Hello Chairperson Frumin, councilmembers, and staff of the Committee on Human Services. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee by providing written testimony regarding the performance of the Department of Human Services. My name is Rachel Metz, and I am the Research and Data Manager at DC Action. DC Action uses research, data, coalition building, advocacy, and a racial equity lens to break down barriers that stand in the way of all kids reaching their full potential. We are also the home of DC KIDS COUNT, an online resource that tracks key indicators of child and youth well-being.
Families Need Continued Support Meeting Their Children’s Basic Needs
One key measure of child well-being that shows a very worrying trend is the District’s increase in child poverty rates. The most recent single-year Census data for 2024 shows an official child poverty rate that is the District’s highest in over a decade at 28%. The primary program intended to buffer children from the negative impact of living in poverty is Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Participation in TANF is associated with significant reductions in the number of children experiencing neglect and placed in foster care. In addition, there is some evidence that TANF coverage increases parents’ educational expectations of their children and decreases children’s likelihood of repeating a grade. Furthermore, easing TANF enrollment and participation requirements during the COVID-19 public health emergency was associated with fewer days of poor mental and physical health for adults. Despite the many positive impacts of TANF and the concerning uptick in child poverty that TANF can help protect against exacerbating, the District is poised to cut TANF benefits to an estimated 7,000 families with 15,300 children starting in fiscal year 2027. This cut will undoubtedly create lasting harm for already vulnerable children and families.
Cutting TANF Just Shifts Costs
Pushing families off of TANF does not eliminate their need for support in staying housed, fed, able to afford basic necessities, or accessing care for their children while they work. If TANF is cut, their reliance on other public benefit programs is likely to increase even as those programs, too, are facing significant cuts. Fiscal year 2025 oversight responses from the Department of Human Services illuminate key areas of overlap. Well over half of families in shelters are in TANF (pg. 65) as well as nearly two-thirds of families in Rapid Rehousing (pg. 74). Nearly half of District residents assisted by the child care subsidy program are TANF recipients (pg. 209). And the vast majority of TANF individuals (95% in FY25) receive SNAP (pg. 188). If families already rely on these programs to meet their basic needs even with TANF, what will happen when roughly half of TANF households (pg. 191) start losing eligibility in a few months? And how many more TANF families that are currently housed without DHS support will need shelter if their TANF is cut? We need to be clear-eyed, too, that the data overwhelming tells us that when families lose access to income, jobs, or economic supports like TANF, SNAP, the Earned Income or Child Tax Credits, subsidized child care, etc., that children and parents suffer in myriad ways: poorer outcomes in school that perpetuate achievement and earning gaps, life-long health risks and disparities, more likely involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, more reliance on housing assistance programs, and more. Cutting TANF does not save the District money, it simply creates more costly consequences downstream.   Â
It is clear that the burden of these cuts to the social safety net will fall on children and their families. And while there is discussion among policymakers around expanding hardship exemptions, we caution that this, too, may just wind up shifting costs to program overhead and administration instead of saving money; we echo the concerns about this approach raised by our partners at DCFPI, Children’s Law Center, and UPO at Thursday’s hearing and at the Council briefing earlier this month.Â
Chairman Frumin, when government representatives testify next week, we encourage you to ask DHS what administrative investments (personnel, training, IT systems, paperwork, etc.) they will need to make in order to operationalize the tracking of TANF time limits and the documenting and verifying of any hardship policies that are developed.
Medicaid Cuts May Impact Human Services As Well
Unfortunately children who grow up in poverty are more likely to face housing instability or homelessness and that too often becomes an intergenerational cycle. For example, DHS estimates that 17% of the non-parenting youth served by the youth homelessness system in FY25 had previously been served by the family system as a minor (pg. 131 of oversight responses), though that’s lower than the 26% of non-parenting youth and 47% of parenting youth who self-report the same history in the District’s 2024 Youth Count Survey (slide 21). To interrupt that cycle we must support youth in exiting homelessness into stability. Some of the programs that try to help with that are at least partially funded by Medicaid, including Permanent Supportive Housing and some mental health supports. Further, Medicaid – and access to health insurance more broadly – is essential for preventing major economic hardship when a serious illness or accident arises. In light of a recent presentation by the Mayor signaling intention to move forward with elimination of Medicaid coverage for childless adults by fiscal year 2029, we strongly encourage you to ask DHS for clarity on how eliminating access to health care could increase youth homelessness and how the loss of Medicaid supports available to youth experiencing housing insecurity and homelessness could limit access to needed services and their prospects for long-term stability and independence. The Council and Administration must work together on ways to protect and buffer this highly vulnerable population.
These Cuts Disproportionately Hurt Black and Brown District Residents
When looking at family incomes by race, white households with children have incomes roughly 5.4 times greater than Black households with children—a difference of $249,200 in their median incomes. Further, the average income for Black families with children is roughly half of what is required to meet basic needs raising a child in the District; DC’s livable income is estimated to be $107,494 for one parent, one child families, and $115,756 for two-working parent, one child families, with the income to live comfortably (e.g. have some savings and discretionary purchases) double that. Because of these disparities, the vast majority (>90%) of children enrolled in key social safety net programs are Black or Brown. This means that when safety net funding cuts—local or federal—occur, it is Black and Brown children who are most harmed. While fundamentally we want all District families to be able to meet their children’s basic needs, it is worth acknowledging that those harmed by recent and forthcoming policy choices are disproportionately Black and Brown.Â
We know that this is an incredibly challenging time for District policy makers. At the end of the day, though, our priority should be ensuring that children and youth have what they need to meet their most basic needs – though, ideally, the District’s priority should be policy- and budget-making that enables all children to thrive. During oversight, please obtain all the data you can on the many threats to our social safety net: what cuts are coming and why, who will be harmed by those cuts, the demographics of those who will suffer cuts (their racial, socioeconomic, age, and Ward demographics etc.), how cuts to the child care subsidy program will interact with impending work requirements, etc.. This information is essential for charting a path forward that prevents unintended harm, and maintains kid-focused leadership as our north star. Thank you for your consideration.
Rachel Metz
rmetz@dckids.org