more support for staff in those areas um having um and we're seeing those types of things again in the positive trending in our attrition rate to show that um those people that we're hiring are you know starting to stick around which is very positive.

What are you seeing in terms of use of uh signal of our staff is foreign born and so when they use um protected leave they typically take it consecutively in order to go back abroad and so the 320 in in not quite intermittent fashion but in a full um consecutive 300 and so we we for family they are going um and so we is abroad and then I didn't add in by us if you unless members of the PRIA staff supervisor there two body cam body worn camera coordinators and 14 monitoring specialists who monitor the cameras within the units thank you and those staff those staff she last mentioned are in our surveillance center that has covers what about a thousand over a thousand and what's the total budget of that unit we um just that we we don't break down the they don't like per se have a budget like we don't break it down we cover the cost of the body worn cameras every year replacement updates the staffing um their needs are paper products and all that it's covered by our general paper supply so they don't have a breakdown like separate budget line item um they do have specific number of staff members per the unit but we don't I we haven't I don't we haven't broken it down like they get fifty thousand dollars to spend like they use as much paper and products and supplies as any do you have the total for what the FTEs oh the total number of FTEs um for the budget not just the number of the budget for um so PRIA has a budget PRIA has a line item of its own um for budget and um it's the 12 investigative services total 12 12 is the line item okay I guess I'm I'm looking for the total budget amount for those FTEs but we can move on and come back to if you don't have it.

We'll have to we'll provide it to we'll follow up.

Okay.

Okay, so the current funding allocated for the C forever contract is 4.5 million dollars.

What's the status of the solicitation of that contract?

You asked what's the status of solicitation well the we don't have a I mean, there's not a solicitation out on C forever.

We are we're working on a base year plus option year.

Yeah, we're on an option year, so it's a year to year.

So which year are we in?

F two.

In current FY26, there's 4.2 million.

Okay.

And then in FY27 proposed, it's 4.5 million.

Okay, so that is doesn't need to be resolicited.

We're working with Maya.

We're working with Maya with C Forever Foundation, and that contract is based on a number of up to 45 students.

Okay, great.

So the council just passed my bill, uh, the leading education access for reentry and necessary success amendment act.

Um, the FIST for the bill estimates a total of 7.7 million dollars and 26 million over the financial plan.

That's 5.3 million just for the evaluation and services and 2.3 million for a grievance portal, but the FIST uses an estimate to support 521 evaluations annually based on intake data for individuals without a diploma.

How is that number calculated?

Um we looked at the uh again the intake data in terms of those individuals on an annual basis between the ages of 18 to 22 that would be within that um eligible eligibility age area, and based on those numbers, it would be around that five five hundred number that are coming in because as you know, currently um those individuals that come in right now in terms of creating it, they already have an IEP.

Um, so we looked at okay, we now have to would have to expand to the entire age bracket of 18 to 22, and that would mean a approximately 500 plus individuals per year that we would have to have um screening and evaluation for eligibility for under IEPs, which is something we don't do at all at this point, and it's not part of what C Forever currently does.

So we we looked at the number, total number as a director indicated.

We looked at the total number of of individuals 18 to 22 entering the facility.

We also took out those who have already have GEDs or high school diplomas, then we also removed anyone with an IEP already established IEP, because they would already receive the support and services of Maya, which left us with the number that we're currently operating with.

The thing that we were we remind people constantly is we are a jail, not a prison, and so prisons have individuals who stay for long periods and long terms.

We can have, and we've had over 5,000 intakes any given year.

So to say, so we're talking about someone, people come in and they could be there for a couple days, they could be there for a few weeks, they could be there for a few months, they could be there for a few years, depending on where they are in the status of their trial.

So we our data we looked at just looking at intakes between the ages of 18 to 22.

We didn't study whether they're there for a day, whether they're there for five days.

Now, somebody or 20 days.

Now, someone is there for a day or two under your bill, they are required, we're required to, if they don't have a high school diploma, and they're between they don't have an IEP, we would have to begin the process.

And so what that entails is beginning the process.

Now we could be right in the middle of the process if if that is what it's if that is what's required, and then they could be they could leave on on bail, or they can not bail, but they can be released out to the community again, but we would still be required under the bill to begin the process under the Learns Act, and so we would have to begin those services and and put in place, have the psychological and the evaluations done and reach out to parents and do all that processing, and they could be there for one or two days, or they can be there for six months, or they could be there a year, or three years.

But we would be required to begin the process.

So we can't look at they're there 10 days, so then we could start the process because then we would have the advocates again saying that someone was in our facility and we didn't begin to provide them with um testing for an IEP.

So we have to begin right away.

And at this point, I mean, as DOC, I mean, we have no capacity or expertise in that area, and uh to be straightforward, we're not educational administrators, and my position has always been that we really shouldn't be educational administrators.

Um go ahead and FISP proposes new positions for a diagnostic assessment center, an administrator certified in special education services, a school psychologist, and a program specialist.

What would the justification need be for an entirely new center?

Well, because we have to again.

So, in order for us to begin the process of identifying and assessing those who meet the requirements for IEP, you have to have a certain specialization in certifications in order to do so.

You have to have those school psychologists, speech and language pathologists, occupational therapists, all of those make up the team that will require the assessments of those students' eligibility for an IEP.

IEP is not just the educational piece of it, but it's also the behavioral and cognitive pieces as well that makes up what would create their eligibility requirements for an IEP.

And so, in order to do that, there are a number of assessments that are required by licensed uh licensed uh professionals in order to come to determination that this person meets the requirements for an IEP.

Can C forever handle those additional assessments?

If that was written in the contract, yeah.

I don't know if they have the advocation.

But I'm not so I'm not sure.

I know that they do a lot of contractual services in terms of related services.

So the all of the related services that we currently have, like the behavioral health, the occupational therapy, the speech and language is contracted out, so they use contractual agreements with other providers to provide those services.

Right.

I guess I'm just like to the director's point that you're not an education administrator for contracting with INC forever for this purpose.

It seems that may be more sensible, as opposed to you all starting an entirely new diagnostic center and hiring all the staff that they expand their contract to do the evaluations, we we that is a possibility, and that's likely a possibility, but there's a cost to that.

And so everything has a cost.

So whether we start the diagnostic center ourselves or whether we contract with C forever to start a diagnostic center, we are currently paying four million dollars, a little more than four million dollars to educate 40 up to 45 students.

That's what our current contract allows.

And it doesn't speak to or have any provisions to do any of these diagnostic initial diagnostic services.

So again, those are services that we would have to contract for, we would have to contract to provide them, and then we would have to contract to educate the additional students beyond what we currently are paying for.

Okay.

I am gonna move on just because I've got a lot of questions to get through, and I'm realizing the time.

I'm gonna find I'm sorry.

Okay, okay, so in addition to the diagnostic assessment center, you're talking about secured classrooms, you're talking about controlled access to technology.

Uh you specialized instruction, instructional materials, secured network that will meet academic and security needs.

So there's a number of other things outside of the diagnostic assessment center that would be required for us to be able to put in place.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

How many residents participated in Airmarks into our culinary program last year?

I believe we have that.

I didn't bring it.

Four minutes are enrolled in the culinary arts program and 29 graduated from the program.

I'm sorry, say those numbers one more time.

40 stud residents were enrolled in the culinary arts program and 29 graduated.

Okay.

And is there funding in FY27 proposed to continue the services?

Is there funding for that program?

Yeah, I mean that yes, that's part of that program is part of what Airmark, who's our current vendor provides that, and there's um $7 million is the budget for the food service, which which includes the um uh in-to-work program we call it.

Okay, there are two inmate health care contracts listed with Unity Healthcare, each with the same contract number.

One contract line 18 is budgeted for 49.69 million, the other one's budgeted for 1.4 million.

What services will be provided under the larger contract, and what services are provided under the smaller contract?

Yeah, it's just two budget lines.

I mean, the total is 50 million.

It's unity's entire contract is the 50 million dollars.

Okay.

Uh so it's it's just it's just on two different budget lines.

Um, and so we provide comprehensive, it all totals 50, a little more than 50 million dollars, which is our unity contract, including prescriptions and everything else.

Why is it broken down into two lines?

Oh, one comes from a special purpose revenue, and so that's why and it's fully at that figure the contract is fully funded.

Okay.

So that contract is for $1,701 to $2200 residents.

The average daily population at the end of April was 2,205, which is just a little over that range.

Do you feel like that contract is gonna have enough to meet the needs of residents and a potentially rising population next year?

Um, I think at this point it will.

Now, obviously, you know, we continue as we always do, we'll continue to work very closely with EOM and OCFO in terms of continuing to track those budget dollars.

Um in terms of the population, you know, we've had ups and downs of where that is.

Um, for that contract to go above that, it would have to be at an ongoing monthly, you know, monthly average basis.

So in other words, if we hit a spike somewhere, that's not necessarily gonna affect anything in terms of the the medical.

Um, so I would just say at the current time, the the money that's set aside that 50 million does fully fund our medical needs.

Okay, for the Airmark contract, how much of the current food service price per meal is used to purchase food ingredients?

I'm sorry I didn't quite understand the question.

Can you think can you for the food service contract?

We talked about the Airmark.

Is that 6.8 million for FY27, right?

How much of the of this is used to purchase food ingredients per meal?

We'll have to check with um, we don't have a breakdown for that information, so we'll have to check on that.

Do we have the breakdown of cost per meal per resident?

It's about three dollars and we do three three dollars and thirty cents, I believe, is right around where we are.

Is that am I accurate?

Yep.

$3.30, three dollars and thirty about three dollars and thirty cents per month.

And that doesn't, I'm sorry, that does not include uh kosher or halal, which are different.

Which are higher.

Do you know how that compares to Airmark contracts for school meals?

I'm not aware of the cost for school meals, okay.

Um there's a separate three hundred and sixty-five thousand dollar contract for food services that's listed under vendor name TBD.

What is that for?

That's for um holder is the name of the company.

Holder.

Um, and they provide the uh meals, the food service at the CCB.

Um so that's a different contract that those meals are they're not prepared there, they're brought in pre-prepared.

Um, so that's that's is what that contract is specifically for feeding those who are at the CCB.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

What's the status of the library?

Are we speaking of the DC public libraries or are we speaking of DC public libraries?

Talk about the jail the library and we have library services, yeah.

Yes, so the DC public libraries currently um this they are looking to hire new staff.

Um they lost the staffing back in December, and um it's been put out twice.

Um, and so we're working with DC public libraries, but that's a branch of DC public library, so we don't do the solicitations for the library branch.

Sorry, say that last part again.

We don't do the hiring for the library branch.

So is it still closed?

Yes, it is still closed.

Okay.

What's the budget allocation for the Ready Center?

I see two hundred thousand dollars, but that doesn't include all the money from other agency partnerships, right?

The $200,000 is for Ready Center services.

Um that's for is that for the but no as far as our partner agencies, yeah, that would be separate.

That's separate.

That's separate, and then also just as an FYI, we're uh just finalizing the lease.

This past week actually, a new um five-year more lease on the Ready Center, um, so that's in the process of being signed.

That actually comes under the budget of DGS, but um we are signing a new five-year lease.

So I appreciate the uh comments that some of the uh public witnesses supporting the great work of the Ready Center, and we're not going anywhere, so we're signing a new five-year lease.

Great.

Congratulations on that.

That's exciting.

Um, what is the two hundred thousand dollars go towards?

Uh, infrastructure.

So it's for the security, the maintenance, uh the overall costs um for for the building and upkeep um custodial services, and so all programming budget allocations come from other agencies, no, so programming allocations, each other agencies and us, yes.

So we do have programming in the Ready Center under DC Department of Corrections that's paid for by either local dollars, lead up lead out, or the SOAR grant.

Okay, so how what is the actual budget allocation for the Ready Center in total in terms of the programming that is currently in the Ready Center?

Yeah, in terms of everything that it takes to run it, because they're all kind of in different places, and the allocation in your budget, I just see the 200,000.

But if that's not accounting for the grants or other programs that you do or other programs, other agencies do, what's the actual total?

So we have we had the allocation for the 200,000 is for infrastructure, and then we utilize other funds from other areas to provide programs at the ready center.

We don't have like a so we don't have a item.

Program item for the Ready Center.

So do we have any estimate on how much we're spending at the Ready Center?

I mean, I can add that up in terms of what the different programs that we have there and get that number to you.

Yes.

Thank you.

That would be great.

And if we have it for the other agencies, too.

Because I know that, you know, DOES, DBH, DHS, all of them do some programming, but because there's not one right DMV, one location, yeah, right, right.

Right.

Be curious.

We need to know, I mean, what the total number is.

And then we have, as you know, many volunteer community groups also in there.

Right.

That's, you know, not a budget impact, but Martha's table put uh such as that.

Okay.

Um we've been trying to fund the corrections information council improvement omnibus bill for quite some time now.

Um the CIC has requested that certain aspects of the omnibus bill be separated from the subject to appropriations clause so that many of the provisions that already competing that they can work on without the need for additional funding.

In order to effectuate this change, we would need to confirm which of the sections of the bill are are already being completed from your perspective, and which remain as funding needs.

So can you confirm that DOC is doing the following?

The Department of Corrections shall employ a staff liaison for any commissioner and its care and custody who represents the single member district containing the central detention facility and correctional treatment facility.

Such liaison shall assist the commissioner in carrying out the commissioners' duties, including pursuant to this section.

The commissioner shall be entitled to technology and space necessary to access commission meetings and perform the commissioners' duties.

Yes.

So he has two uh residents that works closely with him and to ensure that he gets the memorandums out, look at the requests, the M8 request, the concerns.

He has two people that works with him, and then he has his advisory committee as well.

But based on this the statement I just read, and my intention, as I mentioned, is to understand which pieces of the bill are already being implemented versus which would need additional funding.

Is the statement I read an accurate statement that that's already being implemented?

He already has two liaisons that works with him directly.

Okay, thank you.

Those are residents.

Okay, so council member, those are two, those are two residents that I'm speaking about.

So if you're talking about staff members, we have a ANC commission liaison at the facility that works directly with the with um the commissioner.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, um, are there any new updates in the offerings in commissary?

Um, we haven't made any recent changes um over time, as you know, we've made a number of changes in terms of offering items that are more you know heart healthy or um etc.

But in terms of any new recent changes, there really haven't been any.

Okay.

I think the last change was um when I work with your staff to add um hair products that did not contain um sulfate.

Sulfate, that was the last big change that we okay.

Thank you.

Um, so if the financing of the new jail annex isn't built for phase one until 2032, then in the meantime, how does this budget allocate repairs that are needed on an ad hoc basis?

I've been hearing additional concerns and reports around um rodents coming into the facility.

How does this budget ensure that the current conditions can be habitable and safe until we have the financing for an entirely new annex?

Sure.

We're we currently um in terms of our various contracts we have, we have a full um contract for extermination services.

Um, and that runs about nine thousand dollars a month, I believe, um, on average.

And um, so we we have a contract.

They are coming in every single week.

So that will continue to be maintained.

In terms of the capital funding, again, we have some projects that are funded that we will be working on.

I had mentioned the $7.5 million for plumbing repairs, a new piping, all of those things.

The HVAC to continue to work to improve that.

We have 2.5 million.

And then just on an annual basis in terms of various projects that we need to for the upkeep, as you mentioned, we have 2.5 million in CDF and 1.5 million in CTF.

Okay.

Okay.

We will follow up with any additional questions.

As you know, this budget is a kind of truncated timeline, and so we look forward to working very closely together over the next couple days and weeks to make sure that we are moving forward with a budget that accomplishes all these needs.

And for the other pieces that we talked about, if you're able to get back to us by tomorrow, that would be very helpful with some of those other budget questions.

With that, Director, as always, I want to give you a chance if you have any other closing thoughts you'd like to add to the record.

No, we thank you for your time and also again, just in recognition of this week being National Correctional Officers and Employees Week.

And we had a great ceremony down at the law enforcement this past Saturday.

And I would just end it with again my appreciation for the hard work that the staff do.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you all very much.

Okay, we are now going to turn to our public witness for fire and EMS.

Joseph Papariello, executive vice president of Local 36.

Hello, welcome.

Good morning.

We will begin with Joseph Papriello, Executive Vice President of Local 36.

Good morning or good afternoon now.

My name is Joseph Pepperello, the executive vice president of the District of Columbia Firefighters Association Local 36 of the International Firefighters.

AFL CIO.

President Hogland is attending to personal manners today in census regards.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of you today on the FY27 budget for the DC Fire and EMS department.

Our message today is simple.

This budget must prioritize staffing infrastructure and long-term planning to meet the growing demands on our system.

The department continues to rely heavily on overtime to meet staffing levels.

While overtime has been built into the FY27 budget.

There's a fiscal balancing act of when it is more cost-effective and prudent to hire and retain firefighters and paramedics.

Continuous evaluation of our staffing factor will help ensure that this is achieved.

We strongly encourage the council to support the additional FTEs from members in the training pipeline.

This allows the department to hire ahead of attrition, accounting for the time it takes to train new members and get them into the field.

Without this consistent pipeline, we will continue to fall behind.

We also urge the council to implement our drop program.

This is one of the most cost-effective tools available to stabilize staffing while retaining experienced members.

Just as importantly, a drop program provides predictable retirement timelines, allowing the department to accurately forecast attrition over the next several years.

Our recent fleet challenges reflect several years of deferred purchasing and the need for a more consistent fleet replacement strategy.

Strategies that reflect current market dynamics that meet the needs of RTC firefighters in the city that we serve.

While capital funds are used for the purchase of brand new apparatus, we ask that the council provide flexibility to allow these funds to be used not only for new apparatus purchases, but the refurbishment of existing apparatus.

The turnaround time is typically less than a year compared to four years for a new unit, and the refurbishment can extend the life of these units another ten years at a fraction of the cost.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Okay, we are turning to the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants.

We have 150 witnesses who have signed up to testify.

Um we are going to move in order each panel that I call.

If you can sit in the order that I call you, would be helpful for us to stick on track.

So this first panel, Olga Gonzalez, who's joining us online, and then in person Nancy Drain, Ronald Flagg, Ciara Jarrett, and Asellus Gray.

Reminder, everybody will have three minutes to present their testimony today.

I am a resident of TC.

I have been a resident of DC for 35 years.

Approximately tube layout.

I received support from legal ADC after trying to resort to many different places in order to receive some help.

In 2017, I broke my shoulder, and the insurance didn't pay because I had to go through Medicare.

That was because I had turned 65 at that time and uh I didn't apply because I wasn't uh aware of it.

So when I received the invoice from the hospital that was a big surprise for me.

Uh they tried to mediate for me, but they weren't listening.

It was uh through the help of a lawyer from Legal A D C that I was listened to.

That way my bill was frozen and uh I received the support I needed.

I was uh able to apply to Medicare through their help, and they pay off all the physical treatment I receive.

Through this they found out that my uh ex partner wasn't paying for my insurance, which was something that was agreed through mediation in DC.

I went through a very traumatic divorce, but it was also through the help of legal aid that I could sue and make him pay for uh for what was due.

I travel conot clientes para apoyar a Judal Legal DC porque ellos mayudaron mucho.

Today I am a part of the council of uh uh legal a DC and I am trying to provide also my support to others who need the help of legal a DC because they helped me so much.

That's why I am begging uh the council to support the access to justice for those who cannot have access to it.

Sin esta juda, muchas personas legales.

Without this support, many people are going to suffer due to their legal issues.

Muchas gracias.

I like a pinto.

Yet all of the experiencia.

Thank you very much to Councilmember Pinto and the rest of the council members for listening to my experience today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here.

Nancy Drain.

Good afternoon, and thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today about the Access to Justice Initiative.

Twenty years ago, at the Commission's urging, the council created the initiative, a program it continues to champion.

Our testimony includes detailed impact statements from grantees supported by the program and a series of fact sheets that detail the value and scope of the program.

Funding the initiative at just under 4.5 million and 86% reduction presents an existential threat to a civil justice system that relies on free legal help being available to ensure fairness and equal access to justice.

Recognizing the intersectionality of our work, we stand with the van in asking this committee and the council to prioritize the restoration of initiative and victim services funding to at least FY26 levels.

The immediate consequences of this funding reduction will be stark.

38,000 DC residents could lose access to legal help when there is no right to a lawyer in civil cases, and the vast majority of litigants cannot afford one.

Grantee organizations could be forced to remove 240 client-facing community-based workers who serve DC residents.

Entire organizations or established projects may be forced to shutter entirely.

More than 180 DC agencies and community organizations that rely on initiative programs will find themselves without a trusted partner.

This will have a direct impact across the district and in each and every ward.

But these are only the most direct consequences of the mayor's proposed reduction.

It fails to recognize the longer term benefits that accrue from legal help.

The legal services corporation has found an average seven dollars saved for every one dollar invest in civil legal aid.

In DC, grantee programs have saved Medicaid dollars, recouped valuable public benefits, and help families maintain intergenerational assets.

It turns its back on the idea that prevention-based strategies lead to stronger communities.

Every day, initiative programs help district residents solve problems before they become bigger crises, crises that often prove costly for the community at large.

Over 2,000 cases placed last year with a value of 74 million.

Particularly troubling is this cut time cut comes at a time of increasing, not reduced need.

Thank you.

Ronald Flagg.

Chair Pinto, thank you.

When people can't tackle legal obstacles to their health, housing, and economic security, the downstream costs on public systems are high.

State level studies consistently show that investing in legal aid pays off.

Our research at LSC shows the average rate of return is seven dollars for every dollar invested.

When legal aid prevents evictions, it reduces homelessness and public spending on shelters, health care, and social services.

When medical legal partnerships address housing conditions and bureaucratic red tape, they improve patient health, reduce ER visits, and lower public health costs.

Legal aid helps domestic violence survivors secure protective orders and safe housing, which reduces costs for police, health care, and social services.

Legal aid also ensures veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities get the benefits they're due, bringing federal dollars into the local economy at no local cost.

In short, equal justice is not an expense to minimize, but an investment to maximize.

Second, the count only the council can now preserve what it has built, an extremely effective civil legal aid system.

As people's legal needs grow, the DC Bar Foundation and its grantees stand out as national leaders in innovation, collaboration, and evaluation, which ensures strategic and efficient use of limited resources.

One example the district's highly effective eviction defense defense program, the Civil Legal Council Projects Program, is a national leader in evaluating and measuring program impact.

The 2025 evaluation report showed that among the 956 eviction cases with known outcomes, tenants retained possession in 71% of the cases.

Voucher termination defense cases that received representation ended with the tenant keeping the voucher 77% of the time.

These success rates are many times higher than the success rates in the absence of a lawyer.

Also, the DC Bar Foundation and grantees have cultivated unparalleled networks among and beyond legal services providers, including community groups and health and social services providers.

These networks expand coordination and reach, leverage distinct spheres of support and expertise, and increase impact for DC residents.

In sum, what the council has built with its access to justice initiative is extraordinary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kara Jarrett.

Chair Pinto and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today.

I've been chair of the CEO of the DC Bar Foundation for 12 years, and I have practiced public interest work in this community for more than 30.

And to be clear, an 86% cut to the Access to Justice Initiative will dismantle our civil legal system.

The council created this program in 2007.

You asked the foundation to administer it, and your investment has been a huge factor in the evolution, growth, and sophistication of this system over the past nearly two decades.

So my plea today is don't stop now.

The cut that is contemplated would leave that tens of thousands of residents without legal support in moments of crisis and undue years of public investment.

Your investment has supported the transformation of a fragmented legal aid landscape into a connected, responsive, and efficient system.

Transformation is hard work.

It doesn't just happen.

It takes commitment and time and reliable funding.

And we have leveraged the public funding over these nearly 20 years to ensure that that transformation happens within our community.

As an example, with the goal of transforming and deeply influencing the way that we work together, the DC Bar Foundation launched the DC Social Justice Transformations Network five years ago.

Our goal was to connect stakeholders across sectors, including legal aid, social services, health care, education, philanthropy, local government, and more.

And through regular convenings, working groups, and with an emphasis on relationship building, this network has broken down silos to better serve DC residents who have complex overlapping needs.

With the goal of transforming how DC residents experience our legal system, we began building a coordinated intake system, also about five years ago, and I've testified about the importance of the public funding to the development of what we now know as the resource bridge over the past five years as we worked hand in hand with legal aid providers, a broad range of community organizations, and district residents from all eight wards to build a system that works for all.

This is my first opportunity to come before you to tell you that we did it.

The DC Resource Bridge launched in September of last year.

The director of the resource bridge will be here later today, and you'll hear directly from her, and it is amazing, and it's exactly what we hoped it to be and it's making a difference.

But those two things that I speak of would not be possible without public funding.

And they are just two examples of systems-level transformational work that would not have been possible and would not continue.

This is the work that makes public dollars go further, reaches district residents in need earlier, and fortifies the city's social safety net at a critical time.

I urge you to maintain level funding for the initiative.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chairwoman Pinto, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm Aerisales Gray, director of programs at the DC Bar Foundation.

Like my colleagues, I'm here to tell you what we stand to lose if the mayor's proposed 86% cut to the Access to Justice Initiative is approved.

That is not a trim, that is the near total dismantling of a system that DC residents depend on.

And it's happening at the exact moment when more of them need it than ever before.

As you know, federal and local policy changes are creating a wave of new legal needs across the district.

As a result of the new Medicaid income thresholds, many residents will no longer qualify for Medicaid, while others, particularly those with certain immigration status, will lose coverage entirely.

And when people lose benefits, they need legal help navigating what comes next.

This summer, the district must enforce new federal snap work requirements for adults up to age 64.

Residents that cannot document compliance will risk losing food assistance.

Many will need legal help, understanding their rights.

And these are just some of the conditions that push families into crisis and toward legal help.

Last year alone, our grantee partner served more than 44,000 DC residents.

That's seniors, children, people with disabilities, and survivors of domestic violence.

You'll hear many examples today, but I want to share one.

A woman who reached out to one of DC's legal aid organizations after she was beaten severely by her husband and didn't know where to turn.

She needed protection not only for herself but for her children, who also suffered grave harm at the hands of their father.

With the help of a legal aid attorney, she obtained and extended an order of protection and secure full custody of her children.

That is what this funding makes possible.

And she is one of tens of thousands.

The Civil Legal Council Projects Program alone, which you've heard about, served over 3,000 tenants facing eviction in 2025.

42% of those individuals had children at home, and 21% had zero monthly income.

Civil legal aid is the connective tissue that keeps residents from falling into far more expensive systems.

When a tenant loses their home, the cost of emergency shelter and services will be steep.

The residents now losing Medicaid and facing SNAP, facing SNAP work requirements, will not simply manage on their own.

They too will show up elsewhere in this budget in ways that cost the district far too much.

Under this proposed budget, most of the legal services to help these residents would no longer exist.

Difficult decisions will have to be made about staffing and programming, and we will lose the momentum that we have built in narrowing the justice gap, precisely as the needs are accelerating.

So we cannot use words like neighbor and community and turn around and dismantle the systems that protect people when they're most vulnerable.

When we cut funding for those with the least power and the fewest options, we are making a choice about who matters, and we are asking you to make a different choice because district residents serve nothing less.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

I want to ask you, Ms.

Chair, how much would it, how much funding would be needed to ensure the DC resource bridge can continue to operate.

I'll have to follow up with you and give you the number.

Okay.

Thank you.

That would be helpful.

Um, and I know Ms.

Drain talked a little bit about this with the one to seven, but how do you all estimate the return on investment that your grantees are providing to the broader community when they're carrying out this important work?

Well, we uh in the process of um uh doing our advocacy, ask all of the grantees to capture that impact, um both economic impact but also impact on lives.

Our testimony has a series of statements from grantees that capture this.

Um you'll hear from witnesses today, for example, who will talk about medical legal partnerships and the return on investment studies that they have done to capture Medicaid savings that are not incurred if a sick child's health improves because of a legal intervention.

Um, you'll hear from witnesses that will talk about um monies that they have recouped for um for clients, public benefits, um, saving a family home from foreclosure.

Um, you know, it it happens in all kinds of different ways, and of course, some of some of the work is harder to quantify, um, uh, you know, providing a survivor of domestic violence with a protective order, helping a family resolve crisis.

Um, but we have done, I think, a good job in capturing the impact and in conveying that to all of you to really show us the worth and the value of this program.

Um, and of course, all of that reflects the national studies that Mr.

Flag spoke about as well.

Absolutely.

And how many total access to justice grantees are there?

Or were there last year or this current year?

30.

30.

Okay.

And what's the average amount they're receiving?

I can take that question.

Um, I'd say on average, our grants um range between 350, 450.

Um, it depends on the grant program.

So civil legal counsel projects program being the largest, there is a larger portion of funding that is dedicated towards that particular grant program.

So those are larger grants, those are the civil uh the legal defense uh related to eviction.

Okay, so you think there's on average about 350,000?

You said uh well, average across the board, yes.

Obviously, they vary.

Right.

Um, and for 30, so there must be several that are much higher, right?

Yes, those those uh grants related to eviction defense, yes, through civil legal counsel projects.

Okay, and how much are those for about?

Um, I would say on average, um, if I had to average that, I would say probably the lowest being 900,000.

Got it.

The other thing I just mentioned is that I think as you know well, our we have a varied legal services community.

So there are some smaller organizations who, of course, would receive smaller grant awards, and then larger organizations that do a wide range of different legal work so they may do housing and family law and domestic violence.

So that I think that accounts for some of the variation in the amount of grants that organizations receive.

If I could just add, when we talk about this eviction defense program, it's a highly collaborative and coordinated program uh involving six different uh providers that coordinate in a way so they're not replicating each other's work, but they're building on each other's work, and they're uh partnering with I think at least six or seven community groups.

So it's it's really uh a network and a very effective network as the evaluating uh data show.

Thank you.

That's important.

Um, can you all provide the committee with a list of all of the grantees and the amounts for FY26?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

That would be helpful.

Um, and thank you all for all that you do and being here.

I know this is just devastating news, and we're gonna try to do everything we can.

We appreciate your commitment.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you for your support.

Indira Hanard, Kube Nagaji, Sarah Tenan, Karen Newton Cole.

Welcome to you all.

We'll begin with Indira Hennard.

Thank you, Chairwoman Pinto, for your leadership and for the opportunity to testify today.

I am here not only as a service provider, but as a witness, a witness to what happens when systems are starved of resources, and a witness to what happens when things become possible when they are fully equipped to meet the moment they are built for.

We recognize the fiscal pressures facing the city, but the fiscal pressures does not minimize the human need and it does not lessen our responsibility.

As a member of the Victim Assistance Network, we are requesting that you preserve OVSJG's full portfolio, including the access to justice initiative, as well as the justice grants initiative, and the fully funding of victim services, as well as preserving and restoring critical DHS investments.

This is not a request for expansion, it is the minimum required to sustain the system the district has already built and that survivors rely on every day.

The proposed budget has steep reduction in funding for victim services.

Let me be clear about what this means.

It means fewer means fewer survivors are able to access counseling in their critical moments.

It means longer wait times for hospital-based advocacy.

It means fewer safe rides home after InnoSaw.

It means survivors, many of whom are black and brown and girls and gender expansive folks are being forced to navigate trauma alone.

We have seen an increase in services over the past year.

Survivors are calling our 24-7 hotline, they are arriving at hospitals in crisis, and they are seeking legal support because trauma has disrupted their stability, putting them at risk of eviction.

But we cannot meet this rising demand with shrinking resources.

Victim services are not optional, they are essential infrastructure in the public safety ecosystem.

For more than five decades, the DC Rape Crisis Center has stood in service to the city, shaping national best practices, advancing policy and supporting survivors 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

But we cannot do this alone.

A cut of this magnitude moves us in the wrong direction.

So I ask do we believe survivors and all victims of crime deserve care in their most vulnerable moments?

Do we believe safety is a right and not a privilege?

If the answer is yes, then the investment must reflect that belief.

Because survivors are not waiting, the need is not slowing down, and our commitment to them must not waver.

We thank Director Porter and the entire OBSJG team for their continued partnership and steadfast commitment to the district.

And we respectfully urge this committee to ensure that OVSJG is resourced in a way that meets not only the urgency of this moment, but also the stated values of the District of Columbia, values of safety, dignity, and justice for all who live there.

Thank you for your time.

I welcome any questions.

Thank you.

Kubay Mikachi.

Chair Pinto and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm Kuba Ingaj, President and CEO of the District Alliance for Safe Housing Dash, a DC Access to Justice Commissioner, and co-chair of the Victim Assistance Network Policy and Advisory Committee.

I appear before you today in all three capacities.

Let me begin by thanking this committee, Mayor Bowser, Darek Reporter, and the entire OBSJG team for their continued leadership and partnership.

The council has already received the van's written recommendations and data outlining the significant pressures facing the district's victim services continuum and the broader OVSJG portfolio.

What I want to elevate today is what this cuts would mean for the systems that the district has spent years building.

We are at an inflection point.

Our victim services infrastructure is already operating at its limits, and under-resourcing victim services will reverse years of progress and destabilize the systems of care for crime victims, youth and their families in the district.

And when these systems contract survivors and residents are not abstractly impacted, they will lose access to safety, housing, legal support, and pathways out of violence.

As this committee heard during performance oversight, victim services, access to justice, and justice grants function as an interconnected continuum because survivors do not experience these things in silos.

They move across the system simultaneously in search of safety and stability, which means that when one part loses capacity, the consequences will ripple across the entire continuum.

Throughout today's hearing, you will hear from witnesses describing the same reality from different entry points.

You will hear later from my Dash colleagues about what these pressures already look like operationally for one of the for one of DC's largest safe housing providers serving over 2,700 survivors and children every year.

We know that savings have to be made, and providers across the network have already reduced cost, consolidated functions, and stretched limited resources because the need has grown, not diminished.

But doing more with less is not a sustainable strategy.

Failing to fund victim services at the fiscal 27 need of 59.6 million dollars will not create efficiencies.

It will result in less services, and it will erode the safety net survivors currently rely on.

And as always, those consequences of that erosion would fall hardest on black and brown communities, already disproportionately impacted by violence, housing instability, and economic insecurity.

At a moment when the district is rightly focused on public safety and accountability, we must also preserve the infrastructure that makes it possible.

For these reasons, the van urges council to fund victim services of 59.6 million dollars, the minimum investment necessary to preserve our existing survivor infrastructure survivor safety infrastructure under fiscal 27 conditions.

We also urge the council to restore proposed 549 reduction to OVSJG's operational capacity and to fully restore access to justice and justice grants.

The question before us is whether the district will preserve the survivor safety infrastructure it has spent years to build, or will we accept a future where residents and survivors can reach safety when they need it most?

Thank you for your time.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Sarah Tennan.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sarah Tennan, and I am the executive director of volunteer legal advocates.

We provide free legal representation to low-income survivors of domestic violence, immigrant survivors of gender-based violence, and vulnerable children.

In 2025, we helped close to 3,000 district residents.

We rely on funding from OVSJG and access to justice to support 29 of our 50 staff members.

The projected cuts would decimate our organization.

There are a few key points I want to focus on.

We leverage every dollar you invest in our program by engaging over 600 pro bono lawyers annually.

We turn every $1 invested into $5 of free legal services.

We lean on the private sector to financially contribute to our work, and they do.

We are simply asking that the district do its part.

We have worked hard to bring money into the district, including federal grants.

The proposed cuts overlap a backdrop of significant cuts to federal funding for these same programs.

We ourselves are losing a three-year DOJ grant that also supports our work.

Each case we handle is the story of a human being in crisis who just wants to be safe.

When her abuser violated the CPO, our attorneys helped her navigate both his criminal case and the extension of her CPO.

Our attorneys were also appointed to represent the best interests of four young siblings, caught between two parents, significant tension, and no safe home.

They were missing school, not receiving medical care, and frequently in the care of their uncle, who is a convicted child sex offender.

During their 17-month representation, the attorneys connected the family to services.

By the time the case concluded, both parents had suitable housing, the children were caught up on medical care, attending school, getting the support they needed, and the attorneys had negotiated a safe custody arrangement.

For PRIA for the four minor children, and for all of the other clients we serve, the nexus of their stories, their safety, and their futures is in this funding.

We have the expertise, the commitment, and the compassion required to represent every DC survivor and child who needs us.

What we don't have are the resources to do it alone.

My ask of counsel is written is outlined in my written testimony, but it's very simple.

Preserve OVSJG's full portfolio, victim services at the baseline at a minimum, access to justice, restore the funding fully.

We know the statistics.

We know the needs are at an all time high.

Now is the time to double down on our investment in assistential work, not to scale it back at the expense of our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Karen Newton call.

Committee Chair Pento and members of the committee.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your continued commitment to supporting civil legal services for low-income residents of the District of Columbia.

My name is Karen Newton Cole, and I am the executive director of Neighborhood Legal Services Program or NLSP.

At NLSP, we see every day how access to legal representation can mean the difference between stability and crisis for the individuals and families facing loss of income, families disruption, eviction, or denial of critical benefits.

When people cannot secure income or benefits, they are entitled to, everything else begins to unravel.

Housing becomes unstable, families are strained, and crises escalate quickly.

They are a critical intervention that protects income, preserves housing, and helps families again regain stability.

While maintaining, while maintaining critical funding levels is essential, we must be clear.

Holding the line is simply not enough.

We must work towards solutions.

Inflation, sustained demand, and limited resources continue to strain the civil legal services system.

At NLSP, we're doing our part.

We're seeking additional funding sources, strengthening partnerships, and leveraging collaborative models to extend our reach and improve efficiency while controlling costs.

But we cannot meet this need alone.

Meaningful access to justice requires shared responsibility and sustained investment from the council, the courts, pro bono attorneys and firms, and community-based organizations and legal services providers.

Each plays a critical role.

Your role in funding access to justice initiative grants at 2025 level is essential to ensure sustained support while we, alongside of partners, identify and build long-term solutions that strengthen the entire legal services ecosystem.

That is why we are focused not only on direct representation but on building stronger, more coordinated systems of support.

With the support of the DC Barr Foundation, we are deepening partnerships across legal and social services and exploring innovations such as the community justice workers program, which has been recently introduced by the DC Court of Appeals that expand access while maintaining limited resources.

These efforts allow us to reach more residents, maximize public investment, and ensure high quality legal services are available at the moment that they most matter.

Thank you for your continued support.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

I want to ask you a kind of impossible question, which is as you have done this work, and all of you have done this work for quite some time, and we have seen an expansion in the services we're providing, the funding we're providing.

Why are we seeing the trends go in the wrong direction when it comes to domestic violence?

Incidents, homicides, and how can we ensure that these investments are going to the survivors when they need them and working towards our longer-term goals of ensuring that five years from now we have driven down those numbers even further?

I mean, it's an impossible question, but I will start by answering and saying that domestic violence and sexual violence and the work that we all do does not happen in isolation, right?

We are in the perfect storm.

When you look at what's happening economically across the region, when you look at the impact of the shifts in federal legislation, when you look at what our community members are dealing with day in, day out, the the occupation of DC, all of those things, it is the perfect breeding ground for violence.

We saw it in COVID, it is happening again.

And so when you have families who was stretched to their max, and we're already seeing, right?

I think the DV Fatality Board reported some numbers, and we've got several members of the DC coalition against domestic violence here today who will testify to some of these statistics.

But it does not happen in isolation, and that's why we are really pushing for the full restoration of OVSJG because that is the backbone of how we get out of this.

If we do not restore that full portfolio, if we do not give Director Porter and her team the administrative support that they need, if we do not fund victim services, if we do not fund access to justice and justice grants equally, we are going to reverse course.

And then strategically, when you talk about what where we need to be over the next couple of years, you know, two years, three years, five years, we on the van side have year over year for the last four budget cycles, we have flagged that there is we've only been meeting just the base.

There is at least 20 to 30 million dollars worth of core resources that we know we need to be able to shift the needle in a much more strategic way, but there has not been capacity to do that.

And so we are ready to engage in a really thoughtful conversation and planning of like, okay, if we are going to protect the baseline and then work our way two, three years out, what does that look like?

What do we need from the city?

What do we need from providers?

What do we need from our private partners?

And I know that the answer exists within us, but the moment, council member that you're ready to have that conversation, tag me in.

We're ready.

I think the other piece I will say to piggyback off of what Kube said is because of the drastic cuts that we have seen in federal funding, we know that local funds will not get the job done.

And so when we think about what happens to our most vulnerable residents, we know that it impacts the individual, the community, and the family.

The reason why it's so important to do the full restoration of this funding is because in order to expand our reach, we do so in partnership.

So when we think about domestic violence and sexual assault survivors, one of the critical needs is access to legal aid.

And we have strong partnerships with the legal aid community.

And if we know that power silence the most vulnerable, then we should also know that it is critical, critical, critical that legal aid speaks for everyone.

And so it's really, really important that we look at it in its totality.

It's also important to understand that we are the safety net.

We are the ecosystem.

We are seeing a different client profile, and it's not just residents who are low income.

We have folks from the business, folks from the business community accessing our resources because these are specialized services.

So I would offer that there's a deeper conversation that needs to happen, but it cannot be lost on this committee that we work hand in hand.

For the DC Rape Crisis Center, we did not have a strong relationship with the legal aid community before we were involved in the DC Social Justice Transformation Network, and our clients have doubled as it relates to legal advocacy support they need.

And we reach out to them because that's where the subject matter expertise is, and same with the domestic violence boards as well.

So I would just offer that this is the time where we are in a season where the most vulnerable is being attacked, where the work that we all do is being attacked at every level, and this is where we really need to come together and say that we support all victims of crime.

We believe that everyone deserves access to legal aid and access to justice.

It can't just be a tagline.

We are coming together.

We have been planning together.

We have been talking together, we've been supported by DC Bar Foundation in that effort.

But this is something that is a little bit different.

Over the last few years, we've worked with our partners that are out in the field in different areas.

When I talked about social organizations and other organizations coming together and designing solutions, that's really important.

We understand that the need continues to increase, and at the very best that we can ask for or expect is that we can retain the funding levels of last year.

But that doesn't do anything in terms of whatever there has been an increase in terms of services, and also just even if you wanted to hold services at the same level, what you're talking about is a three to five percent increase every year that goes by.

We know that you can't find three to five percent every year that goes by.

So what we've done is we started taking it on ourselves and started talking among ourselves.

How can we make this different?

How can we make changes?

One of the things that has come up is the community justice workers program that the DC Court of Appeals has introduced.

And with that program, we're talking about leveraging people who are already out in the field and allowing them to provide legal services in terms of advice and counsel and brief services.

That means we're reaching out further, and the cost of it is not the same as if we went out and hired uh 10 or 15 new attorneys to reach those same people.

So it's not lost on us that this is really an important issue, and it's hard for everybody as you have competing priorities and all of that other good wonderful stuff.

So, what we're asking from from you is please hold the line for us so that we can continue to build out and to look for new resources and establish new partnerships and things that will get us past where we are right now.

There needs to be solutions, okay.

Well, in that case, I'm gonna ask you one more impossible question.

Where do you think it should come from?

What the more?

The money.

I think that's some of that is a little bit above my pay grade.

Um I do know that there are, you know, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and so many others have um really put a lot of thought into how the city can work to address some of these gaps and where there are resources the city might be able to tap.

And then within the justice um judiciary, right?

Within the public safety cluster, uh there are significant variances in the different sort of agency budget lines of what's been increased and what's been decreased.

And so from the van perspective, what we are asking of the committee is to make sure that there is an equitable approach to addressing the gaps within the budget.

So ultimately, you all have a more global view of all the comings and the goings, but I do think that there is opportunity within the cluster itself to think through okay, where are there some really critical gaps that have already been made in the budget and where there's some some surpluses that could potentially solve the gaps we are facing now, and then plan for a longer-term solution.

But I guess I would say there are not surpluses.

Every agency has been cut.

So I'm like, I've this is an absolute need that we have to fill.

And within the jurisdiction, just and you don't have to answer if you don't have an answer, but if anybody has a thought as to where we should find 20 almost 30 million dollars to fill this gap, I am very curious to know what the what those ideas are in a set of agencies that have been cut across the board.

Yeah.

We'll come back to you.

Okay, yeah.

I'll just say that I think part of what's challenging about that question is that when we think about what has been funded across the city, I'm not just talking about the OBS JG portfolio.

I'm just talking about just TC in general.

And when we look at that, and when we look at kind of our area, so to speak, it's a huge inequity.

So I think the answer to your question is bigger than your committee and bigger than you know all of us.

I think it's a larger kind of reflection in terms of where are the city's resources going, and they are not going in its in its totality towards the needs that we make.

The needs that we need.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much, and thanks for the work that you do.

Thank you.

Okay.

Only a couple witnesses in.

I've already gotten us off schedule, but appreciate uh everyone's patience.

I may not be able to ask everybody questions.

Just want to be upfront about that.

Okay.

April Frazier Kamara.

Vikram Swarup, George Jones, Misty Thomas Sileski.

Welcome.

We will begin with April Frazier Camera.

Good afternoon.

My name is April Frazier Kamara.

I serve as the president and CEO of National Legal Aid and Defender Association.

I'm also a long-standing Proud Ward 7 resident.

And at NLADA, we are the nation's oldest and largest nonprofit that supports equal justice for civil legal aid attorneys, public defenders, and the client communities that we serve.

Here in the district, we worked very closely with the DC Access to Justice Initiative and its grantees to help residents navigate the myriad of issues that you've heard about earlier today.

And I'm here today to stand in strong support of fully restoring the funding for access to justice at the FY26 levels.

At this time, you know families across the city are actually carrying so much uncertainty given the climate that we're in.

And legal aid is not a luxury.

Communities see, on average, for every dollar, uh average return of $7.

And that shows up as taxpayer savings, stronger families, healthier communities, and ultimately greater economic stability.

And we've seen that impact right here in DC.

The Children's Law Center House and Advocacy Program has achieved tremendous success with children with asthma generating millions in savings tied to improved health outcomes.

Legal Counsel for the Elderly turned a relatively modest investment into nearly two million dollars in direct financial benefits for seniors.

This is public investment.

And so the notion that the budget is going to be filled by federal dollars is just not the reality.

So I just would like to say I'm here to answer any questions that you have for me, and I would ask the council to hold your values around funding our communities.

Thank you very much.

Vikram Swarup.

Good afternoon, it's good to see you, Triperson Pinto.

I'm the executive director of legal aid DC.

Of course, I'm here to urge the council to fully restore the access to justice funding to the FY26 level, as well as the victim services funding that's in OVSJG's budget.

At legal aid, we helped about 6,000 people last year using the access to justice funding.

And if the cuts were to go into effect, about 5,000 of those folks would not get help.

And this funding supports about a third of our budget.

And if the cuts were to go into place, we would lose about 40 staff members, 20 staff who help people facing eviction and housing conditions issues, nine staff who help residents navigate the public benefit system, just as we're seeing major SNAP and Medicaid changes going into effect, seven staff who help survivors and families in domestic violence and family law cases, two staff who protect consumers, and one staff member who helps immigrants with ramped up immigration enforcement.

And this comes at a moment where demand is rising, as you mentioned.

We handled 18% more cases in 2025 than the year before.

And through March of 2026, we have accepted more than 500 cases for full representation, which is a 36% increase from the same time last year.

March of 2026 saw our highest monthly intake total in our records, as as far back as they go.

And to your question earlier about sort of the consistent rising need, right?

Like I think one of the key points is that one of the things that we do with our resources, both public and private, is do community outreach.

So more and more people are aware that legal services are available and our legal services are easier and easier to access because of these investments.

And so that will show five years from now, more people coming and seeking legal help if it's done right, because the vast, vast majority of people in these in all of these forums are unrepresented, right?

Like and so, and they and many of them don't know that legal help is available.

And so there are two gaps that we're closing there.

One is the people who are coming to us who we can't help, and the other is the people who are not coming to us who need to know that they could come to us and we might be able to do something about it.

Um the last thing that I want to highlight is that um the initiative unlocks significant public private investment with the public dollars.

Uh about 200 of our pro bono volunteers submitted a letter to the council a couple weeks ago uh describing the initiative as a force multiplier.

So they provided about uh 28,500 hours of service um to uh the legal services, um, free legal services in partnership with us, and that's just us, obviously.

There's dozens of other colleagues here that do similar work.

One of the things that their letter makes clear is that their work depends on our infrastructure, our intake, our screening, our training, our mentoring, our expertise.

And so without ATJ funds, not only are you going to lose uh you know the thousands of district residents who we're directly helping, but also the thousands of district residents who are being helped through the private um investments that we're being able to put in.

Um look, it's uh pretty simple here, right?

Um, the consequences of a cut means fewer lawyers, fewer cases, and more people not getting help.

And so we urge you to restore the funding.

Thank you.

George Jones.

Um good afternoon.

Uh good meeting Chair Pinto.

Uh, I'm George Jones, the CEO of Bread for the City.

Uh at Bread, we serve district residents who live in on low incomes, predominantly black and brown communities by providing legal services as well as food, clothing, social services, and medical care.

I'm here to urge, like my colleagues today, to urge the restoration of the access to justice funding to FY26 funding levels of 31.7 million dollars.

Access to justice is not just found us uh supplemental, it's really foundational to our work.

Um, bread alone, we serve last year 3,800 residents with each who had critical um needs, uh, and we were able to help uh generate resources uh such as about a million dollars in benefits like SNAP and TANF through our representation of these folks.

Um, it supports more than a dozen attorneys and our legal staff uh who ensure that DC residents are not forced to navigate complex legal systems alone.

The proposed to FY27 budget would cut this funding in as drastically as 86 percent.

Um for our organization that means losing maybe as many as 13 of our attorneys and a case manager, eliminating core programs and leaving more than 3,000 district residents without legal help.

Across the district, consequences will be immediate and far reaching.

First, the access to justice initiative promotes neighborhood and family stability through housing preservation and eviction prevention.

We help families stay in their homes and avoid the cascading impacts of displacement and the trauma of homelessness.

Second, it promotes public safety and community well-being.

Survivors of domestic violence rely on legal support to obtain protection orders and secure safety for themselves.

Without the support, they are left at risk.

As one client at Brefis' legal services recent share, for people like me, we may not have the financial resources to hire a private attorney.

Programs like Breath of the City are essential.

They ensure that parents, families, and individuals are not left defenseless in situations that can impact their entire future.

So again, I wanted just to reiterate this idea that we are asking uh the council and the DC government to restore uh the funding to uh FY26 levels.

And I kind of want to take the last 30 seconds to slip in a response to a question you asked earlier.

I think we really have to think about um more progressive taxes.

And I don't know what the reserves are in the city, but I think we also have to look at reserves.

So, that question about where the money's gonna come from.

We're gonna have to sort of dig deep, and I think there's just two things we'll have to seriously look at.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I will also say the rules of the council.

We can't uh move tax changes in our committee, but I hear you.

Um, thank you, Chairperson Pinto.

Um, my name is Misty Thomas Sileski.

I'm the executive director of the council for court excellence and a former legal service lawyer here in DC.

I am joining my many colleagues here today on a long day to support restoring and protecting access to justice funds, victim services funds, and re-entry funds.

Uh it is, I think, just to name it actually shameful that this administration has forced this legal community to continue to do this dance year after year, begging for baseline funding restoration, knowing full well that this council shares the values of this community and will do the work to cobble together the money to ensure the legal needs are met.

This was not a flat across the district's agency's budget cut where everyone felt the same marginal hit.

This is a functional zeroing out.

That is a value choice and a really shameful one.

The people in this room are deeply deeply dedicated to providing services to their clients.

They are not enriching themselves and lining their pockets.

These are, as I know well, and many of you do, profoundly underpaid legal civil servants, and they're not lining their pockets on the district dime.

So we should be appreciating the dedication that's shown here.

They take the time out of the work that should be serving clients to be here begging for a baseline for their clients.

And you know, I want to talk UCC's time to talk about the downstream or maybe uninvisible effects that happen here that I also come telling you pretty much every year, but I will say them again, which is right now the cuts to DMV employment rates.

What we're knowing in the social safety net hits that are happening at the federal level mean this crisis is growing, and it is not hyperbole, I think, to say that a loss of access to counsel to ensure a fair resolution of a legal dispute won't have a ripple effect on the district's economy and well-being.

So that tax base, that stability of our economy actually is harmed by this very, what seemingly is a microcut from a big budget perspective, uh, and will strain other government systems.

You heard a lot about the jail today.

You're hearing about other, you know, schools and health care, all of those ripple effects when you can't resolve your moments of crisis uh and your stability.

So, I also say that just a reminder that when you don't, just because you don't have a lawyer doesn't mean that legal case goes away.

So let's talk about impacts on our courts.

Um defunding access to justice does not change the caseloads.

It just means that families experiencing crisis who are navigating this alone have to have a judge who has to slow down, who has to explain the law, who has to navigate gathering facts in a very different and much less efficient way than we do when we have counsel standing beside you.

And so, maybe not even visible to this committee yet, but the markup in the House of our court's budget shows a 20% reduction in our court of appeals budget and a 13%.

They had also been relatively steady.

And our courts are taking a hit this year.

So, with the courts facing their budget cuts, caseload backlogs, and ongoing judicial vacancies, this loss has profound effect.

So, this is the only tool in this council's toolkit to help our courts functionally run, is our Office of Administrative Hearings and Court.

So, this is your only tool to help that aspect of our legal system.

Please do so.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much, and thank you for all you do throughout the year.

Appreciate it.

Chairwoman, can I say that it is our one of our advocates, Nancy Drain's birthday today, one of the hearts of the access to justice movement.

So we should maybe clap for her.

And if people in her fan club want to go out into the hall and sing to her in a minute, we would love that.

That is so great to know.

I think given the topic of the day and the amazing work Nancy Drain has done, that calls for a chamber's happy birthday.

What do we think?

We all ready?

All right.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday, dear Nancy.

Happy birthday to you.

Wow.

Wow, wow, wow.

And that is even incredibly selfless of her because we went back and forth with date options for this hearing.

So appreciate you so much, Nancy, and all you do.

And happy, happy birthday.

Thank you for spending it with us.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that you have to spend it with us.

Um, okay.

Now that we know we've got to get Nancy out of here, we'll keep moving.

Sadina Montani, Kelly Neptune, Nyla Williams, and Christina Jackson.

All right.

We'll begin with Sadina Montani.

Good afternoon, Chair Pentone, members of the council.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Sadina Montani.

I am the president of the District of Columbia Bar.

The DC Bar is the largest mandatory bar in the country with nearly 124,000 members nationwide and 66,000 members in the DC metropolitan area.

On behalf of the bar and its past presidents, I urge the council to restore funding for the Access to Justice Initiative at the FY26 levels.

This is not simply a request to hold the line, it's a call to continue to invest wisely.

Initiative funding, as you've been hearing, has been transformative in delivering critical legal assistance to economically marginalized district residents.

And that's why reducing the funding by 86% would so significantly undermine important community progress.

These drastic cuts would be devastating.

They would threaten the safety, health, housing, and economic stability of the district's most vulnerable residents.

Every year, DC Bar members contribute tens of thousands of hours of pro bono legal services to district residents, but that commitment depends on a functioning nonprofit network.

These providers screen clients, they train volunteers, and they ensure quality representation for clients.

Without robust initiative funding, that network falters, and so does the impact of every pro bono hour that our members deliver.

The demand for civil legal assistance has continued to grow for reasons that you've been hearing a lot about today, driven by rising housing costs, increased federal policy shifts, and the ongoing economic pressure facing district residents with limited means.

Nonprofit legal service providers like the DC Bar Pro Bono Center are absorbing higher operational costs, including for staffing, technology, and facilities, just as the need for their services is surging.

Any reduction below the 31.7 million dollar level will mean that fewer district residents receiving the civil legal help they need will be able to attain those services.

Fewer cases will be taken and fewer families will be protected from eviction, from exploitation, and from hardship.

Restoring funding to the FY26 levels reflects the council's commitment to ensuring that access to justice keeps pace with the needs of the community that it serves.

Civil legal services are among the district's most cost-effective tools.

I appreciate that that money for this budget does not grow on trees.

But the needs do not disappear because the costs are not absorbed in this line item of the budget.

In fact, when legal needs go unmet, the costs shift to taxpayers and emergency shelter, public benefits, strained health care and social services, as well as the courts delay delays we heard about.

Early legal intervention can present prevent these outcomes.

The Legal Services Corporation reports that every dollar invested in legal services returns an estimated seven dollars through prevented evictions, secured federal benefits, preserved unemployment, and other benefits.

Thank you.

Happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee chair Pinto and members of the DC Council.

I am Kelly Neptune, the executive director of the DC Bar Pro Bono Center, the district's largest provider of pro bono legal services.

Each year we mobilize thousands of volunteer attorneys to help over 20,000 individuals, nonprofits, and small businesses.

Last year, the council protected the access to justice initiative funding, and we are deeply appreciative and are here to ask for a continued restoration.

For the ProBono Center, this funding is structural.

It supports nearly 40% of our budget and over 40% of our staff.

A reduction of this magnitude doesn't just shrink programs, it dismantles them.

Consider housing.

Our landlord tenant legal assistance network brings together six legal services organizations.

This year, the Probono Center completed over 3,300 intakes for the network.

The residents reach are overwhelmingly from ward seven and eight.

Without representation, they face eviction alone in a system where 95% of landlords have attorneys.

Our family law assistance network team saw a 17% increase in cases from the prior year.

These are residents in crisis, parents fighting to maintain custody and stability, and many of these families are also facing multiple civil legal needs, and they turn to the pro bono center for help.

Public benefits now make up nearly a quarter of our full representation cases, a reflection of the economic pressures squeezing DC residents.

This past year in full representation housing, family, and public benefits.

The ProBono Center saved clients nearly 10 million dollars in legal fees.

Through our future planning and probate program, we served residents in historically marginalized communities to protect their homes and preserve generational wealth.

Consequences to funding cuts are concrete.

Families lose custody battles, tenants face evictions alone, residents lose access to public benefits, and seniors lose their homes unable to pass them on to the next generation.

These funding changes saves lives and strengthens our communities.

We are asking that the council fully restore the access to justice initiative funding because district residents that we serve are counting on them.

Thank you, and I welcome any questions.

Thank you.

Nyla Williams.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto and members of the council.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

My name is Nyla Williams, and I am a DC resident.

I'm here today because the access to justice initiative saved my family during our most vulnerable moment.

I am living proof that when the district invests in legal aid, it isn't just funding a program.

It is giving mothers like me a second chance.

A few years ago, I fled a domestic violence situation in New York and arrived in DC with nothing but my six-week old son.

I was starting over, but I was terrified of losing him.

I didn't know my parental rights and couldn't afford a lawyer without help.

I faced a very real possibility of losing custody or being forced into an unsafe visitation schedule.

I was a mother trying to do the right thing, but I was trapped in a legal maze that I couldn't navigate alone.

The DC Baronos Center stepped in.

They didn't just give me advice, they gave me a seat at the table.

They outlined my options and represented me in the custody hearing.

Because of them, I was granted sole custody and the financial support my son deserved.

Support that became a lifeline when he was later diagnosed with autism.

They believed in me when I was struggling to believe in myself.

Today, my child is thriving.

I want this council to understand that many of our neighbors in this economy are just one paycheck away from losing everything.

This program provides empowerment to move forward.

If this funding is not reduced, the doors will be closed on families just like mine.

Please protect and restore full funding for the access to justice.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And thank you so much for sharing your story.

Thank you.

Hi, Chair Pento.

Thank you to you and this committee for the opportunity to underscore the devastation that the 86% cut in initiative funding would cause for our neighbors.

As the Pro Bono on Public Interest Bar Association in DC, we see how the civil justice ecosystem collaborates to advance access to justice and support our neighbors.

Today I want to dig deeper into two additional consequences of the cut to funding.

First, pro bono volunteers.

We are fortunate to have a robust legal services ecosystem in DC.

But we know that the legal need far outpaces their ability to respond.

That's why investments, strategic investments in pro bono capacity are critical.

Legal services organizations in the district operate at the intersection of high demand and limited resources.

And there are many skilled attorneys willing to contribute their time, but pro bono doesn't happen automatically.

It requires coordination, training, supervision, administrative support.

Initiative funding provides this structure.

It enables organizations to recruit, screen, and train volunteers, ensuring they're prepared to handle complex civil legal issues.

Equally important, this funding allows organizations to match volunteers with appropriate cases and provide ongoing mentorship and technical support.

Thus, a single staff attorney can leverage dozens of volunteers, multiplying the organization's capacity many times over.

The return on investment is significant for every dollar spent on infrastructure supporting pro bono engagement.

The district unlocks many more hours of legal assistance at no additional cost, increasing the number of residents served and improving the quality of representation and outcomes for vulnerable populations.

Second, the access to justice initiative plays a critical role in attracting and retaining the dedicated advocates that are the backbone of this system through the public loan repayment assistance program.

Loan repayment assistance is essential because it helps bridge the gap between the huge student loan education debt and the comparatively low public interest salaries.

By easing this financial burden, the program enables graduates to pursue and remain in public service careers.

It also broads the diversity of lawyers serving in our community by making access to public interest careers financially feasible to a wide range of individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

We appreciate your leadership.

We appreciate your fight for this funding.

I can't emphasize enough the critical role that the access to justice initiative plays in sustaining the effectiveness and expanding the reach of our legal services organizations.

So thank you for your advocacy year upon year, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much.

Forward to working together over the next couple weeks to try to figure this out together.

Appreciate it.

Rhonda Cunningham Holmes.

Tina Nelson.

Sunny Desai.

Shijoke Akamiga Bo.

Rhonda Cunningham Holmes.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Penatillo.

I am Rhonda Cunningham Holmes, Executive Director of Legal Counsel for the Elderly.

LCE is the only legal services organization in DC devoted exclusively to seniors.

Much of our work is made possible by the council's support of the Access to Justice Initiative and the Civil Legal Council Projects Program or CLCPP.

So we thank you for that.

Every year, legal services providers come before the council to discuss the value we bring to district residents.

My testimony will outline that value and briefly address misconceptions about the program.

My colleagues, Tina Smith Nelson and Sunny Desai will testify to the client-level impact of OVSJG funded programs.

Their stories show how investments made today avert far greater losses of wealth and public resources and future budget years.

LCE recognizes that solvency and growth are the central goals of the district's budget, but these goals should not require repeating the same fixes every year.

ATJ supports long-term fiscal stability by protecting housing assets and stabilizing communities.

LCE receives nearly $1.74 million from ATJ and CLCPP through the DC Bar Foundation.

These funds enable LCE to prevent evictions and enforce safe housing so seniors can age with dignity and in place.

It also secures life-sustaining benefits like SNAP, SSI, SSDI, and Medicaid, provide a state planning and guardianship support to homebound seniors, and preserve intergenerational wealth through clear title and homeownership assistance, thereby strengthening the neighborhoods our seniors built.

Before discussing the district's investment, I briefly, I will briefly clarify how the program operates.

ATJ and CLCPP funding enables LCE to connect seniors with legal services by leveraging pro bono attorneys from district law firms, government, and corporate legal departments.

LCE trains these attorneys who then provide high quality legal representation at no cost.

This model expands access to justice well beyond what our legal staff alone could provide.

We ensure efficient and timely access to the free legal services for district seniors.

In 2025, with a 1.75 million dollar investment, LCE generated more than $6.2 million in direct client benefits.

That's an incredible 359% return on investment.

Chairperson Pento and members of the committee, seniors built this city.

Restoring ATJ funding will enable LCE to continue serving older adults efficiently while delivering a strong return on the district's investment.

Thank you, and I will.

Thank you very much.

Tina Nelson.

Good afternoon, Councilperson Pentel and members of the committee.

I'm Tina Nelson, Senior Managing Attorney with LCE.

I am testifying this afternoon on behalf of the impact these funds have on our probate work.

The primary focus of our probate work is to address the issue of airs property.

Many of our clients live in homes where title is tangled among many heirs because the deeded owner died without engaging in estate planning.

These clients risk losing their homes through tax foreclosure due to increased property taxes when the homestead and senior citizen exemptions are removed from the property.

Additionally, we represent clients who are in foreclosure where the deeded owner has died, and a reverse mortgage becomes due or traditional mortgage needs to be assumed.

Throughout probate work, LCE gets clients on title, maintaining home ownership, availing themselves of property tax breaks, and getting grants to make home repairs and renovations.

These clients are then able to pass down generational wealth through their own estate planning.

I will note a couple of client stories highlighting the impact of this funding.

LCE represented a 64-year-old client whose husband died with a will, which left the home to her.

The house was assessed at $560,000, and it was encumbered by a mortgage of $360,000.

The client was paying the mortgage, but the mortgage company advised that her payments would no longer be accepted if she were not on title and the loan was not in her name.

We represented the client through the probate process and got her on title.

We provided documentation to the mortgage company, and the client was able to assume the loan and prevent foreclosure in homelessness.

Without our assistance, the client would have been at risk of losing her half a million dollar home and the tax revenue it generates for the district.

LCE represented a 73-year-old client whose mother died without a will.

There were four heirs, including our client.

The client lived in a home with two brothers, one of whom was disabled, and another brother who lived in Maryland.

The mail and brother was preparing to file a partition action to force the sale of the home to get his intestate share.

That action would have displaced our client and his two brothers.

LCE represented the client through mediation, and the client and his two brothers were able to buy out their brother's intestate share.

Title was transferred to our client and his two brothers, and the brothers continue to live in the family home and provide tax revenue to the district.

Additionally, the district saved the cost of having to potentially pay for institutional care of the disabled brother.

LC obtained over one million dollars in benefits for just these two clients.

This is the type of return on the investment of dollars.

Stable seniors, stable home ownership, stable families, and stable communities, all of which lead to a stable economy for the district.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Sunny Desai.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Pinto.

My name is Sunny Desai.

I'm the managing attorney of LCE's tenant advocacy and support practice.

Every year, thanks to the council's support, thousands of district residents, especially seniors, avoid eviction and homelessness.

But this lifeline is now at risk.

Proposed cuts to ATJ threaten not only our seniors' well-being, but also the district's future financial security.

Consider Mr.

E, a 64-year-old ward eight resident with severe epilepsy.

When his disability benefits stopped, he faced eviction and homelessness.

Unable to leave home for long periods, the prospect of homelessness was devastating.

With LCE's help, we secured resources and negotiated an affordable payment plan.

These solutions are unavailable to most unrepresented seniors.

If these cuts go through, many like Mr.

E will be left without help and facing near certain homelessness.

The costs will then fall on DC's taxpayers.

Decades of research make it clear that evictions are devastating for communities.

Recent data from the DC government also show that they strain city resources.

One shelter stay, for example, averages over 11,000.

This is data from the Department of Human Services earlier this year.

Homeless Medicaid enrollees cost the city nearly $19,000 a year, more than double others due to unstable access to preventative and primary care.

Emergency services are also strained.

Last year, over 61,000 high volume users relied on DC Fire and EMS, many due to unstable housing, according to DC Fire and EMS's own review.

Now imagine where those numbers will be if the ATJ cuts go through.

By contrast, funding legal services costs just hundreds of dollars per case, often leads to added economic benefits to DC residents, and prevents these downstream expenses for the city.

Fully funding access to justice is not only the humane choice, it's the fiscally smart one.

The council faces a clear decision.

Invest now to protect seniors and save taxpayer dollars, or pay millions later in shelter and crisis care.

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

Thank you very much.

Chihuke Akamigba.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto and members of the council.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of continued funding for civil legal aid services through the Access to Justice Initiative.

My name is Chiji Okia Kamibo, and I'm the executive director of Verizon for Justice, and nonprofit that has served DC residents for over 55 years.

In 2025, we served over 6200 residents across all eight wards, helping tenants and landlords resolve disputes, assisting residents and sealing criminal records and that block access to jobs and housing and representing respondents in civil protective order cases, while providing holistic social work supports alongside every case.

This council created the ATJ initiative more than 20 years ago because you recognized that low-income residents were walking into legal systems.

They couldn't navigate and losing cases, not on the merits, but because they had no representation.

You built ATJ because the evidence was clear that doing so will benefit residents of the city alike.

That evidence has only grown stronger.

Today I'll focus on housing since it's a core aspect of RFJ's work.

In 2025, it is six percent of all RFJ cases involved housing issues, most prominently eviction, housing conditions, and lease violations.

RFJ's housing work does more than resolve disputes between landlords and tenants.

It prevents displacement.

It keeps people in their communities close to their jobs, their children's schools, and the support networks.

When a worker loses their home, they often lose their job too.

Stable housing is the foundation on which everything in a person's life is built.

Every RFJ client lives at or below 201% of the federal poverty level without legal aid.

They have no realistic alternative.

41% live in Ward 7 and 8, the communities facing DC's highest eviction and unemployment rates.

56% are women, and 35% involve households with children.

In DC's landlord and tenant court, more than 90% of tenants lack counsel while approximately 95% of landlords are represented.

RFJ attorneys are said defenses negotiate fair agreements, and as social workers connect families to emergency rental assistance.

A proposed 86% cut will be catastrophic.

It will roll back investment, and many of our peer and RFJ and many of our PR organizations might close, leaving tens of thousands of city residents without access to these essential services.

RFJ is deeply grateful for your support and your partnership over these many years and hope that you can uh fill this gap for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much for the services you provide every day.

Appreciate it.

Gabby Majewski, Laurel Clark, Kathy Zizel, and Joanne Lynn.

Welcome to you all.

We will begin with Gabby Majewski, the executive director.

There we go.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair Pentel.

My name is Gabby Molnik Mayevsky.

I am a proud Ward 5 resident and the proud executive director of DC Affordable Law Firm.

DCalf removes barriers in the district's civil justice system that prevents individuals and families from achieving safety, security, and financial stability.

For the past decade, we have bridged the gaps in legal services to make justice more accessible, particularly for hardworking DC residents living paycheck to paycheck, for whom access to justice would otherwise be out of reach.

We are also a critical engine for building DC's public interest legal workforce.

We host the city's largest cohort of postgraduate legal fellows expanding access to representation today while building a pipeline of talent for tomorrow.

More than 72% of our alumni go on to the public sector, including working for other access to justice or funded organizations in access to justice funded roles, continuing to propagate uh work on behalf of DC residents.

At DEEC Health, 27 members of our 32 person team are client and community facing program staff, and 11 FTEs perform work funded by ATJ.

And exactly half of our staff members are themselves DC residents.

In 2025, we served 924 DC residents entirely free of charge, an 88% increase over the volume of clients served last year, with more clients served last year through the access to justice grants program than the entirety of clients we had served organizationally, regardless of funding stream in the previous year.

This reflects certainly the escalating need, but also the fact that many clients, in spite of working, cannot afford access to representation when they need it.

Certainly that is true in family law, where we coordinate together and through a coordinated network have fielded requests for 5600 requests for assistance serving 98.5 eligible clients.

Last year, the dollars also matter.

We in family law, we secured $380,000 worth of awards for our clients from child support and an array of other sources.

And estate planning and probate, by one example, we had a client coming to us as a widow with four children in economic destitute, who went through the probate process with our organization and discovered a 200,000 plus investment that she would never have been able to know of and access to be able to care for her children herself and their security.

Access to justice matters.

I will just say my client here, our former client, Miss Clark, will testify about the real import of this work for everyday clients.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Laurel Clark.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto and members of the council.

My name is Laurel Clark, native Washingtonian, Ward 7 resident, entrepreneur, mother of three, and a senior at CAFE University of America.

I'm here today because someone invested in me when I needed most.

And what I want to make sure is that investment continues for the next person who finds themselves where I once was.

Yet we are frequently priced out of the help we need most.

We are not poor enough and not wealthy enough.

We carry the economy on our backs, and when crisis hits, we fall through the cracks.

Life moves in cycles.

There are seasons of growth and seasons of loss.

No one plans to end up in divorce, but the inevitable happens, and when it does, families are torn, generational wealth is diminished, and the path forward can seem impossible.

After nearly 17 years of marriage, three children, shared assets, a business, retirement accounts, investments.

I found myself navigating one of the most complex and painful transitions of my life.

Some of what my family lost during this time is irreplaceable.

But depending on the severity of the impact, a safe place to land is absolutely necessary to ensure forward progress and future access.

I couldn't afford to hire an attorney.

The rising cost of childcare, college tuition, groceries, and everyday living expenses made access to legal representation a dream that felt nearly impossible.

I was in between operating a pre-COVID, thriving small business, parenting and going to school, doing everything right, and still could not have navigated the legal system alone.

Because of the access to justice program, I did not have to.

DC affordable law firm represented me through what became a multi year process, including a multi-day trial and nearly a year of post-trial litigation and a very complex divorce case and custody dispute.

They helped me secure exclusive access to my home so my children and I could remain safe while the divorce was pending.

They defended me against repeated legal challenges, ensured that prior custody arrangements were uphill, and ultimately helped me secure a fair outcome, including my share of the marital home and financial recovery recovery for my former spouse's misuse of marital assets.

The outcome meant that I could retain my home for myself and my children.

The results was not just legal results, but the safety, dignity, and the ability to move forward.

Today I am employed with the federal government at the highest point of my career.

In less than two weeks, I graduate with my BS degree in business and entrepreneurship.

My oldest is a senior at FAMU.

She's finishing a five year master's program.

She also benefited from this SYEP and BY LI program.

My son is a junior at HD Woodson Senior High School.

He participates in SYEP and ATC cybersecurity program, and my 11-year-old is finding her way through Basis D.C.

My employment allows me to maintain my residence.

I'm asking that you restore funding for access to justice initiative to make one of the council's top priorities for fiscal year 27 and to restore funding to fiscal year levels of 26 at 31.785 million.

This program does not create dependence, it creates stability, it gives people hand up and not a handout so they can make climbing so they can keep climbing.

Just the small businesses are the economic engines of a thriving community.

Families like mine should shoulder the communities through contributions, resources, and tax burdens.

We are supported through crisis.

We come back stronger and we give back.

Please do not let the next L'Reel fall through the cracks of the courtroom.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to ensure that all DC residents, regardless of income, have access to justice.

Thank you so much.

And thank you very much for being here and sharing your story.

I do want to say I need everyone's help to stick to time.

If everybody goes just a little over, that will add several hours to the day.

And I've promised people who have to get out of here for child care.

So I hate interrupting people, but I'm just gonna have to ask everyone for their help.

Kathy Zeizel.

Good afternoon.

Um I'm Kathy Zizel.

I'm a DC resident, director of special legal projects at Children's Law Center and a commissioner on the Access to Justice Commission.

Children's Law Center believes every child should grow up with a strong foundation of family health and education and live in a world free from poverty, trauma, racism, and other forms of repression.

This is probably the most challenging budget year in the nearly 18 years I've been at Children's Law Center.

The children and families that we serve face cuts to critical supports in the federal level and the local level, programs and services that are essential to giving children a stable foundation of family health education are being cut, including legal services.

We want to thank you and the rest of the council for creating the ATJ program and funding it each year.

And we all know still that even at the 2025 funding levels, you've heard today and you heard last year, the demand for legal services in DC far exceeds what the legal services community can provide, even at those levels.

The cuts proposed in this budget would just devastate legal services in DC and deprive many DC residents of any hope of accessing justice in our courts.

It's more important than ever that children and families have tenacious advocates by their sides as we see the budget cuts that are coming to be able not just to access justice but to protect their rights as these budget cuts go into effect.

To do that, we need to restore funding so that we can represent residents at these vulnerable times.

At Children's Law Center, these funds support our innovative medical legal partnerships and our family stabilization and permanency program.

Last year, through ATJ funds and CLCPP funds, we reached over 3,700 children and families and trained 1500 medical staff and community members.

We helped to stabilize families by acting as guardians at Lightham and complex custody cases.

We ensured families had a roadmap in their family law cases when the future is daunting and uncertain.

Our medical-legal partnerships put lawyers in the community with Children's National, Mary Center, Unity Healthcare, Mamatoda Village, and coming this June also with Community of Hope, so that we can work directly with community members and medical partners to improve the lives of DC children.

Whether it's by reducing ER visits for children with asthma, by getting unhealthy housing additions fixed, helping parents maintain housing vouchers, untangling the mess of red tape that DC agencies have to help get prevent greater costs to the system by untangling that red tape.

We help people obtain federal SSI benefits, bringing that federal money into the district.

And we help children stay in school and learn.

We can lead to real results for families and save the district money.

You heard earlier mentioned our research that shows that our legal interventions save an average of three dollars in Medicaid for every dollar spent.

We've avoided about 14.1 million dollars in Medicaid costs just in the last three years.

And we also know from report back from our clients that students we work with miss fewer days of school and their parents work more.

We know that's important.

We ask you to fully restore funding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joanne Lynn.

Good afternoon, Chair Pinto.

I'm delighted to be here.

I'm a proud DC resident and executive director of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Your leadership and the council's investment in ATJ have proven to be a game changer for justice and equality in DC.

At the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, ATJ comprises our single largest source of funding, representing about 20% of our annual revenue.

Through this funding, we serve over 2,500 low-income residents across every ward in the district.

Through your funding, we function as a force multiplier for justice and equality in DC.

For every dollar of ATJ funding received, we are able to leverage an additional $25 in pro bono resources and services.

By pairing our staff attorneys with private firm lawyers, we are able to staff and run large pro bono teams with the expertise and resources necessary to tackle the most challenging civil rights crises of our time.

Our weekly workers' rights clinic is the only DC legal clinic offering pro bono advice on workers' rights issues.

We operate clinics at Bradford the City offices in Anacostia and downtown DC.

Our staff and volunteers negotiate significant settlements on behalf of workers who have been terminated unlawfully and who are seeking to recover lost wages from employment.

For example, in August 2025, we reached a $700,000 settlement on behalf of a group of Latino construction workers who had been subjected to wage theft.

There is no other free clinic in the district serving low-income wage workers for free.

Those workers who visit our clinic cannot afford an attorney.

Without ATJ funding, these workers will have nowhere else to turn for help.

On the fair housing front, our housing justice team opens doors to accessible housing for people in wheelchairs.

We work with tenant collectives to address atrocious housing conditions, including collapsing ceilings, sewage backup, and rat infestations.

In March 2026, we reached a cooperation agreement with a major management company operating four residential facilities and properties in DC to ensure a fair tenant screening process for all housing applicants.

This is what equal justice can look like.

This is only made possible by the council's sustained investment in robust ATJ funding.

We urge the council to restore full funding for ATJ so justice and equality can be made real for all residents, not just those who can afford it.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much being here in the work that you do.

Thanks for sharing your story.

Don Dalton, Michaela Deming, Aaron Byrne, and Naeli Pelayo.

Okay, thank you.

Teresa Perr.

Great.

We will begin with Don Dalton.

Thank you, Chairperson Pinto, members of the committee and staff for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Joanne Dalton, and I am the executive Director for the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

DCC ADV is the federally recognized statewide coalition of domestic violence service providers in the district, and our dedicated member programs serve upwards of 1,000 victims of domestic violence on a given day across all eight wards of the district.

DV homicides spiked in the district in 2024, accounting for 12% of homicides in the city, up from an 8.7% average over the last decade.

This rise in DV homicides starkly contrasts with the sharp drop in homicides overall since 2023.

Additionally, according to the interim chief of police, in 2025, domestic violence has fueled an increase in assault with dangerous weapons, which are up 36%.

But instead of maintaining critical services for survivors, the mayor has proposed to cut OVSJG victim services by $5.6 million.

Cuts to access to justice, cuts to reentry grants, which also fund domestic violence survivor services, and a 20% cut to DHS's domestic violence services line, alongside significant cuts to the broader social safety net, which survivors rely on.

These cuts are life-saving services.

These are cuts to public safety.

At this time, when DV homicides are rising, the district cannot afford to abandon survivors and their families.

Their lives depend on these essential services.

In contrast, MPD sees a 15% bigger budget in the mayor's proposed budget, an increase of over 89 million dollars.

A bigger budget for MPD will not make up for slash domestic violence services and will not make survivors and their families safe.

We urge the council to preserve and strengthen funding for DB services and the broader social safety net to prioritize the lives, safety, and stability of survivors and their families.

Realign investments across the public safety and justice cluster, specifically the increase to MPD's budget to restore OVSJG funding.

Flat funding will not meet the needs of survivors or sustain current services and programming.

We also ask the council to invest 4.4 million dollars over FY26 levels to sustain current DV survivor services and fill critical gaps for survivors in targeted communities.

Supporting survivors and communities is public safety and it must be funded.

We join the Victim Assistance Network's request to fund victim services at 59.6 million and protect the full OVSJG portfolio, including the Access to Justice Initiative and re-entry grants.

I will leave it at that.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Aaron Byrne.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto, members of the committee and staff.

My name is Erin Byrne, and I am the data and evaluation coordinator at the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Today I'm reading a testimony on behalf of a member of our survivor advisory board.

So she writes, my name is Angelica.

I'm a survivor of domestic violence and a member of the coalition's survivor advisory board.

I'm here to share my story and to help you understand the importance of funding services for survivors of domestic violence.

I was a victim of physical, psychological, and economic violence during my pregnancy.

When my baby was born, the violence escalated to such a degree that upon calling 911, the officers did not hesitate to take my son and me to a shelter.

Since that day, our lives have changed forever.

I'm deeply grateful to the organizations that during that incredibly difficult time in my life came together to give me everything they could: emotional, financial and legal support, food and clothing for my children, and above all, making me feel like I was no longer alone.

There are no words to express all the love and sisterhood I felt from these organizations and other survivors.

Unfortunately, funding is scarce, forcing organizations to turn away victims and survivors.

This lack of funding resources, sorry, this lack of resources hurts not only survivors but their children too.

As a mother, I don't want my children to continue being victims of a life I never imagined living.

We must support domestic violence service providers and other social assistance organizations so that they can help DC residents.

The proposed budget cuts are devastating for survivors like me and they must be reversed.

I request that the DC Council reinstate $6.3 million across OBSJG and DHS.

It is critical to reverse these budget cuts to domestic violence and victim services with an additional 4.4 million in funding beyond the FY 2026 levels to maintain current services and address urgent financial needs of communities, especially immigrant communities like mine, with access to housing, legal services, and financial assistance.

In addition to domestic violence services, I also needed SNAP benefits, homeless services, and alliance health care to meet my needs.

The proposed cuts to these programs mean that more survivors like me will have a harder time getting to safety and beginning the recovery process.

This crucial funding allows us to recover and rebuild our lives with dignity.

Thank you, Chairperson Pinto, for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you.

Nayeli Palaya.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto, members of the committee and staff.

My name is Nayeli Palayo, and I'm the Director of Development and Communications at DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Today I'm reading a testimony on behalf of a member of our survivor advisory board.

She writes, my name is Sandra.

I'm a domestic violence survivor and member of the coalition's survivor advisory board.

I'm here to talk about the importance of domestic violence survivor services and interpretation services in the court.

In late 2018, I went through a domestic violence ordeal during which I encountered a broken judicial system that repeatedly failed me, despite being a victim of sexual, physical, psychological, and financial abuse.

Going to court in DC was first and foremost a huge challenge.

As a Spanish-speaking Latina, I had no access to help in my own language.

To get assistance, I had to complete numerous forms and face long waiting lists just to find someone who would help me.

Furthermore, legal aid programs did not have Spanish speaking representatives who could take my case due to language barriers.

Since 2018, I have had to return to court three more times in 2020, 2023, and 2026 to file a protective order, as well as to address child custody and child support issues.

On each occasion, the problem has been the same.

The lack of access to quality language services.

For this reason, as a survivor of domestic violence, I believe it is essential that funds be allocated to organizations that support victims.

Victims not only bear the stigma of what they have experienced, but they also face a system that does not provide them with adequate language support.

Instead, they are often made to feel guilty for what happened, including for not speaking English.

These services will not exist without DC Council funding them in the local budget.

I asked DC Council to restore the 6.3 million cut to domestic violence and victim services in OVSJG and DHS.

Council must also dedicate 4.4 million over FY26 funding for domestic violence survivor services to sustain core programming and services to fill critical funding gaps for targeted communities, including immigrant communities like mine with language access, housing, legal services, and cash assistance.

In addition to domestic violence services, restore cuts to the social safety net.

Cuts to these programs mean that more survivors like me will have a hard time getting safe and starting their journey to healing.

This critical funding helps survivors like me.

Thank you, Chairperson Pinto, for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you.

Teresa Perr or Pure or Poor.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto.

My name is Teresa Poor and I'm the Policy and Systems Engagement Coordinator at the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Today I'm reading a testimony on behalf of a member of our survivor advisory board.

She writes, My name is Shaharia.

I'm a domestic violence survivor and a member of the coalition survivor advisory board.

I'm also a parent, a Ward 7 resident, and the CEO and founder of a nonprofit organization here in DC.

I'm here to speak about OVSJG and the critical importance of funding domestic violence in victim services.

In 2014, I graduated from American University as 22 years old and preparing to apply to graduate school.

I had dreams, plans, and a future that felt wide open.

But on August 14th, 2015, everything changed.

I was kidnapped and stabbed at least 14 times.

The attack left me partially paralyzed with an incomplete spinal cord injury.

In an instant, the life I knew came to a halt.

During this time, I was introduced to resources that changed everything.

The Crime Victims Compensation Fund helped with medical bills, lost income, and modifications to my home.

With additional funding, I may have been able to relocate entirely, which would have reduced my ongoing fear that my attacker may one day return to the community.

I also received free legal support to help me secure interim disability, and I joined free support groups and counseling sessions for domestic violence survivors.

Domestic violence and victim services were fundamental to my healing.

Healing from domestic violence is not just about surviving the moment of violence.

It is about navigating the long road that follows medical recovery, financial stability, trauma healing, legal advocacy, housing, employment, and rebuilding identity.

Survivors cannot do this alone.

These services exist because the DC Council funds them in the local budget.

The proposed budget cuts are devastating to survivors like me and they must be reversed.

I respectfully ask the DC Council to restore $6.3 million to OVSJG and DHS's domestic violence and victim services, bringing FY27 funding in line with current levels.

These services also need an additional $4.4 million to sustain current services and address critical gaps for underserved and underrepresented communities, particularly in housing, legal services, and direct cash assistance.

I stand before you today as living proof of what is possible when survivors have access to these resources.

For every survivor who finds healing because these programs exist, there are many others still waiting for support.

Continued and expanded funding ensures that survivors who choose life have the support they need to rebuild it.

I'm here today because these programs were there for me.

I urge you to ensure they remain there for the survivors who come after me.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much for your work and for sharing those stories.

Jess Lyons, Amy Bess.

Tammy Seltzer, Adam Lamones.

Welcome.

Jess Lyons.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto, members of the committee and staff.

My name is Jess Lyons, and I'm the health and wellness coordinator at the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Today I am reading a testimony on behalf of a member of our Survivor Advisory Board.

She writes, my name is Jahan.

I am a domestic violence survivor and a member of the Coalition Survivor Advisory Board.

I'm here to talk about OVSJG and the importance of funding domestic violence survivor services.

I came to the United States in 2019 with hope for a better future.

Instead, I experienced fear, control, and violence in my marriage.

Leaving my abuser was one of the hardest decisions I have ever made.

After leaving, I struggled to find safety and stability.

I stayed in temporary shelters and lived with constant uncertainty.

During that time, it was extremely difficult to focus on healing or rebuilding my life.

Support from victim services programs played a critical role in my healing journey.

Through these services, I was able to access advocacy, emotional support, and guidance that helped me begin rebuilding my life.

However, many survivors face barriers to accessing these services, including limited availability, lack of funds, and long wait lists.

Without these supports, survivors are at risk of returning to unsafe situations.

These services wouldn't exist without DC council funding them in the local budget.

The proposed budget cuts are devastating to survivors like me, and they must be reversed.

I asked the DC Council for $6.3 million to be restored to domestic violence and victim services in OVSJG and DHS.

I support the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence Budget Platform.

Across OVSJG domestic violence programs need funding restored and increased by an additional 4.4 million over FY26 funding to sustain current services and ensure survivors, especially those from immigrant communities like mine can access advocacy, legal services, and critical support.

In addition to domestic violence services, survivors also rely on other supports to stabilize their lives.

Cuts through these programs will make it harder for survivors to heal and rebuild safely.

This funding is essential to ensure survivors receive the support they need to recover and live in safety and dignity.

Thank you, Chairperson, for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you for sharing your story.

So sorry what you went through.

Amy Bess.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto, members of the committee and staff.

My name is Amy Bess, and I am a proud member of the board of directors of the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence and a longtime resident of Ward 2.

Today I'm reading testimony on behalf of Michelle, a member of our coalition survivor advisory board.

She writes, my name is Michelle.

I am a domestic violence survivor, a member of the coalition's survivor advisory board, an educator, and a community advocate.

I am here today to speak about the critical importance of funding for domestic violence survivor services and the devastating impact proposed budget cuts would have on individuals and families across DC.

I share my story not only as a survivor, but as someone who understands firsthand what happens when systems fail and what is possible when they work.

For over 10 years, I lived in an abusive and sexually exploited relationship.

I feared for my life daily.

During that time, the justice system failed to provide consistent protection, in part due to gaps in resources, training, and support systems.

The trauma I endured led to addiction, homelessness, and years of instability.

When I finally left, I needed more than courage.

I needed support.

Organizations like my sister's place and Bread for the City helped me access transitional housing, food assistance, and employment support.

Those services saved my life.

They gave me a pathway to healing, stability, and independence.

Today I stand before you not as a victim, but as a survivor and an advocate.

Individuals navigating domestic violence, homelessness, and mental health challenges.

But I am deeply concerned.

The proposed budget cuts threaten the very services that made my recovery possible.

I urge the council to restore $6.3 million in funding for domestic violence and victim services at OVSJG and DHS to maintain FY26 levels.

Additionally, I support increasing funding by $4.4 million over FY26 levels to address critical gaps and ensure equitable access for underserved communities, including black and brown residents, LGBTQ plus individuals, immigrants, returning citizens, and those experiencing homelessness.

These funds are not optional, they are essential.

They provide safety, legal advocacy, housing stability, and basic human dignity.

Cuts to social service programs, social safety net programs like SNAP, TANF, Housing Services, and Healthcare will also deepen crises for survivors who already are navigating trauma and instability.

Without these supports, more individuals will be forced to remain in unsafe environments or face homelessness.

Investment in these services is not just compassionate, it is responsible governance.

It prevents long-term social and economic costs while strengthening our communities.

I am living proof that these investments work.

I asked you to stand with survivors.

Thank you for your time and your commitment to the district.

Thank you.

Tammy Seltzer.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto and Committee.

Uh I'm testifying today on behalf of the Disability Rights DC Jail and Prison Advocacy Project, DRDC for short, about the proposed FY27 budget for OVSJG.

DRDC provides re-entry services to DC residents from jail and prison who have been diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities or intellectual disabilities.

We received both justice grants and access to justice funds for our work.

While DRDC appreciates the mayor's request to fund justice grants at essentially the same level as FY26, we cannot serve vulnerable DC residents on justice grants alone.

Our clients and similarly situated DC residents return to the city from the Bureau of Prisons and the DC jail with many needs, such as housing, medical and behavioral health services, IDs, benefits, Medicaid, and Food and Clothing.

DRDZ works to connect our clients to the services that they need and to ensure they're treated fairly.

This work is paid for by the justice grants portion of OVSJG.

Almost every single reentry client also faces legal issues from appealing a denial of disability benefits to parole revocation for alleged violations to discrimination in housing and employment.

This work is paid for by the access to justice funds.

And Mr.

Laman's will was served by both by both uh funds.

Consistent with national studies, almost all of our re-entry clients also have been victimized, and many will continue to be victimized when they return to the community.

People diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities are more likely to become victims of crime than perpetrators.

The victim services portion of OVSGG funds provide community-based trauma services.

What we do is time-intensive, requiring committed and knowledgeable staff.

Our work is not cheap, but it is less expensive in many ways than allowing people to flounder to keep getting caught up in the criminal legal system, to continue to experience crisis after crisis in emergency rooms, hospitals, and on the streets.

I implore the council to restore the FY26 levels of funding to all three OVSJG grant programs: justice grants, ATJ, and victim services.

These three programs work in concert to support DC residents on their challenging reentry journeys.

These funds should be recurring with a dedicated source of income, so returning citizens and other vulnerable residents do not face such uncertainty year after year.

And that idea is not mine.

That's uh Chairman Phil Mendelson's idea.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam Lamont.

My name is Adam.

My name is Adam Lambers.

I was federally committed to prison because of my disability.

I came home on June 7, 2023.

I am thankful to be here to advocate for this program and tell you about all the great things they have done for my life.

My prison case manager applied for my Social Security benefits for me when I got home.

I found out that I was denied.

Another place did my appeal.

And I was denied again.

Disability rights DC tried to help me find an organization that would take my case, but everywhere was too busy.

Natasha Wall Smith took my case and represented me at my SSI hearing.

She ended up getting me all my back pay.

Normally you will have to pay your lawyer part of your back pay if they went.

I didn't even have to pair anything.

Nicole is my Nico is my re-entry advocate and helps me get everything I need.

I use I was used to eating three meals a day while I was in prison, but I didn't have any money when I got home.

Normally I will have to return through legal activities to support myself, but not this time.

Nicole took me shopping for clothes and food.

They even pay for my lift grass because I couldn't take public transportation.

Because of them, I have had any haven't had any run-ins with the any law.

I have passed all my neuron tests and have been I have and I have passed all my neuron tests, and I even supposed to get off supervision this summer when I couldn't get my apartment voucher.

Tammy and the Nickel Folk to give me get it for me.

This month I moved into my apartment and they helped me furnish it.

Disability rights makes sure I have everything I need.

I am blessed to have disability rights DC in my corner because they don't leave me astray.

They don't take me halfway there and leave.

They make sure all my needs are met.

It has been really been a blessing to me.

It would I would advise anyone with a disability come home who had who doesn't have anything or anyone to work with disability rights DC.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much.

Nicolo Bianchi, Sandy Bernstein, Spencer Detweiler, and Natalia Otero.

Begin with Nicolo Bianchi.

Chairperson Pinto, members of the committee, I am Nico Bianchi, a reentry advocate with disability rights DC or DRDC at University Legal Services.

I am Mr.

Lehman's reentry advocate.

Um DRDC works with DC residents diagnosed with psychiatric and developmental disabilities as they reenter the community.

I specifically help clients develop and implement an individualized reentry plan.

Because of OVSGG funding, I have the unique ability to start working and develop strong relationships with clients up to six months before their release.

Most CRDC clients come home with and to nothing.

I pick up clients from the DC jail or union station and welcome them home with changes of clothing, toiletries, and a phone to maintain contact with their supervision officers.

I buy them a hot meal and accompany them to a shelter, or when shelters are not an option, to a hotel room pay paid for with OVSJG clients' flex funds.

Once these basic needs are met, I connect clients with a core service agency or a CSA that provides mental health and substance use treatment and help with obtaining Medicaid coverage, housing, and other essentials.

Sometimes I must implement the CSA's work by directly connecting clients with housing, employment supports, and other resources.

As you heard from Mr.

Lamons earlier, my supervisor and I conducted extensive advocacy to make sure that he received the housing support that he had a right to as a DC resident with a disability.

Mr.

Laman's finally moved into his own apartment last month after waiting almost three years for a voucher.

I am also provider of the SSI SSDI outreach access and recovery, or the SOAR program, a national program designed to make disability benefits more accessible to individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness, diagnosed with serious mental illnesses and or co-occurring disorders.

The benefits application process is especially difficult for this group as they often lack a mailing address, records of their medical history, and the time and skills required to fill out complex paperwork.

SORE providers address these challenges by compiling comprehensive application package for clients and communicating with the Social Security Administration on their behalf.

As of 2024, initial benefits applications submitted with SOAR had a success rate of 65% compared to a nationwide rate of 31%.

I am one of only 12 SOAR providers in the district, and it is essential that I remain a resource for returning citizens.

DRDC's work is necessary for a client's safe and successful reentry into the community.

I thank Mayor Bowser for the OVSJG funds she put into the budget for FY27, but it will not be enough to serve the same number of returning citizens that receive services right now due to cuts to victim services, access to justice, and the rising cost of inflation.

I urge the council to restore all OVSJG funding to the FY26 level.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sandy Bernstein.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee on the judiciary and public safety.

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

I am testifying before you today to urge the council to fully fund the ATJ initiative in the fiscal year 27 budget.

The Council's decision to create the Access to Justice Initiative two decades ago and supported for all these years has drastically improved the lives of DC's most vulnerable residents and ensure that their health and safety needs are met and their rights are protected.

With the funding we received from the ATJ Initiative for our housing project, we have been able to assist some of the district's most impoverished and underrepresented residents.

We've advocated for individuals with disabilities who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness or institutionalized because they lack the housing and clinical or behavioral supports they need to live safely in the community.

The funding has allowed us to appeal reductions in terminations of Medicaid services.

Folks need to live in the community.

For example, we represented a client with an intellectual disability who was incarcerated and prior to his incarceration had received services from DC DDS.

Although he was likely to be released soon, DDS sent notice that they were terminating his Medicaid waiver slot, which provided him with housing and supports in the community.

Also, without DDS services, the court would not agree to release the client back to the community.

After we appealed the threat and termination, DDS rescinded the notice.

The client was released in early 26, is back in DDS housing now with waiver services, starting volunteer work soon and looking for employment.

The ATJ funding has also allowed us to address rights violations, rights violations and abuse and neglect people with disabilities are subjected to and seek reasonable accommodations.

For example, we sought corrective action when we learned that a staff of a client with an intellectual disability was having him engage in personal errands and chores for the staff instead of engaging in community-based activities.

In another case, we represented a client with a mental illness who reaped it reached the top of the voucher waiting list, but then was told she was being removed due to a background check.

We represented that client in an appeal before the DC Housing Authority and was able to help her was able to preserve her top her place at the top of the waiting list, which was essential as she was living on the street.

The client wrote us a thank you note saying, thanking us for our time, care, and compassion, stating that we made a difference in someone's life and that our efforts had a lasting impact.

This is why full funding for the ATJ initiative is so important.

All of the work the grantees do are making a tremendous difference in the lives of low-income DC residents.

The initiative for our housing project funds 0.92 FTEs at our office, funding almost half of two attorneys' time and a small percentage of a supervisor's time.

This funding is essential to continue the advocacy we do on behalf of DC residents with disabilities.

We appreciate the council's leadership and longstanding support for legal services and respectfully request that they restore the funding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Spencer Detweiler.

Good afternoon, Chair Pinto, members of the committee, and thank you for pronouncing my name correctly.

My name is Spencer Dettweiler.

I am a staff attorney for Quality Trust for Individuals with Disabilities.

Quality Trust, a nonprofit organization that has been advancing the interests of DC residents with developmental disabilities since 2001.

Quality Trust monitors the quality of the services provided and advocates for whatever changes or improvements are needed to enable people to live full, healthy, and meaningful lives.

I am testifying to support continued funding of the Access to Justice Initiative, or ATJ.

ATJ funds play a critical role in the success of Quality Trust's self-determined lives project or SDLP.

This project is an expansion of our previous project, the Jenny Hats Justice Project.

We have expanded our services to better meet the current and evolving legal challenges facing the communities we serve.

The Jenny Hats Justice Project focused on addressing issues pertaining to undue or overbroad guardianships and promoting alternatives to guardianship.

These critical issues will still be addressed under our new project as we are currently the primary source of no cost guardianship diversion services in the district.

Thanks to ATJ funding, SDOP expands our services to address other legal challenges, low-income DC residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities are experiencing, such as disability discrimination in relation to housing, employment, and public accommodations, as well as advocating for appropriate transition services for youth and young adults receiving special education services.

With ATJ funding, Quality Trust has been able to support 158 people with disabilities through SDLP and the Jetty Hatch Justice Project over the last two years.

One of these people was a woman with medical and physical disabilities who was coerced by her son into signing a power of attorney, who then used that document to sell her possessions against her wishes.

With Quality Trust help, she was able to revoke the power of attorney and regain control over her own decision-making authority.

Another person we supported was an 18-year-old woman with intellectual and developmental disabilities whose mother had petitioned the DC Superior Court for a guardianship over her.

But because the court's examiner had worked with us before, she knew about supported decision making, a less restrictive alternative to guardianship, and asked the court to dismiss the petition for guardianship because the young woman could use support decision making instead.

Quality Trust helped that young woman draft a statutory support decision making agreement.

With quality trust help, this young woman now has all the support she needs to navigate adulthood and avoided a restrictive and unnecessary guardianship.

If Quality Trust loses a portion of our access to justice founding funding, we would only be able to support about half the amount of people we are currently able to serve.

If we lose all of our funding, we risk not being able to continue our SDLP work at all and not being able to retain our current staffing to support our SDLP work.

ATE funds are critical in providing us the ability to promptly address the need for our legal services, that DC residents with disabilities are not unlawfully discriminated against their efforts to live meaningful, self-determined lives.

We ask the council to restore full funding to the access of justice that residents with low to no income in DC have equal access to legal services they need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Natalia Otero.

Good afternoon, Chair Prison Pinto and members of the committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

My name is Natalia Otero.

I am co-founder and executive director of DC Safe.

I'm here today in my role as a member of the Victim Assistance Network, speaking in support of the community-wide request to sustain and restore investments in victim services across the district.

While DC Safe has its own agency-specific funding that our board member Amy Peoples will discuss with you in a minute.

My testimony today is focused on the broader system, the network of providers that together form the district's survivor safety infrastructure.

Every day in the city, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, and other crimes rely on coordinated systems.

Crisis response, emergency housing, legal advocacy, financial support, and long-term stabilization.

When that system is resourced, it works well.

When it is not, people fall through the cracks and those gaps can be deadly.

Last year alone, DC SAVE served over 12,000 survivors and answered more than 22,000 crisis calls and provided nearly 4,000 nights of shelter.

That level of demand is not unique to us.

It reflects what providers across the van are seeing every day: high needs, increasing complexity, and rising costs.

Therefore, the FY27 landscape presents a serious risk for survivors.

The van has put forward a clear data-driven request of 59.6 million reoccurring baseline for victim services to sustain current compact current capacity under real economic conditions.

This is not an expansion request, it is a stabilization request to preserve what's already existing and prevent erosion of critical services.

Without this investment, the consequences are immediate and measurable.

As the committee considers the full public safety budget, the van urges a balanced investment approach, particularly given proposed growth in parts of the public safety and justice cluster, while victim services, access to justice, and other broader OBSJG portfolio face significant reductions.

Aligning these investments and restoring OVSJG funding are essential to safety stabilization and prevention.

Public safety is not just enforcement, it is prevention, intervention, and recovery.

Victim services are the front line of this work.

I also want to underscore the importance of housing within the system.

We know that access to safe, trauma-informed immediate shelter is one of the most critical interventions for survivors at the highest risk.

And we are no longer ensuring sustainable resources for this continuum of care are available for times like these.

Again, I want to close by underscoring the importance of the shelter and transitional housing for victims of domestic violence fund, DC Code 4-521.

It is an existing and ready vehicle to direct and protect resources for critical interventions and capital investments for shelters.

Fully resourced, fully resourcing this fund is a clear signal that the district is committing to protecting both survivors and the infrastructure that supports them.

Because when it is whole, survivors are safe, families are stabilized, and the district is stronger.

Thank you for your time and your leadership.

Thank you so much.

I just have a question for Nicola.

When residents are getting out of BOP facilities, how are you getting access to information around clients who need those re-entry services before they come home?

How are you getting connected to them?

Tammy, sorry, my supervisor is over there, so she can correct me if I'm wrong, but we some of our informational materials are distributed in DOP.

So a lot of the times, clients will reach out to us, or if clients are connected to uh lawyers or attorneys or anybody working with them who knows about our services, they'll they'll be referred to us, and then we're able to connect with them before they they release and have legal calls with them and maintain in contact, and then once they come home, you know, we start working with them.

Gotcha.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our umbration and most are clients, but thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Carrie Larias, Madre Thiara, Amy Peoples, Alison Jackson.

Sorry, Alice and Jackson.

Amy Peoples, are you here?

Oh, okay.

Carrie Larius, okay, and Madre Tierra.

That's the station.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh Sasha Drobnik.

Okay, so ain't tell me your name again.

Katie Larios.

Yes, okay.

Or just Kate.

And then Amy Peoples.

Okay.

Alison Jackson.

Okay.

Sasha Travner.

Wonderful.

Thank you all.

Okay, Carrie Laudi, yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, Chairperson Pinto and members of the committee.

My name is Kay Larios, and I'm here as a member of Madre Tierra, a Latina women's grassroots organization serving victims of any type of gender-based violence for 20 years in DC, Maryland, and Virginia regions.

Uh, a space called Safe Hub, where we are able to attend clients in person and provided the infrastructure to to attend clients for the navigation of the legal system and interpretation, advocacy, and individualized care.

Um, with this in mind, I urge the council to restore and fund um domestic violence services for our allies in DC Safe as well, because without their infrastructure, it would be incredibly hard to operate in DC.

As a survivor of myself of gender-based violence, I find myself in the crossroads of being an advocate and seeing our human resources be scarce and also funding resources, and I can say with only growing concern with the reduction of funding for resources of domestic violence services that many of our colleagues are providing, um, it would it would be a great risk in our communities, especially our immigrant Latina community.

Um this is effectively means that without the existence of the front light front frontline position staff or people who can navigate services for people who don't have the language or don't have the and don't have the bear that have barriers, cultural barriers, are an immense risk.