Testimony of Njeri Jenkins, OST Advocacy Manager, before the Committee of the Whole

Good Afternoon Chairman Mendelson,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Njeri Jenkins, and I am the OST Advocacy Manager at DC Action, testifying on behalf of the DC OST Coalition we convene. My testimony will focus on the proposed budget and its implications for Out-of-School Time (OST) programs in the District.

I would like to begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to the OST Office and the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Education for preserving OST funding in the upcoming fiscal year (FY26). In a challenging budget environment, this decision reflects a clear and commendable recognition of the vital role OST plays in the lives of young people and families across the city. We urge the Council to protect these critical investments and to use today’s hearing to provide clarity around funding levels designated one-time versus recurring and how the larger education cluster budget treats OST providers’ use of public school buildings. 

Our read of budget data is that the overall grant funding levels remain consistent from Fiscal Year 2025 to Fiscal Year 2026, with $3.8 million in Youth Outcomes grants being converted to recurring dollars and $3 million remaining one-time. While in real dollars, flat funding means a year-over-year cut amidst the rising costs of operating a business, we are grateful cuts are not more significant as we know there are major holes elsewhere in the education cluster budgets. We are concerned however that reliance on one-time funding as we enter a recession and economic downturn sets up the OST sector – and our DC kids – for significant instability if District revenue cannot rebound next year to sustain OST investments. Hanging our hopes on a stadium in 2030 seems like a bit of a hail Mary of a strategy to fund in 2027.     

When you discuss OST funding levels with the Deputy Mayor, we encourage you to ask:

1. Which programs or initiatives are currently being funded by one-time dollars? And which ones will be funded by the $3M one-time funds in FY26? Are any of these OST operations currently in the middle of a multi-year funding agreement such that a loss of funding in FY27 could force a premature termination of their grant? Or, will the end of FY26 be the end of their grant cycle?
   
   We do not want funding levels to go down now or in the future for OST grants but budget cuts are far more disruptive and harmful to young people, OST providers, and staff  in the middle of a grant cycle when an organization was banking on stable public funding. 
   

• If the one-time funding cannot be restored next year, how will reductions be applied across the OST landscape—by location, program model, age group, program focus, or specific grants? How will cuts be communicated out?
  
  By relying on one-time money in a shaky economy, the budget introduces significant uncertainty, placing providers in a precarious position as they plan for FY26 and beyond. Nonprofits operate on razor-thin margins and need adequate time to adapt budgets, staffing, and fundraising strategies if funding evaporates.

• What is the long-term plan to re-establish recurring funding and stabilize this critical system of youth supports?
  
  Amidst federally induced threats to our economy and as the most financially secure individuals and businesses in DC are on the precipice of receiving unnecessary federal tax cuts, the District must reform our revenue streams to create a true growth economy that more fairly captures revenue from those with the greatest ability to pay. Only then can we ensure OST opportunities can be available for all.  
  

We urge the Committee to press the Deputy Mayor for Education for these specifics. Transparency is essential, not only for accountability but for giving providers the information they need to prepare and adapt responsibly.

In addition to local funding concerns, we must also raise a federal threat that could cause immediate harm to OST in DC. President Trump’s proposed budget threatens to eliminate the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC) grant program, which currently provides $6.3 million in federal funding through OSSE, serving nearly 6,600 DC students—the majority in Wards 7 and 8. If Congress acts to reduce or eliminate this critical federal source of OST funding, the District must move quickly—including outside of the regular budget process—to replace these dollars with local funds, administered either through OSSE or the DME’s OST Office. This is essential to prevent harm to youth and providers from such callous federal actions. I encourage this Committee to include a recommendation in its budget report directing OSSE, DCPS, the DME, the OST Office, and others to begin meeting regularly to plan for funding gaps, mitigation strategies, and communication protocols with community-based providers. 

We must also raise a vital operational issue: full coverage of DCPS building use costs – including security, janitorial services, and meals – must be included in the DCPS FY26 financial plan. These costs, while a small fraction of the overall District budget, can create massive barriers for nonprofit OST providers, particularly smaller or community-based organizations that serve high-need areas. We ask the Council to inquire with the Deputy Mayor for Education to confirm whether the proposed education budgets include sufficient funding to cover OST building use costs before school, afterschool, and throughout the summer. Historically these costs have been covered by the District to support affordable, equitable access to OST. If costs get passed onto providers it will devastate provider budgets forcing programs and program locations to close, to layoff staff, and to turn away interested youth.

To illustrate the cost burden :

• A single security guard costs at least $45/hour under current District contracts.

• If a program operates 180 school days with a guard on site from 4:30–6:30 p.m., the annual cost per site is over $16,000.

• For providers with multiple sites, these costs can easily balloon to nearly $100,000, an unsustainable amount for organizations already navigating increased expenses and stagnant funding.

Additionally, it is important to note that while DCPS does provide building access at no cost to community-based OST providers during the summer, this coverage only extends until 4:00 PM. According to the RFA, partners are responsible for up to two hours of extended services beyond this time, including an additional security fee ranging from $40.74 to $53.17 per hour for building use between 4:00 and 6:00 PM.

Community-based providers offering OST services during the summer are required to deliver consistent, ongoing programming for at least five hours per day, five days per week, for five consecutive weeks to the same group of youth. These extended daily hours—compared to typical afterschool schedules—result in significantly higher operational costs, particularly for staffing and security.

These costs disproportionately impact nonprofit providers, especially those operating out of sites that are not designated summer school locations or who offer programming on Fridays, when standard building access and associated services may not be available or covered. This creates financial and logistical burdens that can jeopardize providers’ ability to serve students during the critical summer months.

The data is unambiguous: consistent, high-quality OST programming is associated with better academic performance, increased school attendance, reduced juvenile justice involvement, and stronger social-emotional development. Cuts to OST are not just budgetary decisions, they are policy choices with long-term consequences for DC’s youth and families.

We understand the fiscal challenges the District is facing. But in moments of constraint, the most strategic investments are in preventative, proven strategies like OST programming. We cannot afford to go backward. Thank you in advance for protecting OST funding this year and in the future; and we look forward to working with you to ensure temporary fixes do not undermine long-term stability for this important sector. I welcome any questions.