Testimony of Rachel White, Deputy Director of Youth Advocacy, before the DC Council Health Committee

February 2, 2026 

Good morning, Chair Henderson and members of the 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 all kids reaching their full potential. Our collaborative advocacy campaigns bring together the power of young people and residents to raise their voices and create change. I am submitting testimony today to focus specifically on transition-age youth (TAY) mental health access and what DBH’s performance oversight responses reveal about the system’s current ability to meet TAY needs.

Access for Transition-Age Youth Is Constrained by Workforce Capacity

Across our work, we consistently hear that transition-age youth struggle to access timely and consistent behavioral health care. Long wait times for therapy, difficulty finding providers experienced with young adults, and frequent disruptions in care are common experiences—particularly for TAY navigating housing instability, system involvement, or economic insecurity.

DBH’s oversight responses reflect real effort through training initiatives and program design. At the same time, the responses make clear that the District does not yet have sufficient workforce capacity to meet TAY mental health needs at scale. Notably, DBH reports that it does not track the total number of clinicians with youth- or TAY-specific expertise within the Core Service Agency system. Without this basic information, it is difficult to determine whether workforce investments are meaningfully improving access for young people.

Transition-Age Youth Experiencing Homelessness Face Additional Barriers

These workforce challenges are especially acute for transition-age youth experiencing homelessness. As documented in DC Action’s State of Youth Homelessness report, young adults who are couch-surfing, living in shelters, or cycling through temporary housing often face high levels of trauma alongside constant instability. As a result, traditional clinic-based care models—which rely on regular appointments, transportation, and consistent contact—are frequently misaligned with their realities.

For these young people, access depends on TAY-trained clinicians being embedded in youth-serving spaces, such as shelters, drop-in centers, and housing programs. When that workforce is limited, engagement breaks down early. This is not a lack of motivation or readiness among young people, but a system that is not designed to meet them where they are. Strengthening the TAY behavioral health workforce is therefore a critical component of both mental health access and homelessness prevention.

TAY-Specific Models Remain Extremely Limited in Reach

DBH’s responses indicate that while the TAY Choice Provider framework exists, its current reach is extremely limited. DBH anticipates that only two providers will qualify as TAY Choice Providers in FY26. Given the size and complexity of the TAY population seeking services—particularly young people navigating homelessness, school disengagement, or justice system involvement—this level of availability is far from sufficient.

Due to limited TAY-specific provider capacity,  transition-age youth are often routed into adult-oriented systems by default, where services may not align with their developmental needs, increasing the risk of disengagement

Data Gaps Obscure Real Access Challenges for TAY

DBH’s oversight responses also highlight limitations in how access is measured. The agency relies primarily on claims data to assess service utilization, which reflects what was billed but not the barriers young people encounter before care begins. This approach does not capture wait times for therapy, failed referrals, or disengagement prior to meaningful treatment.

For transition-age youth—especially those experiencing housing instability—these unseen barriers can be decisive. Without better visibility into how TAY move through the system, access challenges risk remaining hidden even as young people continue to fall through the cracks.

Peer and Lived-Experience Pathways Are Absent

Engagement and trust are essential for transition-age youth, particularly those with histories of system involvement or homelessness. Yet DBH reports that no Peer Navigators were certified in FY25 or FY26 to date, and that prior youth peer roles lost funding.

The absence of peer and lived-experience roles represents a missed opportunity to strengthen engagement, continuity of care, and trust for young adults who may be wary of traditional clinical settings. For TAY, peers are often a critical bridge into sustained care—and that bridge is currently missing.

Conclusion

DBH’s performance oversight responses show intention and effort, but they also reveal clear structural limits. Transition-age youth mental health access is inseparable from workforce capacity, and current strategies are not yet scaled to meet need.

With only two anticipated TAY Choice Providers, no certified Peer Navigators, and limited tracking of TAY-specialized clinicians, the District does not yet have the infrastructure required to deliver consistent, developmentally appropriate care for young adults—particularly those experiencing homelessness.

As the Council continues its oversight, we urge a focus on building and sustaining a behavioral health workforce that is truly equipped to serve transition-age youth through clearer metrics, expanded TAY-specific capacity, restored peer pathways, and service models that meet young people where they are.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and for your continued attention to the mental health needs of transition-age youth in the District.

Respectfully submitted,

Rachel White, J.D. 

Deputy Director of Youth Advocacy

DC Action| rwhite@dckids.org