The Brandywine Apartments at 4545 Connecticut Avenue.
We have several updates on the safety and security issues the residents of area apartment buildings have faced for at least the past five years.
Sedgwick Gardens – the apartment building that drew attention to the District’s “Housing First” policy for the homeless
In 2019, The Washington Post reported:
The SWAT team, the overdose, the complaints of pot smoke in the air and feces in the stairwell — it would be hard to pinpoint a moment when things took a turn for the worse at Sedgwick Gardens, a stately apartment building in Northwest Washington.
By February of that year, nearly half of the building’s apartments had been leased to tenants with city-issued housing vouchers, many of them had been recently homeless, and some arrived with severe behavioral issues.
“Even some Sedgwick Gardens residents who receive public assistance say the complex was colonized by the city’s housing programs too rapidly and without sufficient oversight,” wrote the Post in 2019.
Diane McWhorter, the president of the Sedgwick tenants association, tells Forest Hills Connection that a nightly “courtesy patrol” was added earlier this year from midnight to 8 a.m., but that this guard has no police powers and summons either the MPD or a security guard that Sedgwick Gardens shares with three other Borger buildings. Drugs are sold openly, she says, and a young resident recently moved out because of apparently illegal transactions and domestic abuse occurring in a nearby unit.
Where are the social workers?
That was the question in 2019, when the Post wrote about Sedgwick Gardens. It was the question in 2022, when then-deputy mayor Chris Geldart told an ANC 3F that the system “ain’t working”. And it remains the question today.
One of the two voucher programs administered by the DC Department of Human Services is Permanent Supportive Housing. Those who qualify meet these three criteria:
1) They have been “chronically homeless” – unhoused for at least a year.
2) They have a chronic disabling condition.
3) They require intensive case management. The Permanent Supportive Housing program is supposed to include twice-monthly visits from caseworkers.
But evidence that this support was often absent came up again and again in public meetings, and in April 2024, the Post published an article on a woman who had moved from a tent to an apartment in 2021. The woman “was soon accused of threatening staff, undressing in the lobby and rubbing her backside against a police officer responding to a complaint about her, according to police records and evidence presented in court.” She now faces eviction, and she told the Post “she did not know if there was a case manager or anyone responsible for helping her remain in her apartment.”
Checking in on the Brandywine Apartments
Once news of the Sedgwick issues broke, we learned that all was not well at the Brandywine Apartments at 4545 Connecticut. E. David Luria, then-president of the Brandywine Tenants Association, had started keeping track of police visits to the building in 2016. The 2019 tally seemed to be the worst of it – Luria, through FOIA requests, discovered a sharp increase from three to four dozen visits a year to 125 police visits in 2019. Luria and the tenants association lobbied landlord Borger for more and better management and 24-hour security. They got what they wanted, for a time.
In 2022, the additional security was removed, and police visits once again spiked, rising to 228 times that year, and 286 times in 2023. Police calls are on track to increase again this year.
DC policy remains inadequate.
Between 2021 and 2022, then-MPD Second District Commander Duncan Bedlion recommended that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) designate four Van Ness apartment buildings – Connecticut House, 3003 Van Ness, the Chesapeake and the Saratoga – as “nuisance buildings.” DC law makes it possible for the OAG and community groups to sue the owners of these buildings if there’s evidence of drugs, gun or prostitution activity on the premises, but the OAG declined the police recommendation because the “lawsuits must also show that the properties are having an ‘adverse effect’ on the neighborhood as a result.”
One could argue that the neighborhood, in this case, should also include other residents and units in a building. This would require a legislative change. The DC Council could also enact laws clarifying the role of the police in investigating and securing apartment buildings. The District already has a separate police force for public housing under the DC Housing Authority. Another possible model is the School Safety Division of MPD, which has jurisdiction over hiring security guards – also known as school resource officers – in schools.
Tenant leaders continue to press for safety measures from landlords and DC agencies.
In 2022, the leaders of tenants associations in Ward 3 started sharing information with one another, and attending meetings with agency and political candidates and leaders (Mayor Muriel Bowser). They still meet virtually every other week, to share advice and strategize solutions and advocacy steps. A common complaint is also a familiar one: Landlords are not providing adequate security, which makes the police a necessary and frequent presence. They met with the OAG on this issue in late February.
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Travis Price says
This whole idea is destroying a neighborhood that worked very very hard to make it safe and happy. The City government is foolish to take on poverty this way and it needs to stop as soon as possible. Every day and night there is a great police force doing their best to quell the nonsense here and over on Wisconsin Avenue. It continues on and on. There are many other ways to help others and stop this nonsense. We need a much smarter and more creative government. This approach isn’t working and it makes things continue to worsen.
George Hofmann says
Bravo, Marlene.
The OAG should be called to task – there is a definite adverse effect on the neighborhood, witness the FHP meeting last week, which revealed it. And that is not to mention the streets where children and teens are walking to schools, and where neighboring houses are affected by noise and crime – some of which, unfortunately traces back to some of our large buildings.
Green Eyeshades says
What is the “FHP meeting”?
The chief of staff for the deputy mayor for health & human services will attend tonight’s monthly meeting of ANC3F. That chief of staff should be required to answer questions about the widespread failure or refusal of DC agencies to deliver support services required by law and funded by DC Council.
This is the chief of staff mentioned in the Connection’s blogpost on the agenda for tonight’s meeting:
“Ciana Creighton, chief of staff of the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services [10 mins+ 15 mins Q&A]”
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/anc-3f-may-21st-agenda-mayors-budget-qa-and-more/
Jura says
One answer the city has offered to the question of why supportive services are not being provided is that it would violate people’s rights if meetings with case managers were mandatory. That approach is at odds with the “Housing First” paradigm that DC says it follows and inconsistent with how other public benefit programs work.
Sam Tsemberis who developed the Housing First concept has written: “The home visit is truly a requirement that must not be waived . . . clients who are reluctant to accept the weekly visits are often the ones who need it most. Resistance to the visit may mean the client is in crisis and avoiding the PHF [Pathways Housing First] team.”
The idea that a requirement to meet with a case manager would violate the rights of individuals who receive housing vouchers is remarkable. This is a $25,000+ per year, lifetime benefit. People who receive much more modest TANF or SNAP benefits are required to comply with more stringent program requirements as a condition of receiving benefits.
It would be informative to know (1) if optional case management is indeed the formal policy of the Department of Health and Human Services and (2) what law does DHHS think it would violate (constitutional or statutory) if it stopped treating case management services as optional at the discretion of the tenant with a voucher?
Finally, it does a great disservice to people with vouchers who could benefit from case management services, benefit from having someone to talk to about their experiences transitioning into housing, and benefit from having a mediator and advocate, but who are not afforded the opportunity to build a relationship that would help them attain their highest physical, mental, and psychosocial potential.
None Such says
This is yet another argument for bringing back institutionalized care – centralized in a secure facility that has adequate staff and is adequately funded – to provide safe housing and treatment for those wit( mental conditions. Yes, St Elizabeth’s was a problem, because it was not adequately funded, The supposed alternative of decentralized care in the community however has merely dumped people who need help in among the general population without any oversight or care, or, t9 be frank, regard for those forced to contend with living with the mentally ill. Maybe something for the ever active House District Oversight Cmte to investigate.
Suzy MD says
I couldn’t agree more in many ways, but the initial problem with institutionalized care and mandatory commitment was the abuse of that system, often at the expense of women in the South institutionalized by their husbands (I lived in the Deep South for many years and learned about this history while in medical school and visiting the state hospital..) Group homes are often just a cheap investment for an absentee landlord with no essential services, so obviously not a solution either. Plus, no one wants a group home in their backyard. This is a really difficult problem to solve, but I firmly believe in mandatory psychiatric medication for those symptomatic people in housing who present a true danger to themselves and others. Also, crimes, small and large, should have real consequences. I have been threatened on the bus and at the Giant by unsocialized women who seemed so angry for no reason at all. I had no idea about the voucher program in this area when I moved here. The leasing agent knew that I was moving from my previous building near Dupont for that reason, and I specifically said I did not want to encounter a similar situation. He reassured me and the building seemed ok.. On the other hand, I have met some people on the bus who are probably in subsidized units who have been friendly and helpful.
Harry Gural says
In recent years, the DC Housing Authority and DC government agencies have settled well over 1,000 people in Ward 3 using housing vouchers. A report by DCHA (http://www.fairrentdc.org/s/DCHA-Pre-Hearing-Responses-02-22-2024.pdf, page 44) to the DC Council’s Housing Committee showed 1,126 units rented with vouchers for FY2024. Some of these are two- and three-bedroom units.
HUD’s audit of DCHA released in Oct. 2022 found that in recent years DCHA was distributing vouchers almost exclusively to those experiencing homelessness. Many of the 1,126 units in Ward 3 were rented in recent years. Therefore, it appears that the overwhelming majority of these units are occupied by people who have experienced homelessness.
It is important to have compassion for those who have suffered from the traumatic experience of homelessness. It’s also important to realize that many of those individuals may need intense help. However, evidence shows that a substantial portion of them is not receiving adequate help. A significant minority are creating serious problems for their new neighbors.
DCHA and DC agencies have claimed that those newly housed are not being placed in certain buildings or neighborhoods. However, that is not true — they are being congregated in certain apartment buildings, which are being converted into de-facto public housing for those who have experienced homelessness.
The Washington Post in 2019 wrote about one such apartment building, Sedgwick Gardens in Cleveland Park, which experienced severe problems as a result of this improper use of housing vouchers (https://wapo.st/34d48r3). While housing vouchers theoretically are supposed to be used to deconcentrate poverty, at Sedgwick Gardens they created a new, intense concentration of poverty. This created serious problems both for long-time residents and for the voucher recipients.
A DHS official at a meeting of the Ward 3 Democrats let slip that there are more than 10 apartment buildings in Ward 3 in which the majority of units are rented to voucher recipients.
To date, there has been no public announcement of the 1,126 units in Ward 3 or the “conversion” of residential apartment buildings into de-facto public housing.
It is critical to note that these “conversions” are not being done to help those who have experienced poverty or homelessness. If the point were mainly to help the poor, the city would go to great lengths to serve the greatest number of people who need help, and it would make sure that those served do not find themselves in newly created re-concentrations of poverty. However, the city is vastly overpaying for voucher recipients — with the Post finding last year that the overpayments to the industry run about $1 million per month. If the Post’s math is correct, that means that the overpayments in recent years likely exceed $50 million overall. Many more people could have been served if that money had not been wasted. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/02/15/dc-housing-authority-overpays-landlords/ )
Some companies have developed business strategies based on taking advantage of these overpayments, and also using them to convert rent-stabilized buildings, in which rent increases to tenants cannot by law exceed 2% plus inflation. Those companies see this legal restriction as being onerous, and they are eager to transform their properties into luxury buildings. They use housing vouchers as a tool for achieving that aim — earning revenues that far exceed what the market will bear in the short run and driving older tenants out of the buildings because of deteriorating conditions.
For example, one of the companies, Daro Realty, is attempting many such “conversions” along upper Connecticut Avenue. The affected buildings include Sedgwick Gardens, the Parkway, the Parkwest, the Rodman, Connecticut House, and others. In those buildings, 1/3 to 1/2 or more of the units are now occupied by voucher recipients. While some of the new residents have adapted well to their new accommodations, others have created severe problems for other residents, including other voucher recipients. FOIA’ed data finds that 911 calls to MPD have increased astronomically in these buildings, in some cases increasing 10-fold.
Daro Realty’s properties are now being operated by Borger Management, which operates other properties that are being “converted” into de-facto public housing for those who have experienced homelessness. Despite very serious security problems in Borger/Daro buildings, the companies refuse to provide a 24/7 experienced security guard on premises. The police logs are filled with visits to the Daro/Borger properties, some of them for very serious, sometimes violent, incidents.
The systematic misuse of housing vouchers has not been received adequate public attention because the city has consistently denied that de-facto public housing is being created and that any problems are taking place. Moreover, DC officials claim that voucher recipients, most escaping homelessness, receive “wraparound services” — which is clearly false. Many receive hardly any services at all.
Kudos to the Forest Hills Connection for shedding light on this important story, which is having a profound but poorly understood effect on the area.
Green Eyeshades says
Jura’s comment yesterday touches on the critical legal issue: recipients of government benefits are entitled to procedural due process, but they are not entitled to refuse government supervision of their benefits. There are shelves of court case law protecting the rights of poor persons in the United States to procedural due process and other constitutional rights. But those rights do not supplant legislative and regulatory conditions on those benefits.
Jura says
At a public meeting in December 2023, an official from the Department of Human Services said tenants with subsidies comprise 50% or more of the residents in ten apartment buildings in this area.
In effect these buildings have become quasi=public housing but with none of the social services and none of the security provided to tenants in public housing. Some of the ten apartment buildings have a “courtesy patrol” but no security guard. DC public housing has its own police force.
While some tenants have transitioned successfully from an extended period of being unhoused to having a home, DC has failed to help other tenants who are struggling to adjust.
Given Mayor Bowser’s promise to eliminate homelessness (via a Housing First paradigm), the ongoing efforts to clear homeless encampments, the unspent federal housing dollars, and the number of apartments available for rent along Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues, there is little reason to expect the situation will improve.
Articles like this one and the comments are important because they raise questions that government officials–the Mayor, the Councilmembers, and the Agency Directors–should be answering candidly and publicly. The public deserves to understand how the city makes and administers decisions about generous public subsidies ($25,000+ per year for life) and how they intend to address serious problems.
R Stevens says
Thank you Marlene for this informative article.
I do not know any residents in our neighborhood who are not concerned about the increase in crime in recent years. The police visit numbers tell the story. We all agree this problem needs to be addressed to provide assistance to those who need support and for long term residents who no longer are feel safe in their apartments.
Harry Gural says
To be clear, neither the voucher recipients nor long-time residents are being well-served by the way the voucher programs are designed.
As Jura states above, those who were previously unhoused are being settled in residential apartment buildings *without* the social services that the city claims it provides. Some of those individuals are able to make the transition, and others are not.
The fact that very large numbers of people from that group are being housed in certain apartment buildings has caused severe problems in some cases. This directly violates the theory of housing vouchers, which are supposed to be used to deconcentrate.
The Washington Post has covered *half* of the story, highlighting the problems that individuals trying to escape extreme poverty or the streets face in such situations. See the two stories below.
“In D.C.-paid housing, he tried to stay sober as drug dealers took hold”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/
“D.C. does little when some in supportive housing behave dangerously”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/12/12/dc-permanent-supportive-housing-problems/
But the Post has deliberately avoided the second part of the story — the effect on other residents –seniors, families, neighborhoods etc. — when a very large number of people, some of whom face serious substance abuse or mental health issues — are congregated in certain buildings with little or no support. The problems that were witnessed previously in McPherson Square are simply transferred to apartment buildings, where they are mostly outside the public eye.
Residents of those apartment buildings have been trying to alert policymakers and asking the city for help for several years, but they have been ignored. Neighbors who live in other buildings or single-family homes either are oblivious about these issues or afraid to speak out.
If the city has simply and honestly announced that it planned settled 1,000 or more individuals who have experience homelessness in selected apartment buildings in Ward 3 — without adequate support for either the new residents or the existing ones — there would be an uproar. This would not be NIMBYISM; it would be a rational response to an obviously and tragically flawed policy. It would be a rational reaction to a policy that will fail a substantial number of those it is supposed to help, while inflicting serious harm to many others, particularly seniors, who are simply trying to “age in place” in older apartment buildings along Connecticut Avenue and nearby.
If the public does not demand that the Bowser administration and DCHA provide transparent information about these programs, it will never be provided.
For now, these programs are moving full steam ahead, with predictable and worsening results in the future.
FourQuartets says
It’s not just that the City is failing to provide adequate social services. The problem goes deeper than that. Under the “Housing First” model that the District follows, a voucher holder can refuse services. So even if, say, a social worker were to come every day, the voucher holder could refuse to see her, not open the door, etc. It’s madness.. And for those who are in vital need of help — the mentally ill, alcoholics and drug addicts — their lives continue to lie in ruin.
Jura says
Making case management optional has never part of the “Housing First” paradigm. Sam Tsemberis, the person who developed the concept of Housing First, characterizes the practice of making case management optional with the client and the practice of re-concentrating poverty as evidence of “model drift,” and “program infidelity.”
In numerous buildings along Connecticut Avenue the number of tenants with vouchers exceeds 50%. and in others exceeds 30%. The Housing First model contemplates a cap of 20% of tenants with vouchers in any one building.
These are policy decisions that DC has made–without public disclosure or discussion–and they are not supported by best practices nor are they true to the model DC purports to follow. Most importantly, as FourQuartets notes, these policies do not serve the people they are intended to help.
Michael says
I have so much info to share with everyone on this issue. I am currently and have been working with the OAG. I would love to get in on a meeting and shed some light on this topic. There is a lot we can do! Much to say and share
Green Eyeshades says
This is the place to share it, no that summer has started. Next two meetings of ANC3F are not until June 18th and July 16th, with no meeting in August.
DC Council stays busy through June with a major vote on FY 2025 budget on May 29 (Wednesday this coming week) many committee meetings in June and an oversight hearing on the local budget on June 12, but the only hearing that appears to be directly relevant is this one on mental health crisis support, which is not until July 11:
https://dccouncil.gov/event/health-public-hearing-35/
Former Van Ness North Coop Resident says
I moved from the Forest Hills neighborhood to care for an aging father, and I can’t tell you how sad it makes me to read about how bad District policies have adversely impacted the neighborhood where I lived for over 30 years. My friends in the area tell me that they are afraid of crime to an extent that has never happened before.
Elizabeth McPike says
Above, Jura writes that Sam Tsemberis, who originated the Housing First approach,
has said that voucher recipients are required to meet with case workers. I am by no means an expert on this, but I have listened to presentations by Mr. Tsemberis and have. read quite a few articles on the Housing First model. Although I am happy to lay blame on the DC government, In this case I think they are following the Housing First prescription — i.e., services are optional. They can be accepted or refused. See, for example, the paragraph below — in particular, the last sentence –, which is from a lengthy Washington Post article this past December:
“The District’s permanent supportive housing program claims an approach known as ‘housing first’ — immediate housing followed by intensive services to help people work toward goals like stability and sobriety. To be eligible, a participant must be chronically homeless and have a disabling condition such as addiction or mental illness. Once participants are housed, caseworkers contracted by the city’s Department of Human Services are allowed to make as few as two contacts with them a month, the contracts show. There is no requirement that participants engage with any services.”
I have read that it often happens that — private, unseen, and “safe” in their apartments — people’s drug and drinking problems get worse, not better.
Who designs such programs???
Jura says
Sam Tsemberis has written extensively about the weekly home visit requirement noting that “client choice is a central guiding principle . . . but one of the concepts most frequently misunderstood by those seeking to replicate the program–and even PHF [Pathway Housing First] staffers and clients themselves.”
With regard to weekly home visits (not bi-weekly and certainly not the once-every-two-months visits as adopted in DC), “self-determination in the PHF program means that clients are encouraged and supported in selecting which priorities to address as they begin to build the life that they want. There are some non-negotiable requirements, however. All clients are required to meet with program staff at least once a week.”
As the previous poster says so eloquently, “private, unseen and “safe” in their apartment– people’s drug and drinking problems get worse, not better.” Tsemberis has written, “The home visit is truly a requirement that must not be waived, because of its many valuable functions . . . Clients who are reluctant to accept the weekly visit are often the ones who need it most. Resistance to the visit may mean the client is in a crisis and avoiding the PHF team”
Whether the problem rests with the Housing First paradigm or the way DC implements it, the lack of effective case management fails to serve the needs of tenants with vouchers and may ultimately doom the program.
Green Eyeshades says
Nothing is going to “doom” the use of housing vouchers in the District. DC The Chairman of DC Council has re-written the mayor’s budget in many, many ways, including by adding hundreds more vouchers in FY 2025 (starting October first):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/28/dc-budget-proposal-council/
“In housing, Mendelson’s proposal would fund an additional 477 vouchers for people who struggle to afford rent in the city or may be on the brink of homelessness, while adding $6 million for emergency rental assistance.”
Four Quartets says
In addition, Mendelson pushed through a bill that will allow voucher holders to “self-certify” their identity, criminal record, etc. No verifying documents needed.
Jura says
And the same bill forbids the District of Columbia Housing Authority from even asking about or considering pending criminal matters for the purpose of continued occupancy!
“(2) The Authority shall not inquire about nor consider for the purposes of eligibility, admission, or continued occupancy any information about citizenship, immigration status, or prior criminal arrests, convictions, or pending criminal matters.”
Anonamom says
I’m a middle-class single mom looking to relocate to Ward 3 for better schools – I can actually afford a substantial rent, but it appears that DC is bound and determined to make Ward 3 inhospitable for renters like me. I cannot raise my son in a building that is unsafe with open-air drug dealing. So, I guess to Maryland I go?
Margaret in CP says
Have you registered for an affordable apartment through IZ? A two-person household with income up to $97, 350 is eligible. See https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/inclusionary-zoning-iz-affordable-housing-program.
,
MsKit says
I feel sorry for those in the grip of extreme poverty, mental illness and substance abuse. They deserve more services. But what about people who live in these buildings or unwittingly rent in them only to discover they are not necessarily safe. The smell of pot in public areas alone would drive me away. Shouldn’t apartment management have to disclose what percentage of a building is public housing? Or do they?
I often wonder about the women’s shelter building by the 2nd District police HQ. Is it a success? Could the city consider more such buildings that are attractive and fully devoted to helping people in dire situations?
Margaret in CP says
The Ward 3 shelter (The Brooks) on Idaho Ave by the 2nd D MPD is for families, usually single mothers and their children. .It provides temporary housing for up to 90 days..As a volunteer for the weekly “homework club”, I’ve seen families come, stay for a few weeks, and go — presumably to longterm, subsidized apartments. The shelter is attractive, very safe and tightly managed. A DPR playground is a block away and some kids go to Eaton ES while they live at the shelter..
Mskit says
Thanks, good to know
Green Eyeshades says
Contrary to my comment in late May, the Mayor has found another way to ruin Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) vouchers despite the best efforts of Council Chair Mendelson and At-Large Councilmember Robert White to re-write the budget to protect tenants using RRH benefits.
All the vile details are explained in City Paper’s new story today, September 12, by Loose Lips:
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/749000/bowsers-bait-and-switch-on-a-key-homelessness-program-leaves-advocates-councilmembers-fuming/