Testimony of Rachel White, Deputy Director of Youth Advocacy, before DC Council Committee of Human Services

February 26, 2026 

Good morning, Chair Frumin and members of the Human Services Committee. My name is Rachel White, and I am the Deputy Director of Youth Advocacy at DC Action. We use research, data, and a racial equity lens to break down barriers that stand in the way of young people reaching stability and long-term success.

My testimony today focuses on the structural design of the youth homelessness system and why this moment requires deeper and more comprehensive analysis. Specifically, I will address:

1. The expiration and lack of evaluation of the Solid Foundations Strategic Plan;
   
2. The need for a rigorous youth bed-type and system flow analysis; and
   
3. The importance of operational stability in grant execution to support any structural reform.

I. Context: Homeward DC and Solid Foundations

For context, Homeward DC is the District’s overarching strategic plan to end homelessness, first adopted in 2015. It established system-wide goals to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring and has historically focused primarily on families and single adults. It is overseen through the Interagency Council on Homelessness and is intended to guide cross-agency coordination, housing investments, and performance measurement.

In 2017, recognizing that youth homelessness required a developmentally distinct approach, the District adopted Solid Foundations: A Plan to End Youth Homelessness as a separate youth-specific strategy. Solid Foundations was designed to:

• Develop youth-specific housing pathways;
• Strengthen prevention and diversion;
• Improve cross-system coordination with child welfare, juvenile justice, schools, and behavioral health;
• And track youth-specific performance indicators.

Historically, youth were not deeply embedded in Homeward DC because youth strategy was presumed to be addressed through Solid Foundations. Solid Foundations expired in 2022 and has not been formally evaluated or reissued.

The District is currently updating Homeward DC, and while we understand that youth homelessness will be included in the revised framework, we do not yet have clarity on how youth will be incorporated or the level of detail and analysis that will be applied. Inclusion alone is not a strategy. Youth homelessness requires a clearly articulated vision, defined outcomes, and a transparent accountability structure.

The critical question is whether youth inclusion within Homeward DC will include the same level of specificity, measurable benchmarks, bed-type modeling, and recurring evaluation that Solid Foundations was originally intended to provide.

Youth deserve the same strategic rigor, evaluation, and thorough community input afforded to families and single adults under Homeward DC. Chairman Frumin, we urge you to obtain clarity and public commitments from DHS and from ICH about how youth will be treated for purposes of strategic systems planning and improvements.    

II. Youth System Flow Is One Part of a Larger Structural Analysis

According to DHS performance oversight responses:

• 1,668 homeless youth were served in the youth singles system in FY25.
  
• 479 homeless youth ages 18–24 were served in the adult singles system in FY25.
  

This means that approximately 22% of youth interacting with DHS homelessness services were served in the adult singles system rather than the youth system.

That proportion warrants examination. However, understanding why youth are in the adult system is only one part of the analysis.

We do not definitively know whether these young adults:

• Entered directly into the adult system;
• Previously accessed youth services;
• Timed out of youth programs;
• Were deemed ineligible;
• Or perceived adult services as more accessible.
  

We have not conducted a comprehensive, youth-informed system flow analysis to answer these questions. But the analysis cannot stop there. We must also examine outcomes within the youth system itself. A similar evaluation is needed of youth being served in the family system, which my colleague Mary Katherine will elaborate on. 

III. We Need a Comprehensive Youth Bed-Type and Outcomes Assessment

A youth homelessness system should be designed based on need distribution and developmental realities. That requires a transparent assessment of:

• The acuity of youth presenting to the system
• Behavioral health and trauma prevalence
• Parenting status and household composition
• Average time to income stabilization
• Average time to sustained housing retention
• Recidivism rates within the youth system
• And cross-system movement between youth and adult programs.

We do not currently have a consolidated public analysis that answers:

• Whether extended transitional housing capacity matches the proportion of youth requiring longer stabilization periods
• Whether long-term housing models reflect youth income instability patterns
• Whether shorter-term interventions align with actual outcome timelines
• Or how different program types perform in producing durable housing outcomes

Without understanding both system flow and in-system outcomes, policy decisions about duration limits, eligibility, or reentry risk being made without a full picture of how the youth system is functioning. Slot turnover is not synonymous with permanence.

If youth require sustained stabilization periods to achieve durable housing and income growth, then reducing duration without adjusting bed mix and support intensity may create structural misalignment. System design must follow data — not assumptions.

IV. Grant Execution Stability Is Foundational to Reform

High-quality services for vulnerable youth and structural reform to the District’s homelessness systems both depend on operational stability and financial solvency. Last year the Council passed legislation to improve DHS’s grant execution timelines and payment processes. However, the agency has not yet effectively implemented requirements for timely processing of grant agreements or payments. 

For example, Damien Ministries has still not received funding or authorization to execute the grant the Council approved last year to provide workforce assistance to transgender and gender-nonconforming youth experiencing homelessness. And several youth homelessness providers reported multiple months of initial payment delays.  

Delayed grant agreements and first payments create predictable downstream impacts for service providers and their youth clients:

• Hiring delays
• Workforce turnover
• Reduced case management continuity
• Slower housing placements
• And ultimately weaker youth outcomes

If the District is simultaneously adjusting housing duration policies and raising performance expectations with hopes of improved outcomes for young people, administrative foundations must be financially stable.  

Conclusion

The District is at a pivotal moment. We are updating Homeward DC. We are reconsidering youth housing duration policies. We are making decisions that will shape the trajectory of young adults navigating homelessness.

This is precisely when we need:

• Formal evaluation of Solid Foundations
• A rigorous youth bed-type and system flow analysis
• Transparent measurement of in-system outcomes
• And stable administrative infrastructure.

Youth homelessness cannot be addressed through incremental adjustments alone. It requires intentional system architecture grounded in data, developmental science, and lived experience.

I respectfully urge the Committee to ensure that youth inclusion in Homeward DC is not symbolic — but measurable, evaluated, and structurally aligned with actual need.

Thank you for your continued oversight.