0

\

Recovery Plan Performance Report 

District of Columbia

State and Local Fiscal Relief Funds

2021 Report
1

District of Columbia

2021 Recovery Plan 
2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................................3

Uses of Funds.........................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Strategies employed to maximize programmatic impact and effective, efficient, and equitable outcomes..................5

Public Health (EC 1)........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Negative Economic Impacts (EC 2)...........................................................................................................................................................7

Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities (EC 3)....................................................................................................10

Water, Sewer and Broadband Infrastructure (EC 5)........................................................................................................................ 13

Revenue Replacement (EC 6)...................................................................................................................................................................14

Administrative costs (EC 7):....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Promoting Equitable Outcomes....................................................................................................................................................................16

Community Engagement................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

Labor Practices .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

Use of Evidence ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28

Table of Expenses by Expenditure Category .........................................................................................................................................30

Performance Reporting................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Ineligible Activities: Tax Offset Provision (States and territories only)......................................................................................... 35
3

Executive Summary 

Mayor Muriel Bowser’s Recovery Plan for Washington, DC marks a turning point in a global public health crisis 

that has taken the lives of millions of people worldwide and led to an immediate and significant global 

recession. This document summarizes Mayor Bowser’s plan to leverage the more than $2.6 billion in State and 

Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to provide relief, recovery, and growth for residents and businesses across all of

Washington, DC’s eight wards. These investments focus on what we know to be the pillars of an equitable 

recovery: access to safe and affordable housing, high-quality job training, healthy neighborhoods, academic 

acceleration, increased access to quality child care, programs to reduce gun violence, safe and accessible 

transportation options, and supports for businesses and residents hit hardest by the economic crisis of the 

past year and a half.

During 2020, the District faced significant uncertainty, both in terms of the impacts of the COVID-19 

coronavirus as well as its impact on our financial future. With so much uncertainty, we controlled what we 

could and made big investments in our DC Values and in keeping our community safe and healthy. Today, we 

have cause for more hope and a chance to look at how we come back stronger and more equitable than before. 

Everyone 12 and older is now eligible for the vaccine; more than 65% of all DC residents are at least partially 

vaccinated; and through President’s Biden’s American Rescue Plan, DC received a significant increase in 

federal relief funds.

The District has received nearly $3.3 billion in relief through the American Rescue Plan, largely made up of $2.3 

billion in state and local fiscal recovery funds, $107 million in capital infrastructure funds, and nearly $980 

million of specific grants that go directly to agencies with specific uses. In addition, more than $2 billion is 

flowing directly to residents, businesses, hospitals, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(WMATA) and other non-DC governmental entities. This assistance comes in the form of business grants, tax 

credits, stimulus payments, SNAP benefits, unemployment insurance and more. These resources are providing 

critical and immediate relief to District residents, and we are particularly appreciative of the Biden 

Administration and the U.S. Congress’ decision to include the $755 million that Washington, DC was denied in 

the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act as a result of not yet having statehood. 

Mayor Bowser’s Recovery Plan recognizes that the landscape has shifted over the past year and a half and 

seizes on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put our city on a trajectory toward a more equitable future. 

This document outlines how the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds are proposed to be invested, starting 

in FY 2021 through FY 2024; the District’s key goals, including how these investments will promote equitable 

outcomes; progress to date, including community engagement; how the District will ensure strong labor 

standards in infrastructure projects included in the Recovery Plan; and finally, how the District is investing in 

evidence-based interventions and maximizing the number of rigorous evaluations of our new investments.

While relief cannot come soon enough for the residents and businesses hurting from the impacts of the

pandemic and economic recession, we are proud of the progress made to date in developing and implementing 

the Recovery Plan and the pace of the District’s rollout. The Mayor transmitted her proposed federal Recovery 

Budget to the DC Council just two and a half weeks after the US Treasury Department issued its Interim Final 

Rule on May 10, 2021 detailing the eligible uses of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. While many of the 

District’s investments will begin at the start of the new fiscal year (FY 2022) in October 2021, some critical 
4

recovery efforts were launched as soon as the recovery funds were received, and the DC Council agreed to 

expedite a vote on other high-priority projects to allow them to begin in the summer of 2021. In addition, to 

promote transparency and community engagement in the implementation of the Recovery Plan, the District 

will launch a public reporting dashboard showing the use of the federal recovery funds and associated 

performance measures in September 2021.

The District has also devoted considerable attention to ensuring the successful management, oversight, 

monitoring, and evaluation of these significant federal resources. The Recovery Plan includes funding to 

increase capacity within the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(OCFO), as well as the District agencies responsible for procurement, human resources, IT, and property 

management. The District benefits from already having in place a strong performance management team and 

a team of social scientists within the Lab@DC which will be expanded to support the launch, evaluation, and 

monitoring of federal recovery initiatives, as well as an Office of Racial Equity to help ensure that investments 

are having the intended positive impacts on disproportionately impacted populations. 

In addition, the Office of the City Administrator (OCA) created a new position to lead its compliance, reporting 

and administration activities for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds; established new processes for 

verifying eligible uses of funds and documenting agencies’ spending plans; and, in collaboration with OCFO, 

established a system for tracking spending within required expenditure categories. OCA and OCFO also held 

numerous training sessions for District agencies on compliance and reporting requirements and are developing 

detailed written guidance. The District government has processes, controls, and systems in place to ensure 

that we can meet federal requirements, effectively deliver these essential resources and services to DC 

residents and businesses, and monitor and evaluate implementation to continue maximizing the impacts of our 

investments over time.

 
5

Uses of Funds

Overview

The District received $1,802,441,116 in Coronavirus State Funds, including $754,861,936 provided to make up 

for the underpayment of Coronavirus Relief Funds in 2020; $137,083,470 in Coronavirus Local Funds - County; 

and $372,859,344 in Coronavirus Local Funds - Metro City. The District allocated these funds by extending its 

normal budget process to allow for submission of the Mayor’s proposed budget on May 27 and a final vote by 

the DC Council on August 3. Drawing on public input received in the Budget Engagement Forums, through 

letters and meetings with community organizations, and through Councilmember requests, the Mayor 

developed a set of priority initiatives to support with these funds, through the Fair Shot federal recovery 

budget. These priority initiatives are as follows: 

● COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Direct Response Costs; 

● Economic Recovery for Residents and Businesses; 

● Build and Preserve Affordable Housing; 

● Learning Acceleration; 

● Reduction of Healthcare Disparities; 

● Gun Violence Prevention; 

● Youth Safety; and 

● Alternative 911 Response. 

All of these initiatives were approved in the final budget passed by the DC Council, with some modifications 

to specific projects and investments. Please see the Project Inventory section of this report for project 

overviews; funding allocations by project, federal recovery budget initiative, and Expenditure Category; and 

assessments of the projects’ use of evidence.

Strategies employed to maximize programmatic impact and effective, efficient, and equitable outcomes

During the federal recovery budget formulation process, Mayor Bowser’s Deputy Mayors identified target 

outcomes for each initiative and worked with relevant agencies to propose a suite of evidence-based 

investments to support the outcomes identified. These investments were evaluated for equity based on 

information and expertise obtained in order to understand which residents and businesses were the most 

negatively affected by the public health emergency and resulting economic recession. The director of the 

Office of Racial Equity participated in these discussions and budget review meetings. As proposals advanced 

in consideration by leadership, the Performance Team assisted with the development of the target outcomes, 

the Lab@DC rated the proposed investments according to the strength of supporting evidence provided, and 

the Budget Team assessed funding requests and spending plans for efficiencies. 

Each of these offices will play important roles in the launch, evaluation, and monitoring of the District’s federal 

recovery investments. A portion of the recovery funds was allocated to support these activities. Specifically, 

the Performance Team is working with agencies to develop Key Performance Indicators and strategic 

initiatives for federal recovery projects. The Lab@DC is increasing the size of its civic design team to support 

the effective implementation of projects applying user-centered design principles. The Lab@DC is also 

developing randomized control trials and other evaluations of selected investments in the recovery budget, 

as discussed further in the “Use of Evidence” section of this report. The Budget Team will continue monitoring 
6

the use of funds to support efficient and effective investments, including through future redistributions where 

necessary.

Recovery Plan Highlights by Expenditure Category

This section includes highlights of selected investments in the following expenditure categories. Please see 

the Project Inventory section of this report for the full list of investments organized by the District’s priority 

initiatives as well as by the federally prescribed expenditure categories. The District elected not to use federal 

funds for premium pay to essential workers (EC 4). DC did use its own local funds to provide hazard pay of up 

to $140 per pay period to workers who physically reported to work during the public health emergency, as well 

as a “Time Off Award” of 40 hours of leave for employees who reported to work throughout the emergency.

Categories of Uses of Funds Total 5-year 

budget

1. Public Health 181,469,296

2. Negative Economic Impacts 563,387,210

3. Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities 918,103,788

4. Premium Pay 0

5. Infrastructure 33,000,000

6. Revenue Replacement 598,644,297

7. Administrative 17,629,029

Public Health (EC 1)

The largest grouping of costs within expenditure category (EC) 1 fall into the District initiative for COVID-19 

Direct Response. These efforts include costs for a variety of strategies that will support the prevention or 

mitigation of the spread of the COVID-19 disease in our neighborhoods and government owned facilities. The 

largest project under this EC includes many of our Emergency Operations Center costs, vaccination 

programming efforts and projects dedicated to the safe reopening of District-owned spaces. Also highlighted 

here is the District’s Alternative 911 Response initiative that will implement a new protocol for responding to 

mental health emergencies. Other investments include support for unmet health insurance costs, the 

promotion of health equity, and funding for recommendations of the Mayor’s Commission on Healthcare 

Systems and Transformation, as well as a project focused on school-based mental health and social-emotional 

learning.

Initiative Sub-Initiative/[Description] Total 5-year budget

COVID-19 Response Costs COVID-19 Response Costs 81,289,291

COVID-19 Response Costs Re-Open 46,352,321

Alternative 911 Response Expand CRT/Check on Welfare 15,679,773

Health Health [Premium Support, Other] 15,359,000

Health Health Equity 12,336,138

Health Howard Center of Excellence 8,482,500

Learning Acceleration Youth Mental Health & SEL 1,970,273

Public Health (EC 1) 181,469,296
7

COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Response: The District allocated $127 million of its federal recovery funds 

to support costs for COVID-19 response and the safe reopening of public facilities that did not already have 

identified funding sources, including for services provided through the District’s Emergency Operations 

Center and through the Public Health Lab, Child and Family Services Agency, DC Public Schools, Department 

of Behavioral Health, Department of Employment Services, Department of Human Services and Office of 

Contracting and Procurement. 

Alternative 911 Response for Behavioral Health Calls: This initiative includes multiple components designed to 

route emergency calls to the most appropriate point of response by broadening the network of agencies and 

services available for deployment from the 911 call centers operated by the Office of Unified Communications 

(OUC). The public health component of the initiative will establish the direct deployment of the Department 

of Behavioral Health’s (DBH’s) Community Response Team (CRT) to respond to certain mental health crises. 

In addition, some non-emergency 911 calls will be routed to DBH’s existing Access Helpline to connect callers 

with mental health services. The new response protocol was developed by an interagency task force including 

OUC, DBH, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical 

Services, among other participants. The federal funding is being used to update the 911 response software 

system, hire additional 911 call takers, community-based responders, an MPD behavioral health coordinator, 

and educate the public about the changes.1

Negative Economic Impacts (EC 2)

The major initiatives and projects in this expenditure category can be roughly divided into those that aim to 

provide resources for residents or households ($333 million), and those that are focused on businesses ($230

million). However, the Negative Economic Impacts category is not the only category with investments focused 

on household or business assistance. A number of other significant resident-focused investments are detailed 

in the following section discussing the Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities expenditure 

category. Similarly, the Revenue Replacement expenditure category summarized later in this report also 

includes funding for numerous projects supporting small businesses, such as Shop in the District, the Vibrant 

Places Fund, and a new effort to Fast Track Licensing, Permitting and Inspection services to boost the District’s 

economic recovery.

Resident-Focused Investments to Reduce Negative Economic Impacts

These investments of more than $333 million over five years focus on workforce development and work-based 

learning, child care during the economic recovery, food access and security, reduced utility costs and income 

support while families work toward self-sufficiency. Among the workforce investments for adults are projects 

to provide individual career coaching for 5,000 DC residents per year, and to double the number of 

SolarWorks DC trainees learning about solar system design and installation from 75 to 150 per year. Further, 

in addition to the Nourish DC/Good Food Fund highlighted below, other nutrition-related projects include 

funding for senior meal delivery and the Capital Area Foodbank, and an increased investment in Produce Rx, 

1 Some of these activities fall under different Expenditure Categories, including revenue replacement, but the DBH 

Community Response Team and MPD Behavioral Health Coordinator costs are specifically classified as public health 

expenditures.
8

a program allowing medical professionals to prescribe fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables for patients 

experiencing diet-related chronic illnesses. 

Initiative Sub-Initiative/[Description] Total 5-year budget

Economic Recovery Workforce Development, Career Coaches and 

Green Transition [SolarWorks DC and Green 

Infrastructure Maintenance]

58,687,691

Economic Recovery Food Access 57,670,071

Learning Acceleration Learning Acceleration [Work-based Learning] 32,065,755

Learning Acceleration Childcare 32,015,233

Economic Recovery Other [Excluded Workers Assistance, Delayed UI 

Compensation Payments]

31,581,351

Economic Recovery Green Transition [Home Weatherization and Solar 

for All]

31,500,000

Health Health [TANF Assistance] 23,000,000

Other Access to Justice 15,000,000

Gun Violence Prevention Subsidized and Dedicated Employment 

Opportunities

13,783,389

Economic Recovery Career MAP Pilot 11,694,350

COVID-19 Response Costs COVID-19 Response Costs [Unemployment 

Insurance Call Center Support]

11,004,602

Affordable Housing Eviction Prevention and Relief 8,036,100

Health Food Assistance 7,541,000

Negative Economic Impacts (EC 2) - Residents 333,579,542

Nourish DC/Good Food Fund: This investment addresses inequitable access to fresh, healthy, and affordable 

food by securing grocery stores or brick & mortar fresh food markets within one mile for 95 percent to 99 

percent of residents in Ward 7 and Ward 8, the most food insecure areas, by FY 2024. This would be a 

significant increase over the approximately 42 percent of Ward 7 and Ward 8 residents that have less than a 

mile access today. The Nourish DC/Good Food Fund will provide targeted grants, loans, and/or technical 

assistance to match the needs of small food businesses, ensuring that homegrown businesses can benefit from 

the District’s grocery store strategy. The Nourish DC Fund will primarily assist small/medium grocers but will 

also assist other food businesses that support small format grocers. 

Green Infrastructure Maintenance: In addition to establishing one responsible agency for the maintenance of 

Green Infrastructure (GI) across the District, this project will work to address inequity in the industry by fully 

funding training programs employing GI standards for targeted populations; creating pathways between 

Anacostia High School, the Pathways Program (part of the District’s gun violence prevention effort), training 

programs and GI jobs; and setting requirements for GI maintenance grantees and contractors, including that 

they hire a set percentage of District residents trained in GI maintenance to District standards.

Solar for All and Home Weatherization: Solar for All will install more community solar across the District, enroll 

an additional 3,800 low- and moderate-income households in solar energy assistance and will eliminate 15,000 

metric tons of carbon emissions annually. This funding also compensates for revenue loss due to pandemic 

impacts, enabling the Renewable Energy Development Fund (REDF) to continue current investment levels for 

Solar for All and fully capitalize the Green Bank, which will leverage those funds many times over to further 

green transition efforts. This project will partner with the DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU) and District 
9

agencies to support community renewable energy facilities (CREF) that will provide energy benefits. By 

providing low- and moderate-income residents with electric utility bill assistance in $500 per year in Pepco bill 

credits, Solar for All will mitigate some of the impending electricity shut-offs poised to occur after the Public 

Health Emergency ends. In addition, these investments will make utility bills more affordable for residents who 

are struggling to pay them. 

The Home Weatherization program will provide additional investment in the energy efficiency and health and 

safety of low-income households in the District. By replacing aging systems, improving air flow, and improving 

the insulation within a home, weatherization provides a direct service which leads to safer and healthier 

housing in the District.

Work-Based Learning: Two projects invest significantly in linking learning opportunities to youth employment: 

the Reimagining DC High Schools project and the Earning for Learning project. The Reimagining DC High 

Schools project, which includes a capital component funded with revenue replacement and $20.5 million 

funded under this EC, will connect DC students to in-demand jobs in the District through school-year 

internships for 12th grade students, an expansion of work-based learning experiences starting in middle school, 

and the launch of an Advanced Technical Center, which will serve as a regional hub of Career and Technical 

Education (CTE) programming and innovation. Earning for Learning, costing $11.5 million, will expand the 

Marion Barry Summer Youth Employment program by creating an additional 4,200 seats for high school 

students in need of credit recovery or summer learning. 

Back-2-Work Childcare Grants: The District allocated $32 million to support reopening and to restore and 

sustain the supply of childcare slots, ensuring that families returning to work can access care throughout the 

economic recovery. 

Career MAP Pilot: This $11.7 million project takes an innovative approach to tackling the disincentive families 

face of ‘benefit cliffs’ when they are successful in increasing their incomes. The pilot project will support 300 

families over five years, providing not only case management and housing support but also economic security 

by maintaining stability in households’ total combined income from earnings and benefit programs while 

recipients pursue training, education and career paths that will help to increase their earnings over the course 

of the program.

Business-Focused Investments to Reduce Negative Economic Impacts. In addition to direct support for 

businesses in hard-hit economic sectors to weather the downturn and keep employees on their payrolls, the 

Recovery Plan invests in the city’s longer-term economic growth, both by supporting small businesses’ access 

to capital - with a particular focus on underrepresented communities - and by funding new incentives to attract 

businesses in strategic industries, while ensuring that the resulting deals benefit local residents and businesses. 

In addition to the investments highlighted below, this initiative includes funding to create a one-stop business 

portal for the city’s regulatory requirements using user-centric design; conduct a tourism marketing campaign; 

and collaborate with the Washington DC Economic Partnership to attract, expand, and retain businesses in 

the District.

Initiative Sub-Initiative/[Description]

Total 5-year 

budget
10

Economic Recovery Business Support [Bridge Fund, Hotel 

Relief]

160,000,000

Economic Recovery Ease of Doing Business [Workforce 

Training Partnerships, Business Portal]

20,437,668

Economic Recovery Small Business Growth Loan and Grant 

Fund

15,800,000

Economic Recovery Next Generation Industry Promotion 16,600,000

Economic Recovery Community Activation 8,901,000

Economic Recovery Reimagine Tourism 8,069,000

Negative Economic Impacts (EC 2) - Businesses 229,807,668

Business Support: The District’s Recovery Plan includes $120 million for the District’s Bridge Fund, available to 

small businesses in the hospitality, entertainment, and retail sectors to assist with maintaining their operations 

and employees during the downturn in these industries created by the pandemic, and another $40 million for 

dedicated hotel relief. Of the $100 million in Bridge Grants already awarded, $35 million was granted to the 

restaurant sector, $30 million to hotels, $20 million to entertainment businesses and $15 million to retailers. To 

be eligible for a grant award, businesses are required to demonstrate that they experienced significant 

economic distress due to the COVID-19 emergency. Other considerations include business viability, length of 

revenue-generating operations and District resident employment. 

Small Business Growth Loan and Grant Fund: This initiative includes the Small and Medium Business Growth 

Program and the Equity Impact Fund. The Business Growth Program will issue grants to Community 

Development Financial Institutions for qualifying small and medium businesses, prioritizing businesses located 

in less economically developed wards within the city (Wards 5, 7 and 8). It will provide access to capital for 

commercial ownership, large capital improvements and digital/technological upgrades, helping to support 

underserved entrepreneurs in economically distressed communities. In addition, the Equity Impact Fund will 

increase access to capital for eligible businesses that would not otherwise receive early-stage funding through 

conventional financing. It will work to create a pipeline of eligible businesses that are attractive investment 

opportunities in the District by supporting these businesses in the development of 12-month individualized 

business plans and providing technical assistance. 

Employment Center Vitality and Local Jobs Creation Fund: The central investment in the Next Generation 

Industry Promotion initiative, this $15 million fund will provide grants to attract large, transformative anchors 

within priority sectors and growing companies that can accelerate the ecosystem. Awards will be contingent 

on employer commitments to equitable hiring and purchasing with local DC-based companies, above and 

beyond existing by-right incentives.

Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities (EC 3)

It’s not by chance that nearly half (40%) of DC’s Recovery Plan is dedicated to Services to Disproportionately 

Impacted Communities. COVID-19 and its economic impacts disproportionately impacted some residents 

more than others. For many who were already experiencing opportunity gaps at the start of the pandemic, the 

disparities expanded. The Recovery Plan invests heavily in projects that support low-income residents and 

neighborhoods, as well as other populations that are disproportionately made up of black or brown residents, 

such as people and places traumatized by gun violence. It includes historic investments in affordable housing, 
11

reducing homelessness, preventing gun violence, assistance for returning citizens, tutoring to mitigate learning 

loss and housing for victims of domestic violence.

Initiative Sub-Initiative/[Description]

Total 5-year 

budget

Affordable Housing Housing Production 323,416,023

Economic Recovery Earn & Learn 111,525,929

Affordable Housing Homeward DC (Families, Singles and Youth) and Low 

Barrier Shelter for Transgender Adults

116,353,853

Economic Recovery Gun Violence Prevention 63,846,073

Affordable Housing Housing Preservation 27,157,624

Learning Acceleration Learning Acceleration [High Impact Tutoring, Summer 

Plus, Out-of-School Time Grants, Boost Camps]

56,219,579

COVID-19 Response CostsCOVID-19 Response Costs [Enhanced Shelter 

Operations]

43,063,476

Economic Recovery DC Skills Fund [Tuition Assistance] 36,306,342

Economic Recovery Assistance for Returning Citizens 36,362,250

Affordable Housing Other [Affordable Housing Acquisition and Community 

Land Trust Grant]

33,000,000

Affordable Housing Domestic Violence Victims 17,700,000

Youth Safety Youth Safety 24,827,463

Economic Recovery Green Transition [Lead & Mold Mitigation] 15,000,000

Learning Acceleration Child Care 10,000,000

Learning Acceleration Youth Mental Health & SEL 3,265,176

Alternative 911 Response Alternative 911 Response [Community Mediation Training] 60,000

Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities (EC 3) 918,103,788

Affordable Housing: A key priority in the Recovery Plan is the production and preservation of affordable 

housing. Specifically, the Plan includes investments of $323 million for affordable housing production and $27

million for affordable housing preservation. The District continues to attract and retain high-income residents 

who are able to support and drive demand for high-cost housing options. This creates downward pressure as 

there are fewer housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income residents. Funding affordable housing 

production and preservation is critical to expanding suitable housing options for residents who might 

otherwise be forced to relocate to other jurisdictions to reduce their housing cost burdens. The funding in the 

Recovery Plan will keep the District on track to meet the Mayor’s goals of adding 12,000 net new affordable 

housing units by the end of CY 2025, within a total of 36,000 net new housing units overall and preserving 

1,000 units of existing affordable housing that would otherwise cease to be available.

Earn & Learn Programs: This dramatic expansion of job training programs offering subsidized employment will 

provide residents with opportunities to earn income while gaining workforce experience and/or credentials 

related to high-demand occupations and in-demand job skills. Consistent with the overall workforce recovery 

target populations, the project will focus on serving residents without bachelor’s degrees, those transitioning 

from hospitality industry jobs, and residents with multiple barriers to employment. 

Learning Acceleration: This initiative includes a comprehensive approach to ensuring youth in DC, adult 

learners, and the city’s families with infants and toddlers can return to productive and empowered lives as the 

city and nation recover from this public health emergency. The High Impact Tutoring (HIT) project is designed 
12

to leverage and complement the relief local education agencies (LEAs) will receive from the Elementary and 

Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER). We know, from surveys, outreach, and legislative 

requirements, LEAs must use these funds to expedite the learning recovery students need in order to 

graduate prepared for the competitive global job markets of the future. Despite LEAs’ resources from ESSER, 

no centralized infrastructure and technical assistance exist in DC for these LEAs to tap into to ensure they 

are soliciting high quality and effective supports for their students. HIT will meet this need strategically with 

input from stakeholders and LEAs. 

Summer+ and Boost Camps, similarly, are connected projects that seek to leverage incredibly popular summer 

programming that often have waitlists each year with more capacity and augmented services that include 

academic enrichment. Additionally, high quality childcare is an important economic recovery factor for families 

returning to work in-person as well as a crucial juncture in education. Supporting the production of affordable 

and high-quality childcare in our most vulnerable neighborhoods will be a key component of the recovery for 

families hardest hit by the pandemic. The sub-initiative of child care also leverages investments in the ARP to 

the Child Care and Development Fund. The District’s recovery plan includes stabilization and augmentations 

to the District’s child care subsidy rates. Together with SLFRF projects, it’s our goal to tackle multiple 

dimensions of this policy area issue, but most prominently the issues of quality, affordability, and supply. 

Finally, mental health has become a front and center issue across the nation as this pandemic has shed a 

spotlight on the deep effects of isolation. Our youth are no less susceptible to these effects and in fact may 

be more vulnerable to them. In order to ensure our youth pull through this experience as more resilient adults, 

investments in youth mental health and social emotional learning will ensure students across all schools have 

access to support whenever needed by expanding the school-based mental health program and supporting 

students in crisis. 

Gun Violence Prevention: To respond to the local impacts of the nationwide trends of rising gun violence, the 

Recovery Plan includes a major investment in the city’s infrastructure for preventing and responding to gun 

violence. The funded programs, developed as part of the Building Blocks DC initiative, support the goal of 

achieving a 10% reduction in gunshot incidents and gun homicide victims per year. These investments are both 

person-based and place-based, including violence intervention, restorative justice, intensive case 

coordination, subsidized employment, safe housing, trauma-informed mental health services, community 

grants, outreach, expanded recreation activities and more. Person-based investments are designed to connect 

persons at risk of gun violence with credible contacts and support networks, stabilize their concrete needs 

and provide opportunities for transformation. Place-based investments are intended to rebuild public trust, 

make physical spaces safer and support existing community efforts to reduce violence and engage in other 

activities. These investments will be targeted to reach the people and places with the highest risks of gun 

violence. Specifically, Building Blocks DC’s efforts will focus on the 151 blocks in the District that represent

about 2% of all of the city’s blocks but comprise 41% of shootings.

Assistance to Returning Citizens: The District’s Recovery Plan includes $36 million to provide flexible financial 

assistance, individual financial counseling, and peer navigator services to returning citizens. Each year, on 

average, there are approximately 6,000 incarcerated individuals released to the DC community, both with 

and without convictions. The needs of returning citizens are great and include housing, employment, substance 
13

abuse and mental health services, and family and community reintegration support. The COVID-19 pandemic 

both resulted in the compassionate release of some prisoners and exacerbated barriers to successful reentry 

that returning citizens have historically faced. 

The returning citizens population in the District, consistent with national trends, is disproportionately made 

up of Black and other minority groups. Reentry services provider data indicates a client base that is 95% Black. 

In addition, formerly incarcerated people are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general 

public. Flexible financial assistance can be tailored according to individual needs assessments to cover costs 

associated with obtaining housing and employment, such as assistance with security deposits, financial support 

for family members providing housing, applications for IDs and other legal documents, Internet connectivity 

and transportation. This assistance, along with financial counseling and peer navigators, will reduce barriers 

faced by returning citizens to increase the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community and 

reduce recidivism and its associated costs.

Domestic Violence Housing and Services: In light of the increase in domestic violence incidents during the 

COVID-19 pandemic, the District’s Recovery Plan includes funding to significantly expand available housing 

and services for victims and survivors. $17 million will support community-based organizations in acquiring, 

expanding, and operating dedicated housing units for victims of domestic violence, as well as temporarily 

increasing services to meet higher levels of need. Another $700,000 will be used to provide targeted services 

and dedicated emergency shelter housing for LGBTQ+ victims and survivors of domestic violence.

Water, Sewer and Broadband Infrastructure (EC 5)

DC limited its use of federal recovery funds on infrastructure projects due to the infrastructure funding bill is

pending in Congress. DC did invest in two critical projects that fall within this category, however: $30 million

for lead pipe replacement and $3 million in additional funding for the Childhood Lead Exposure Act of 2017. 

It is now widely understood that a number of illnesses and injuries can be caused by lead exposure, with 

particularly negative impacts for children, and as with other environmental harms, these impacts are not 

equitably distributed. Nationally, Black children are nearly three times more likely than white children to have 

elevated blood-lead levels. The federal relief funds are a welcome opportunity to invest additional funding in 

measures to reduce lead exposure in the District.

Lead Pipe Replacement Programs: In the District, as in most older cities, homes built before the 1980s were 

typically built with a lead service line—the pipe that connects the city water supply to a house’s plumbing. A 

portion of the pipe is in public space and a portion is on private property. This project will provide additional

support for the District’s existing programs to assist homeowners with the replacement of lead pipes on their 

property, including replacements that occur simultaneous with replacements of the public side of the lead 

service lines as well as those where the public side of the pipe is no longer lead but the private side has not 

yet been replaced.

Childhood Lead Exposure Prevention: Among other requirements, the Childhood Lead Exposure Prevention 

Amendment Act of 2017 (L22-21) requires DC schools, recreation centers and child development facilities to 

maintain filters for reducing lead at all drinking water sources and test these sources for lead annually. This 
14

project makes the additional investment needed to ensure that all requirements pertaining to Public Charter 

Schools can be fully implemented.

Revenue Replacement (EC 6)

The District’s calculation of revenue loss due to the COVID-19 public health emergency from FY 2021 through 

the first quarter of FY 2025, based on the Treasury Department’s guidance, is more than $3.8 billion, exceeding

the total amount of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated to the District. Within this upward limit, 

the District is currently planning to allocate between $600 and $850 million in Coronavirus State Funds to 

replace lost revenue in supporting District services. Preliminary allocations used a highly conservative view of 

potential eligible uses of relief funds, resulting in the larger amount in the range provided. However, further

review has indicated that many planned uses of revenue replacement may constitute eligible uses of funds 

under other ECs, and we have categorized those projects accordingly for the purposes of this report. As a 

result, only $599 million of planned spending is categorized under EC 6 within this report.

Initiative Sub-Initiative/[Description]

Total 5-year 

budget

Revenue Replacement WMATA operating support [FY23/FY24] $102,008,898

Revenue Replacement [General government services] $49,029,623

Revenue Replacement [Federal tax conformity lost revenue offset] $39,800,000

Learning Acceleration Childcare $92,441,263

Economic Recovery Green Transition [Building Energy Performance, Other] $65,510,993

Gun Violence Prevention Building Blocks DC $43,054,427

Economic Recovery Future Mobility [and transportation investments, including 

Capital Paygo]

$41,115,091

Economic Recovery Ease of Doing Business $34,294,536

Economic Recovery Reimagining Public Spaces $24,502,044

Youth Safety [DC SchoolConnect/microtransit - Safe Passage] $20,910,583

Oversight, Accountability 

and Efficiency

[Funding for the Office of the Inspector General, Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer, capacity & evaluation, etc.]

$18,460,225

Economic Recovery [Resident assistance programs] $16,338,250

Learning Acceleration Learning Acceleration, Youth Mental Health & SEL, and 

Other

$16,092,580

Gun Violence Prevention [Cure the Streets] $9,943,870

Economic Recovery Reimagining Tourism $8,830,000

Alternative 911 Response [Respond to minor crashes and parking complaints; add 

911 call-takers; public awareness campaign]

$5,286,385

Economic Recovery [Commercial Acquisition Fund and other small/medium 

business assistance]

$5,000,000

Affordable Housing [Employer-Assisted Housing Program expansion] $4,500,000

Health Health $1,525,529

Revenue Replacement (EC 6) $598,644,297

Within the Revenue Replacement Expenditure Category, DC will use $102 million to help support its share of 

the regional transit system operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in 

Fiscal Years 2023 and 2024. WMATA is supported by the District through a combination of local revenue, 

parking taxes and parking meter revenue. As a result of the pandemic and necessary shutdowns, economic 

activity dropped significantly, leading the District to have to add significant funds to make up for the loss

parking taxes and parking meter fees to continue to support WMATA. Another $39.8 million will cover local 

revenue reductions resulting from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credit (CTC) federal 
15

tax changes under the American Rescue Plan Act. To support further revenue gap closing, $26.2 million was 

allocated to support general government services across DC’s four-year financial plan. 

The remaining revenue replacement funds will support a range of new investments. Some of these will be onetime or temporary costs, but the District plans to absorb recurring costs into the local budget after the Federal 

recovery funds are no longer available. We reserved a portion of future anticipated local revenues in the 

financial plan for this purpose in FY 2025. 

Administrative costs (EC 7):

The major initiatives and projects in this expenditure category can be roughly divided into two groups: the 

contractual support needed for COVID-19 response and the administration of the funds handled by the 

District’s internal services agencies. 

Initiative Sub-Initiative/[Description]

Total 5-year 

budget

Oversight, Accountability and Efficiency Recovery Plan Implementation Support 9,750,000

COVID-19 Response Costs COVID-19 Response Costs 7,879,029

Administrative Costs (EC 7) $17,629,029

COVID-19 Response Costs: Due to the large volume of procurements and invoice processing related to the 

District’s response to the public health emergency, for needs such as PPE, expanded or new contractor 

operations for deep cleanings, testing, and more, internal service agencies like the Office of Contracting and 

Procurement (OCP), have required additional support to ensure these urgent needs are met. 

Oversight, Accountability and Efficiency: The District has also devoted considerable attention to ensuring the 

successful management, oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of these significant federal resources. The 

Recovery Plan includes funding to increase capacity within the Office of the Inspector General and the Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The District benefits from already having in place a strong performance 

management team and a team of social scientists within the Lab@DC which will be expanded to support the 

launch, evaluation, and monitoring of federal recovery initiatives, as well as an Office of Racial Equity to help 

ensure that investments are having the intended positive impacts on disproportionately impacted populations.
16

Promoting Equitable Outcomes 

Efforts to promote equity

Equity has long been a focus of Mayor Bowser’s administration and has been an area of heightened public 

awareness during the pandemic. Equity in Governance is a core tenet of the District that was formalized in 

2019 with the launch of ResilientDC; this priority is demonstrated throughout District programs and services. 

The District furthered its commitment to racial equity in 2021 with the establishment of D.C.’s first Office of 

Racial Equity (ORE). This Office “focuses on developing an infrastructure to ensure policy decisions and 

District programs are evaluated through a racial equity lens; the office also carries forward the implementation 

of the Racial Equity Achieves Results ‘REACH Act’ (D.C. Act 23-521).” The development of an equitable 

Recovery Plan for the District was also guided by equity-focused questions asked during the budget 

formulation period of the District’s local budget as well as its ARPA-funded recovery budget. Equity was and 

remains the center of discussion and focus. 

The magnitude of the stimulus passed by Congress and signed by President Biden on March 11, 2021 presented 

a historic opportunity to close opportunity gaps and build a more equitable city. Upon passage of the American 

Rescue Plan Act, the District began early and proactive conversations with experts regarding how to target 

relief to the residents and businesses most affected by the pandemic, both economically and in terms of health 

outcomes. The expertise lent to the District by these conversations directly informed what projects came 

under consideration. During the budget formulation exercises that followed, there was a consistent priority 

placed upon delivering projects and relief in a proportionate manner, such that families who experienced the 

deepest hardship as a result of the public health emergency and resulting economic recession would 

experience the most intense level of assistance, outreach, and resources -- not only to help resuscitate 

professions and careers, but to help improve mental health and community resilience. 

Through these discussions, we confronted again the difficult realities that residents in DC who are Black, 

Hispanic, or have lower educational attainment are disproportionately likely to face employment challenges; 

that women in DC, particularly women of color, have disproportionately left the labor force due to COVID; 

that certain occupations faced significant displacement risk from automation with a potential for 

disproportionate impact across demographics such as gender, race, and education. The public health 

emergency also reinforced long-standing geographic opportunity gaps by disproportionately claiming more 

lives in Wards 4, 5, 7, and 8. Underlying these disparate mortality rates by neighborhood are unequal case and 

vaccination rates. These sobering data about the magnitude and seriousness of the inequities these 

investments aim to address directly informed what initiatives and projects were under consideration and 

proposed funding levels. 

The District’s first Chief Equity Officer was appointed in April 2021. As such, the work of ORE is still under 

development as it is set to establish racial equity indicator baselines and standardize racial equity practices 

across District agencies. This Office, in coordination with the Mayor’s Office of Budget and Performance 

Management (OBPM), will play a key role advising on the equitable implementation of ARPA funds. ORE will 

help to ensure that District agencies responsible for executing recovery projects have high quality equity and 

racial equity strategies, goals, and monitoring and evaluation procedures.

How equity is contemplated at various stages of service delivery 
17

Populations: Are there historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected groups that DC intends

to serve?

The District fulfills the functions of both a municipality and a state, serving a wide range of communities, 

including broad and varied subpopulations who have been historically underserved and/or experience 

intersecting marginalities. For example, the District administers federal nutrition benefits such as SNAP, health 

benefits such as Medicaid, and D.C.-specific programs such as returning citizen programs or programs for 

residents experiencing homelessness. Clients of any of the above programs may periodically participate in 

more than one program, which reflects the overlapping and often compound nature of intersecting 

marginalities. Except in instances of District resources with universal access, such as public spaces, populations 

served are part of every agency’s strategy development and reporting requirements, including subpopulations 

who may require special consideration. By virtue of the District’s racial and ethnic composition (residents who 

identify as Black comprise the city’s largest racial or ethnic group), racial equity is a core concern across District 

operations irrespective of program focus. 

Specific to SLFRF projects, a review of survey responses from District agencies about various aspects of 

individual projects was distributed to District agencies managing projects funded with State and Local Fiscal 

Relief Funds (SLFRFs). Respondents indicated that about two-thirds of the projects set to be administered in 

the current and next fiscal year will serve an economically disadvantaged community. Of that group, roughly 

45 percent of the projects will be provided at a physical location in a Qualified Census Tract, occur where the 

primary intended beneficiaries live within a Qualified Census Tract, provide a program or service for which 

the eligibility criteria are such that the primary intended beneficiaries earn less than 60 percent of the median 

income for the relevant jurisdiction (e.g., State, county, metropolitan area, or other jurisdiction), or provide a 

program or service for which the eligibility criteria are such that over 25 percent of intended beneficiaries are 

below the federal poverty line.

Remaining projects have identified target clients who come from historically underserved or marginalized 

communities. For example, the District’s Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants (OVSJG) will utilize 

SLFRF for a project that will provide shelter services for LGBTQ+ residents who experience domestic 

violence. This agency’s response to the survey is shown below. 

Project: Shelter for LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Victims A05311

“This project will specifically impact LGBTQ+ victims who are in need of shelter services and supports. 

In 2020, The Human Rights Campaign reported that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to be victims of 

interpersonal violence during COVID-19. They report that "44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexual women 

experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner, compared to 35% of straight 

women and more than half (54%) of transgender and non-binary respondents experienced intimate 

partner violence in their lifetimes." [...]According to victim data collected by OVSJG victim service 

grantees, the majority of victim grantees serve marginalized communities. Out of the victims whose race 

was recorded, In FY 20 37% served were Black. Additionally, out of the victims who have recorded 

residences, grantees reported [most belong to] Ward 7 and 8.”
18

Awareness: How equal and practical is the ability for residents or businesses to become aware of the services 

funded by the SLFRF?

In a review of these survey responses by implementing agencies, outreach and community engagement 

strategies for services funded by the SLFRF were shown to be tailored to the specific programmatic target 

clientele. Outreach efforts span across a number of strategies. While the data collected from this survey 

indicate that most projects will hold some form of a community engagement meeting and/or direct 

engagement through social media, outreach oriented to resident needs is consistent practice across SLFRF 

implementation. E.g., programs serving residents facing eviction will utilize their outlets to reach individuals at 

events such as tenant association meetings. 

Project: Office of the Tenant Advocate (OTA) Support A13205

“The agency will, on an ongoing basis, compare the equity demographic data of initiative participants 

with demographic data provided by the Office of the Mayor; promotion of the initiative will be targeted 

in sectors under-represented in initiative data. OTA [will utilize] Stakeholder Meetings, presentations to 

tenant associations, promotion of the initiative at the Landlord/Tenant Branch, and responses to those 

contacting the agency on the Tenant Hotline [in order to reach residents]. [Forms of outreach will include 

but are not limited to:] Social Media, Townhall or Public Forum, Mail / Postal Campaign, Media Purchases 

(radio, tv), Feedback forms, In-person tenant association meetings, and individual guidance.”

In the case of direct service provision, implementing agencies accompany blanket outreach methods such as 

billboards, social media placement, and town hall events with targeted media purchases, direct solicitation, 

and partnerships with trusted community messengers. Targeted approaches identify and reach underserved 

communities as defined and measured by multiple equity indicators, including but not limited to geography 

(qualified Census tracts), income (using both federal and district measures of poverty and median income), 

and disproportionate incursion of COVID-19 deaths and/or business closures. 

Access and Distribution: Are there differences in levels of access to benefits and services across groups?

While many projects will target benefits and services to specific groups, 17 will intentionally scale services or 

access to benefits based on population types. These projects primarily draw from District initiatives focusing 

on affordable housing, health, and gun violence prevention. For some projects the primary mechanism for 

scaling benefits to need is dependent on data monitoring and eligibility restrictions, such as in the area of 

affordable housing. However, in other projects, population types will determine the focus of an intervention. 

For example, food assistance is one area that plans to target services specifically to vulnerable populations in 

DC.
19

Project: Senior Meal Delivery G12201

“Prior to the public health emergency, Washington, D.C. had the highest rate of food insecurity among 

seniors in the country. In terms of COVID-19, seniors were the most vulnerable, due to disproportionate 

rates of chronic disease and compromised immune systems. During the pandemic, rates of social 

isolation in this population increased, as seniors were [reluctant] to leave their house due to fear of 

exposure. Because of this, rates of food insecurity among seniors are expected to rise and stay high long 

after the pandemic ends. In order to meet this need, targeted food access interventions for this 

population are necessary. In addition, in order to better meet the need, the program pivoted its model 

during the public health emergency to be inclusive of delivery.”

In instances where it is not financially possible or practical to provide services universally, eligibility tests are 

applied to give highest priority to clients with the highest need, for example 90% of the clients served by the 

Department of Disability Services initiative to increase access to telehealth are estimated to be Medicaid 

eligible. Where applicable, the District seeks to shift the burden of awareness of and access to services from 

the client to the implementing agency, for example, the District’s Health Benefit Exchange continuously 

engages with carrier partners to determine eligible businesses and consumers, calculate past-due amounts, 

and apply payments to past-due premiums for economically impacted D.C. residents and small businesses.

Outcomes: Are intended outcomes focused on closing gaps, reaching universal levels of service, or 

disaggregating progress by race, ethnicity, and other equity dimensions where relevant for the policy 

objective?

Yes, where relevant and to the extent possible, implementing agencies collect program data which allow for 

analysis of service outcomes by a number of equity dimensions, including race, ethnicity, and income. More 

than half of the programs which implement SLFRF funds have plans to evaluate final program results against 

these outcome measures. With regard to public health and safety measures, such as vaccination against 

COVID-19, the District strives to reach universal levels of service through high-volume, personal touch 

outreach (such as door-to-door solicitation), mobile service delivery centers, and incentive programs focused 

on historically underserved communities, many of which collocate with low-income neighborhoods and 

neighborhoods with high densities of Black and other residents of color. Finally, as previously mentioned, the 

work of the ORE is in development. A key project is developing a racial equity measurement and data strategy. 

The goal of this project, in part, is to enhance the ability of agencies to utilize data analysis enable effective 

decision-making that reduces inequitable outcomes.

Describe how your jurisdiction’s planned or current use of funds prioritizes economic and racial equity as a 

goal, names specific targets intended to produce meaningful equity results at scale and articulates the 

strategies to achieve those targets. Explain how your jurisdiction’s overall equity strategy translates into the 

specific services or programs offered by your jurisdiction in the following Expenditure Categories: 

With regards to distribution and implementation of ARPA funds from March through July of 2021, 

implementing agencies set equity and racial equity goals, in addition to monitoring and evaluation procedures 
20

at the agency level. As such, equity and racial equity strategies and targets vary by the unique services and 

clientele served by individual agencies. With over fifty-three agencies under Mayor Bowser’s direction,

reporting on individual agency equity strategies would pose an undue burden on District capacity. This section 

provides select narratives from implementing agencies to highlight the equity strategies and practices 

employed across the District’s wide-reaching, substantial pandemic response. 

Negative Economic Impacts (EC 2): assistance to households, small businesses, and non-profits to address 

impacts of the pandemic, which have been most severe among low-income populations. This includes 

assistance with food, housing, and other needs; employment programs for people with barriers to 

employment who faced negative economic impacts from the pandemic (such as residents of low-income 

neighborhoods, minorities, disconnected youth, the unemployed, formerly incarcerated people, veterans, 

and people with disabilities); and other strategies that provide disadvantaged groups with access to 

education, jobs, and opportunity.

Where relevant and to the extent possible, implementing agencies prioritize serving residents and 

establishments who have been most severely impacted by the pandemic. The nature of the services provided 

dictate the nature of each agency’s targeted support and/or the barriers redressed to narrow equity and racial 

equity gaps. Given both the nature of D.C.’s demographic composition and the disparate impacts of COVID19 on residents, racial and ethnic equity is a consistent priority across the District’s SLFRF funded pandemic 

response activities. Notable examples include:

● Housing initiatives, including programs which target individuals experiencing intersecting marginalities, 

as well programs which seek to break cycles of intergenerational inequities, such as Homeward DC for 

families and individuals, and the Housing Preservation Fund. 

● Employment planning and training initiatives, including for returning citizens, families at risk of or 

experiencing homelessness, and underserved youth. 

○ The District seeks to invest in families participating in the Rapid Rehousing program (RRH), over 

90% of whom are residents who identify as Black females and support their transition out of 

poverty and into the middle class. Adults in families in RRH unequivocally express their desire 

to pursue a career and provide a better life for their children, yet become ineligible for income 

support programs which cover essential needs (particularly housing and childcare) as their 

earned income grows, but before they earn enough to cover these costs. This dynamic, often 

referred to as a “benefit cliff”, embeds obstacles to opportunity and economic mobility in our 

“social safety net” programs. Reducing this cliff and bridging its resulting gap are of particular 

concern to an equitable pandemic recovery for all D.C. residents as unemployment benefits, 

eviction moratoria, and other pandemic-related federal protections begin to expire. 

○ Through services like the Peer Navigator program, the Mayor’s Office of Returning Citizen 

Affairs (MORCA) encourages all D.C. government agencies, private employers, and communitybased organizations to incorporate initiatives, programs, and employment opportunities which 

specifically target returning citizens, the preponderance of whom are District residents who 

identify as Black. 

○ Other notable initiatives include nursing and IT pathway and training grants; and employer 

partnership training grants for sub-baccalaureate training.
21

● Initiatives which support and protect small businesses, particularly business with Black and Latino 

proprietors which have seen the highest rates of closure across the District due to the pandemic.

○ The Streets for People program through the Mayor’s Office of Planning creates opportunities 

for partnerships with small-scale businesses and entrepreneurs and increases access to healthy 

food through farmers markets, streateries, and outdoor dining expansion. This equity driven 

approach aims to close the gaps in high rates of closures among Black and Latino businesses 

and expand support and opportunities for underserved and underrepresented entrepreneurs. 

● Transportation equity

○ DDOT is working toward having more data points that measure transportation equity. As that 

effort improves, it can be utilized with the transportation needs maps created in the update to 

moveDC, our long-range transportation planning document. That map is based on an index of 

proximity to frequent transit, access to jobs / destinations, and identified safety risks. It includes 

four of the populations included in DDOT’s equity definition (persons of color, low-income, 

persons with disabilities, and persons with low-English proficiency) allowing DDOT staff to see 

where needs and historically under-resourced communities live. As our programmatic data 

points improve, that can become part of our systemwide analysis and ensure we are expanding 

programs where safety, mobility, and accessibility needs will be most improved or impactful. 

Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities (EC 3): services to address health disparities and 

the social determinants of health, build stronger neighborhoods and communities (e.g., affordable 

housing), address educational disparities (e.g., evidence-based tutoring, community schools, and 

academic, social-emotional, and mental health supports for high poverty schools), and promote healthy 

childhood environments (e.g., home visiting, child care).

The nature of the services provided dictate the nature of each agency’s targeted support and/or the barriers 

redressed to narrow equity and racial equity gaps. As race, ethnicity, and poverty are social determinants of 

health, the initiatives listed above heavily overlap with EC 3. Of note, the DC Department of Health’s recently 

published post-pandemic strategy, COVID-19 Pandemic Health & Health Care Recovery Report (May 2021), 

notes that ”... [our] aim is to return to a health ecosystem prepared to not only address another global 

pandemic, but to better address all health needs in the District through integration and a focus on health 

equity.” The report notes further “While the pandemic has caused a significant amount of suffering and 

negative impacts on health outcomes, it has also come with some instrumental, positive lessons learned.” (p 1)

In framing the importance of a wider post-pandemic context, the report also noted: “The challenges, 

experience, and disparate outcomes of the pandemic in the District, has, if nothing else, underscored the 

necessity to apply an equity informed, structural analysis to our work going forward. In order to eliminate 

disparities in health outcomes, our collective actions must be intentional in three key areas: access to quality 

health care; social and structural determinants of health; and structural and institutional racism.” 3

Additional notable examples of the District’s concerted efforts to apply an equity and racial equity lens to its 

SLFRF funded pandemic response activities include:

● Services to promote the health and dignity of residents experiencing homelessness

○ The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the racial inequities that result in Black individuals 

representing 47% of DC's overall population but account for 86% of those experiencing 
22

homelessness. This program seeks to protect individuals most at-risk and already severely 

impacted by systemic inequity from the virus while in shelter and congregate settings.

● Services for children and families who have been involved with CFSA or the justice system

○ The project is dedicated to neighborhoods that are under resourced and populations most 

impacted by systemic racism. Communities in Ward 5 have also been identified as 

disproportionately affected by children and families’ involvement in CFSA. The agency is 

working to address many issues and concerns of equity and race.

● The Deputy Mayor’s Office of Education is launching services which support students who 

experienced greatest loss of learning and were otherwise most impacted by the pandemic, including 

the following:

○ New microtransit routes serving 23 elementary, middle, and high schools in Safe Passage zones 

in communities with the greatest disparities in educational outcomes, providing a safer 

alternative for students to get to and from school.

○ Safe Passage program for schools in the seven Safe Passage priority areas, impacting the school 

communities of an estimated 44 schools. 

○ Empowering Males of Color (EMOC) Rites of Passage Program which provides intentional, 

strategic programs, supports and opportunities for young men of color.

○ Equity and Anti-Racism Mini Grant Opportunity which provides innovative funding for over 25 

schools to implement equity programming targeted to their school communities.

○ Anti-Racist Educator University - Program to provide public school staff with shared learning 

rooted in anti-racism through content experts, professional learning communities and microcredentialing.

Describe your jurisdiction’s efforts to date and intended outcomes to promote equity using qualitative 

and quantitative data on how the jurisdiction’s approach achieved or promoted equitable outcomes or 

progressed against equity goals. Describe any constraints or challenges that impacted project success in 

terms of increasing equity. 

Please see above for an overview of the District’s commitment to Equity in Governance, including the 

establishment of an Office of Racial Equity (ORE). ORE will serve as a resource to advise and support agencies 

in equitable practices henceforth but was not in place at the time of ARPA implementation planning.

 
23

Community Engagement 

Overview of the FY 2022 budget formulation 

Prior to the passing of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) the District of Columbia engaged in a 

crosscutting budget formulation process that pulled agencies together to maximize the District’s impact on 

improving the quality of residents’ lives while also reducing costs wherever possible as our general fund 

revenues experienced significant write downs as a result of the public health emergency and the resulting 

economic recession. The crosscutting process formed the aforementioned eight District initiatives: COVID-19 

Public Health Emergency Direct Response Costs; Economic Recovery for Residents and Businesses; Building 

and Preserving Affordable Housing; Learning Acceleration; Healthcare; Gun Violence Prevention; Youth 

Safety; and Alternative 911 Response. 

Within each of these there are sub-initiatives that also brought together stakeholders and DC agencies. These 

common goals created a deep need for understanding and engagement with those most directly affected or 

serviced by government assistance. Through this process, agencies pulled from their institutional knowledge 

as well as regularly occurring engagement touch points, such as action planning meetings, about what 

communities need and what services delivery partners can reasonably achieve during this time period.

This effort to understand and build funding proposals around response and recovery began prior to the 

passing of ARPA. In February 2021, Mayor Bowser held a series of budget engagement forums where she 

solicited ideas and feedback from DC’s residents to inform the FY 2022 budget priorities – a practice she 

created and has implemented since her very first year in office. The forums, attended by hundreds of residents 

each year, provide opportunity for discussion and engagement from the community on the biggest challenges 

DC faces and residents priorities for funding. Additionally, a survey was released online to gather additional 

feedback and provide an opportunity for residents who could not make the budget forums, to provide input 

and ideas.

Guidance for how ARPA funds could be used became available only 17 days before the Mayor Bowser

submitted her complete proposal to the DC Council for review. 

Once submitted, the Council review period lasts 60 days. The DC Council conducts open session hearings 

each year to hear from constituents about a variety of issues, among them is the budget. This year, this process 

encompassed the Recovery Budget, chiefly funded via ARPA funding from Treasury as well as ARPA funding 

from augmented formula grants to all jurisdictions. 

The DC Council held 47 public hearings on the budget during its review period this year and had over 1,300 

testimonies on issues related to spending decisions. The stakeholder engagement and constituent testimonies 

by committee are as follows:

Committee # of Hearings # of Testifiers

Committee on Recreation, Youth and Libraries 4 50

Committee of the Whole (Education Agencies) 3 190

Committee on Government Operations and Facilities 4 94

Committee on Housing and Executive Administration 5 132
24

Committee of the Whole (non-Education Agencies) 5 252

Committee on Business and Economic Development 5 58

Committee on Labor and Workforce Development 5 58

Committee on Health 3 164

Committee on Transportation and the Environment 5 100

Committee on Human Services 4 92

Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety 4 291

Engagement by specific projects: a review of survey data

In order to meet the initial annual report requirement, a survey about various aspects of individual projects 

was distributed to District agencies managing projects funded with State and Local Fiscal Relief Funds 

(SLFRFs). The data collected from this survey indicates that about half of respondents are planning to hold 

some form of a community engagement meeting. This was most frequently described as planned public forums 

or townhalls. 

The second most commonly planned method of engagement and outreach to communities includes social 

media or direct engagement to stakeholders in the form of campaigns involving e-mail, phone calls and/or 

texts, or mailers. 

Chart CE 1. Survey Response Data from District Agencies about what method of outreach are under

consideration for individual projects

Of course, methods of engagement shift and adapt to the communities served by each project. For example, 

programming meant to serve businesses responded to the survey questionnaire with plans to engage regional 

membership organizations and small business technical assistance providers for engagement support. 

One powerful and often used tool, particularly in the education policy area, are information and listening 

sessions. These sessions are designed to gather information from the targets of interventions about what 

specific resources are needed during this critical time. 
25

For example, one excerpt of survey responses from our State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) related to 

funds that will become available to assist schools is reducing learning loss through evidence-based 

interventions such as high frequency tutoring, detailed the deep investigation the agency underwent to 

determine exactly what families needed in public schools and public charters schools in an effort to strike the 

best balance for parents, teachers, school leaders, and more:

Project: High Impact Tutoring H14303

“In summer 2020, the District conducted a citywide reopening survey that reached more than 12,000 

families, and this feedback informed our 2020-21 Guiding Principles and subsequent guidance to [local 

education agencies] LEAs. Furthermore, in February, March, and April 2021, OSSE and [the Deputy 

Mayor for Education] DME together conducted 23 focus groups on continuous education for next year, 

school year 2021-22, with over 240 attendees, including school leaders, teachers, families, and students 

representing all 8 District wards. The attendees represented traditional public schools, public charter 

schools, and nonpublic special education schools serving District students, as well as civil rights 

education advocacy groups and nonprofits that are deeply focused on racial equity and civil rights. 

Attendees gave detailed feedback on the major challenges faced by their school communities during the 

pandemic, and also gave suggestions to OSSE about what supports and improvements they would need

for a successful 2021-22 school year. All of these engagement efforts have informed the District's plans 

for accelerated learning and our focus on high impact tutoring specifically.”

Additionally, given the cross-cutting nature of this year’s unprecedented formulation process, many agencies 

have embarked on interconnected outreach methods--learning from-, and utilizing- other agencies’ and 

stakeholders’ community engagement practices and platforms. The effects of this cross collaboration showed 

up in many responses from agencies when asked about how they were planning to conduct outreach to 

stakeholders and communities. Two examples below demonstrate how the DC Department of Energy and the 

Environment (DOEE) and the DC Department of Human Services would be utilizing collaborative processes 

and platforms to reach our residents.

Project: Green Transition E13601

“DOEE is partnering with the Building Innovation Hub, DC Green Bank, and DC Sustainable Energy 

Utility to provide coordinated outreach to all affordable housing building owners who are not meeting 

the District's Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS). We will be jointly hosting a kick-off event 

in the fall of 2021 for the ARPA-funded projects to connect affordable housing building owners with the 

resources they need to meet BEPS and other related green and energy initiatives.”

Project: Homeward DC A06311

“Homeward DC 2.0 is the result of a highly collaborative process led by the District of Columbia 

Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH), the Community Partnership for the Prevention of 

Homelessness (TCP), and the ICH’s Strategic Planning Committee, including persons with lived 

experiences of homelessness. [This project has already had] over 45 community meetings for public 

input.”
26

Finally, the District is proud to maintain robust touch points with its communities through reliable and 

consistent engagement conducted by DC agencies. This was another commonly referenced mechanism by 

which DC agencies anticipate conducting outreach to stakeholders and residents. 

One example of this work is the District’s agency for public health, DC Health, and their work to expand 

Produce Rx, a popular initiative to connect residents with diet-related chronic health conditions to evidenceinformed food access interventions in an effort to cost effectively improve health outcomes, decrease 

utilization of expensive health services, and enhance quality of life for these individuals who are often socially, 

as well as medically, vulnerable. 

Project: Produce Rx G11201

“DC Health uses Our Healthy DC, an online tool where residents share their priorities to improve 

community health in the District. DC Health participates in the DC Food Policy Council, led by the DC 

Office of Planning, to engage with and hear from communities on their priorities for food access across 

the city.”

 
27

Labor Practices 

The District has budgeted for two infrastructure projects under Expenditure Category 5.12: Lead Pipe 

Replacement in the Department of Energy and Environment, and Lead Removal funds likely to be 

administered by the DC Public Charter School Board (DC PCSB), in accordance with the Childhood Lead 

Exposure Act of 2017. Funds for the Lead Pipe Replacement project will be transferred to DC Water, and 

work will be completed by their approved set of contractors, with program management, oversight and 

inspections conducted by DC Water Staff. It is the District’s expectation that Davis-Bacon wages will apply to 

the contracted work. 

DC PCSB, through ongoing compliance with the Childhood Lead Exposure Act, has contractually obligated its 

vendors to promote local hiring using labor agreements of First Source, a program establishing DC Resident 

hiring standards. Through the execution of these contracts, the program is able to provide contracted 

positions with Certified Business Enterprises within the District. A Certified Business Enterprise (CBE) is a 

business that is headquartered in the District of Columbia and has been certified by the Department of Small 

and Local Business Development (DSLBD). In order to qualify as a CBE, the principal office of the business 

must be physically located in the District of Columbia and it must be either (a) independently owned, operated, 

and controlled, (b) more than 50% owned, operated, and controlled by a District based enterprise or not-forprofit business, or (c) owned by a non-District-based business enterprise or not-for-profit business that is more 

than 50% owned by District residents. 

 
28

Use of Evidence 

Under the leadership of Mayor Muriel Bowser, DC government has been a trailblazer in evidence-based policy, 

and our use of SLFRF builds and expands upon that strong foundation. Through the mayor’s scientific team, 

The Lab @ DC (The Lab), we have both aligned our budgeting process to standards outlined in the 

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (HR 4174) and embedded experimental evaluations 

in more than 20 DC government programs and counting.

Each year’s budget cycle begins with a review of all proposals for new or expanded programs and services, 

representing more than $500M of new programming on average. Through our standardized process, agencies 

are required to provide the evidence base supporting their budget requests. These are then scored by The 

Lab in five categories aligned with federal standards2: Strong, Moderate, Promising, Demonstrates a Rationale, 

and No Evidence. These ratings are revised through the budget process as proposals are refined, and the final 

ratings are presented to the mayor with each proposal. Throughout the process, The Lab identifies potential 

opportunities to embed rigorous evaluations in investments that are approved (for example, in education 

technology, 911 responses, and discounted transit) and uses the results of its evaluations to inform future 

budget decisions.

The SLFRF funds were allocated on an expedited timeline, but still followed the basic steps of evidence-based 

budgeting described above. Each new SLFRF investment included in Mayor Bowser’s proposed budget was 

reviewed for its evidence base prior to being submitted to the DC Council. The DC Council then made 

changes and additions to the Mayor’s proposed SLFRF investments through August 3, 2021. 

Given many additions and adjustments made by the DC Council are still being transmitted to agencies, this 

first annual report reflects a conservative estimate of the number of projects and expenditures that meet 

Treasury’s definition of “evidence-based.” In the project inventory attached, we list programs we are confident 

are designed to meet a Strong or Moderate evidence standard and will be implemented in alignment with 

those standards. We also note where a project contains components that are evidence-based and where we 

may include an impact evaluation. In total, we expect the final amount of evidence-based funds to range from 

$85 million to $382 million, depending on 1) the final program designs 2) the projects that include program 

evaluations, and 3) the results of those evaluations. As agencies refine their programs, we will collaborate with 

them to add evidence-based practices where appropriate. As a result, we expect that next year’s report and 

subsequent reports will provide a more comprehensive assessment of evidence-based investments funded 

with SLFRF (see the Executive Summary and Use of Funds Sections for more detail).

DC government is committed to both using existing evidence and building evidence through our innovative 

work. We expect to organize our evidence-building SLFRF award funds into a learning agenda to focus our 

evaluation efforts on answering the highest priority questions for DC residents. Although we are currently 

gathering input from stakeholders on the learning agenda, we know we have focused our initial evidencebuilding efforts on a simple question: What SLFRF investments are most effective for our disadvantaged 

residents and should be continued beyond the federal investments?

Our investment in the Launch, Evaluation, and Monitoring (LEM) hub will make this learning agenda possible. 

This capacity-building initiative will provide enhanced support to investments we hope will have a 

2 Most directly the evidence standards in the Every Student Succeeds ACT of 2015. The Strong and Moderate categories 

qualify as Evidence-Based under the reporting requirements (Appendix 2.)
29

transformative impact on DC residents. Specifically, the LEM supports a team dedicated to the launch, 

performance management, and rigorous evaluation of select programs and services created with federal 

stimulus funds. The LEM will empower four important steps for these initiatives:

1. Launch select investments with an excellent, and equitable resident experience; 

2. Embed data collection and performance monitoring;

3. Evaluate investments using the most rigorous and transparent scientific techniques; and

4. Decide —inform decisions about which investments have the impact on residents that we want to 

continue beyond FY 24.

The LEM will enable us to categorize SLFRF projects into three tiers based on the level of evidence generated. 

Tier III projects will have sufficient performance reporting already in place and will only require light 

monitoring. Tier II projects will receive enhanced performance management support to both comply with 

SLFRF Performance Management requirements and to answer descriptive questions from our learning 

agenda. Tier I projects will be identified for impact evaluations, meaning LEM staff will assist with the launch 

of the program (enrollment, selection, data collection, etc.) and will also embed an evaluation designed to meet 

Strong or Moderate criteria. 

We expect 6-10 projects will be identified by DC leadership as Tier I, and to qualify for waivers to the evidencebased reporting because they will be evaluated with support from the LEM. In the project profiles we identify 

21 projects as qualifying for an evaluation. Because most of the programs are only recently approved and are 

currently being designed, it is premature to commit to a specific evaluation design for them without first being 

able to assess the feasibility, ethics, and tradeoffs of different experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation 

approaches. Based on The Lab@DC’s experience conducting more than 20 randomized and quasiexperimental evaluations, we are confident in the District’s ability to meet the SLFRF standards for program 

evaluation. Next year’s report will provide a comprehensive description of the evaluation designs for each Tier 

I projects as well as links to any public materials on the evaluation.3

Finally, the LEM will also serve as a catalyst for longer-term evidence-based policy. In the beginning stages, 

staff will be concentrated in the Office of the City Administrator, and in later stages of program execution, 

staff will transition to agencies and Deputy Mayor’s offices to build long-term service design, implementation, 

evaluation, and performance management capacity for ongoing impact. 

 

3 All Lab evaluation plans are registered on our Open Science Framework site to promote rigor and transparency. 

Examples can be found at: https://osf.io/institutions/thelabatdc/
30

Table of Expenses by Expenditure Category

Category Expenditures 

to date ($)

Spent since last 

Recovery Plan

1. Public Health

1.01 COVID-19 Vaccination 1,827,658 1,827,658

1.02 COVID-19 Testing 0 0

1.03 COVID-19 Contact Tracing 0 0

1.04 Prevention in Congregate Settings (Nursing Homes, Prisons/Jails, 

Dense Work Sites, Schools, etc.) 0 0

1.05 Personal Protective Equipment 0 0

1.06 Medical Expenses (including Alternative Care Facilities) 0 0

1.07 Capital Investments or Physical Plant Changes to Public Facilities 

that respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency 0 0

1.08 Other COVID-19 Public Health Expenses (including 

Communications, Enforcement, Isolation/Quarantine) 0 0

1.09 Payroll Costs for Public Health, Safety, and Other Public Sector Staff 

Responding to COVID-19

0 0

1.10 Mental Health Services 0 0

1.11 Substance Use Services 0 0

1.12 Other Public Health Services 0 0

2. Negative Economic Impacts

2.01 Household Assistance: Food Programs 0 0

2.02 Household Assistance: Rent, Mortgage, and Utility Aid 0 0

2.03 Household Assistance: Cash Transfers 0 0

2.04 Household Assistance: Internet Access Programs 0 0

2.05 Household Assistance: Eviction Prevention 0 0

2.06 Unemployment Benefits or Cash Assistance to Unemployed 

Workers 0 0

2.07 Job Training Assistance (e.g., Sectoral job-training, Subsidized 

Employment, Employment Supports or Incentives) 0 0

2.08 Contributions to UI Trust Funds 0 0

2.09 Small Business Economic Assistance (General)* ^ 80,000,000 80,000,000

2.10 Aid to Nonprofit Organizations* 0 0

2.11 Aid to Tourism, Travel, or Hospitality 0 0

2.12 Aid to Other Impacted Industries 0 0

2.13 Other Economic Support* ^ 0 0

2.14 Rehiring Public Sector Staff 0 0

3. Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities

3.01 Education Assistance: Early Learning* ^ 0 0

3.02 Education Assistance: Aid to High-Poverty Districts ^ 0 0

3.03 Education Assistance: Academic Services 384,017 384,017

3.04 Education Assistance: Social, Emotional, and Mental Health Services 0 0

3.05 Education Assistance: Other 0 0

3.06 Healthy Childhood Environments: Child Care 0 0

3.07 Healthy Childhood Environments: Home Visiting 0 0
31

3.08 Healthy Childhood Environments: Services to Foster Youth or 

Families Involved in Child Welfare System 0 0

3.09 Healthy Childhood Environments: Other 0 0

3.10 Housing Support: Affordable Housing 0 0

3.11 Housing Support: Services for Unhoused Persons 0 0

3.12 Housing Support: Other Housing Assistance 121,956 121,956

3.13 Social Determinants of Health: Other 0 0

3.14 Social Determinants of Health: Community Health Workers or 

Benefits Navigators 0 0

3.15 Social Determinants of Health: Lead Remediation 0 0

3.16 Social Determinants of Health: Community Violence Interventions 0 0

4. Premium Pay

4.01 Public Sector Employees 0 0

4.02 Private Sector: Grants to Other Employers 0 0

5. Infrastructure

5.01 Clean Water: Centralized Wastewater Treatment 0 0

5.02 Clean Water: Centralized Wastewater Collection and Conveyance 0 0

5.03 Clean Water: Decentralized Wastewater 0 0

5.04 Clean Water: Combined Sewer Overflows 0 0

5.05 Clean Water: Other Sewer Infrastructure 0 0

5.06 Clean Water: Stormwater 0 0

5.07 Clean Water: Energy Conservation 0 0

5.08 Clean Water: Water Conservation 0 0

5.09 Clean Water: Nonpoint Source 0 0

5.10 Drinking water: Treatment 0 0

5.11 Drinking water: Transmission & Distribution 0 0

5.12 Drinking water: Transmission & Distribution: Lead Remediation 0 0

5.13 Drinking water: Source 0 0

5.14 Drinking water: Storage 0 0

5.15 Drinking water: Other water infrastructure 0 0

5.16 Broadband: “Last Mile” projects 0 0

5.17 Broadband: Other projects 0 0

6. Revenue Replacement

6.01 Provision of Government Services 750,000 750,000

7. Administrative

7.01 Administrative Expenses 0 0

7.02 Evaluation and Data Analysis 0 0

7.03 Transfers to Other Units of Government 0 0

7.04 Transfers to Non-entitlement Units (States and territories only) 0 0
32

Performance Reporting

The Office of Budget and Performance Management is charged with monitoring agency operational functions 

and facilitating the effective and efficient implementation of the Mayor’s policies by leading the District’s 

strategic planning work and development and execution of monitoring and accountability tools. The 

Performance Management Division monitors performance for over 70 District agencies on a quarterly basis 

and provides annual Performance Accountability Reports (PARs) after the completion of each fiscal year.

Optimizing Agency Performance

To further enhance performance outcomes, the District expanded its existing performance management 

framework to ensure effective monitoring and oversight for the major SLFRF funded projects, to include 

measuring the impact of the investments on our most vulnerable residents. Some of the planned monitoring 

efforts include expanding the Division to hire two additional performance and data analysts to support the 

Launch, Evaluation and Monitoring (LEM) hub, and implementing an executive reporting process specifically 

for SLFRF funded projects. In addition, the Division will utilize the CapSTAT program, a data-driven 

performance management tool, to present the Mayor and City Administrator with data and analysis on high 

priority policy issues and key agency processes, in a collaborative forum to spark thoughtful discussion and 

lead to actionable outcomes.

Required Performance Indicators and Programmatic Data

Agencies with responsibilities for providing federal stimulus funding data for specific expenditure categories 

(ECs) will be required to include the applicable key performance indicators that align with those categories in 

their publicly available FY22 Performance Plans (to be located here). The end of the year results will be 

captured in next year’s Recovery Plan Performance Report.

The mandatory KPIs as required by Treasury are listed below:

a. Household Assistance (EC 2.2 & 2.5) and Housing Support (EC 3.10-3.12):

• Number of people or households receiving eviction prevention services (including legal

representation)

• Number of affordable housing units preserved or developed

b. Negative Economic Impacts (EC 2):

• Number of workers enrolled in sectoral job training programs

• Number of workers completing sectoral job training programs

• Number of people participating in summer youth employment programs

c. Education Assistance (EC 3.1-3.5):

• Number of students participating in evidence-based tutoring programs

d. Healthy Childhood Environments (EC 3.6-3.9):

• Number of children served by childcare and early learning

• Number of families served by home visiting

Additional performance measures identified by the Performance Division and agency partners

The Performance Division will also work with agencies to develop and track meaningful and accurate 

performance measures that include output and outcome data related to the strategic goals of the SLFRF 

projects.
33

Examples of Key Performance Indicators under consideration include:

● Average length of time experiencing homelessness (disaggregated by families and individuals)

● Number of affordable units preserved through the Housing Preservation Fund

● Percent of Tier I (SLFRF-funded) projects with embedded rigorous evaluation

Performance Reporting for the Fiscal Year 2021 Period of Performance (March 3-July 31, 2021)

While many projects have not started, the District anticipates making significant progress towards developing 

S.M.A.R.T. key performance indicators and meeting its strategic goals for the major SLFRF funded projects for 

Fiscal Year 2022.

The table below identifies the required key performance indicators and data for SLFRF projects that are 

currently in progress. 

Project 

Code

EC Required KPI or 

Programmatic 

Reporting 

Requirement

Project Description Fiscal 

Year

(FY)

Performance Data

G12201 2.01 Number of 

Individuals 

Served

Senior Meal 

Delivery

Funding to 

support the cost 

of home 

delivered meals 

for seniors.

FY 

2021

4000 Seniors

G14203 2.03 Number of 

Individuals 

Served

TANF Cash 

shortfall (FY 

2021/2022)

Funding that 

supports existing 

TANF services.

FY 

2021

14000 households

E02209 2.09 Number of 

Individuals 

Served

Bridge Grants Funding to 

support 

businesses 

across the 

District

FY 

2021

2058 small 

businesses
34

H03303 3.03 Students 

Participating in 

Evidence-Based 

Tutoring

Boost Camps A combination 

of high-quality 

enrichment and 

recreation in 

addition to an 

academic 

component to 

address learning 

loss attributed to 

the COVID-19 

pandemic and 

accelerate 

learning.

FY 

2021

621 students

C09311 3.11 People or 

Households 

Receiving 

Eviction 

Prevention 

Services

COVID-19 

Response 

Costs

The total number 

of unique 

households that 

received 

assistance of any 

kind under the 

ERA program

FY 

2021

11250 unique 

households

 
35

Ineligible Activities: Tax Offset Provision (States and territories only)

Under the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s (Treasury’s) final rule in 31 CFR Part 35, the District 

of Columbia would not be considered to have used SLFRF to offset a reduction in net tax revenue resulting 

from changes in law, regulation, or interpretation substantively enacted after March 3, 2021 and affecting tax 

year 2020. 

Item

Amount as of 12/30/2020

$000s

BASELINE TAX REVENUE 9,086,796

REVENUE REDUCING COVERED CHANGES 0 

NET BASELINE TAX REVENUE 9,086,796

ACTUAL TAX REVENUE (CASH METHOD) 8,348,872

REDUCTION (BASELINE - ACTUAL) 737,924

REVENUE INCREASING COVERED CHANGES 0