Summary#

B26-0865 would temporarily amend the District’s Department of Corrections law and the Corrections Oversight Improvement Omnibus Amendment Act of 2022. It would require the Department to provide special education for certain people with disabilities in its custody; the stated goal is to provide the education required under federal and District law. The bill says the requirement applies during school years 2025–26 and 2026–27, but the emergency act itself would last no more than 90 days after it takes effect.

• The Department of Corrections must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to people with disabilities in its custody who are detained in its secure facilities, from age 18 until they are no longer eligible for FAPE under federal or District law.
• The duty is limited to the two named school years. The bill does not set out how education would be delivered or how a person would receive it.
• The bill adds this duty to the Department’s existing legal responsibilities. It does not create a new independent agency.
• The bill would take effect after mayoral approval, or a Council override of a veto, and would last no more than 90 days.

What it means for you#

• Young adults with disabilities in DOC custody: If you are detained in a secure facility and remain eligible for FAPE, the Department would have a duty to provide it during the named school years. The bill does not specify the services, process, or timelines.
• Department of Corrections: The Department would have to provide this education. The bill does not say how many staff or what resources it must use.
• Other people in the District: The bill does not directly change taxes, create a benefit for the general public, or change criminal penalties.

Money#

The bill adopts the Budget Director’s fiscal impact statement, but the statement and its cost estimate are not included in the supplied material.

• The Department would have to provide the education, but no staffing or spending amount is given here.
• No publicly available information.

What is unclear#

• The emergency act would last no more than 90 days, while the education duty names two school years. The supplied text does not explain how the duty would continue after the emergency act expires.
• The bill does not explain how education would be arranged, who would decide what services are required, or what review or appeal process would apply.
• It does not say how the Department’s duty fits with any existing education arrangements. The parent Acts were not supplied, so current law and overlap could not be verified.
• The bill uses eligibility under IDEA and District law but does not explain how eligibility would be determined in these circumstances.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to make the Department responsible for providing FAPE to eligible people with disabilities in its custody and detained in secure facilities.
• A possible argument for the bill is that naming the Department as responsible could clarify which District agency must provide the education.
• The bill ties the duty to eligibility under federal and District law, rather than creating a different eligibility standard.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill’s 90-day limit may not match its stated coverage of two school years; the text does not explain what happens after the emergency act expires.
• The bill does not set out delivery, staffing, oversight, or appeal rules, leaving important practical details unanswered.
• The Department must provide the education, but the supplied material gives no cost estimate or staffing plan.